Is it right to give what one person earns to another?

nashvillecitypaper.com ^ | 17/04/03 | Walter E. Williams

[Jakarta ex-pat]

There's considerable confusion on public policy issues that would be more intelligently discussed if we would say what is actually meant rather than use euphemistic disguises.

The Grutter vs. Bollinger and Gratz vs. Bollinger cases before the U.S. Supreme Court challenge the University of Michigan's use of racial preferences for undergraduate and law school admissions. The university, along with its supporters who've filed amicus curie briefs, gives all manner of euphemistic justification for its racial practices.

But instead of using terms such as "diversity" and "multiculturalism," the debate should make what is actually being practiced more explicit. That would enable us to ask what standard of morality justifies a publicly financed institution creating an advantage for one person, at the disadvantage of another person, based on the race of the individuals involved.

Is race a suitable criterion for deciding who gets what in our society? That's a simple question with a yes or no answer. How about all the government programs that account for at least two-thirds of federal spending, such as: aid to higher education, Medicare, food stamps, welfare or farm subsidies? Are they moral?

To get at the answer, we must first ask where Congress gets the resources to finance these programs. All except the most naive would recognize that neither the Tooth Fairy nor Santa Claus supplies Congress with the money. That means Congress can give one American a dollar only by first taking it away from another American.

Now we can ask the moral question: Is it right to take, through threats, intimidation and coercion, what one American has earned and give it to another American who has not earned it? Or put another way: Is it right for one person to be forcibly compelled to serve the purposes of another person?

That question can be asked at two levels — the private and the social. If I see a person in need of food, what if I walk up to another person and, through threats, intimidation and coercion, take his money and give it to the needy person? I believe and hope that most Americans would see such an act as theft. Would the conclusion differ if we collectively agreed to take one person's money to feed the needy person? It'd still be theft.

Immoral acts such as theft, rape and murder don't become moral when done collectively through a majority decision.

As a sidebar, it's most disappointing that black Americans are some of the strongest advocates for forcibly compelling one person to serve the purposes of another. Isn't that what slavery was all about?

How about the morality of tariffs or other restraints on foreign trade? Some of the obfuscation is lifted when we recognize that, for the most part, countries do not trade with one another. That is, the U.S. Congress doesn't trade with England's or France's parliaments or Japan's Diet. It's individual Americans who trade with Japanese automakers, French wine producers and English clothing manufacturers.

What's the moral case for congressional use of threats or use of force to prevent two people who wish to engage in peaceable, voluntary exchange on mutually agreeable terms? If it's immoral for Congress to stop me or interfere with me, a Pennsylvanian, from trading with my fellow man in New Jersey, why isn't it also immoral for Congress to stop or interfere with my trading with my fellow man in London, Paris or Tokyo?

When we make government practices and programs explicit, we see that most of them are immoral. More importantly, we see why our Founders sought to limit the scope of government: The essence of government is force, and most often that force is used to accomplish evil ends.

[MississippiMan]

I don't know that we have time -- the generation(s) to get it done --

That's my point. IMHO the bulk of the damage has occurred over the past hundred years or so and I think reversal at this point is all but impossible.

To briefly explain why I believe this, take our current situation. Right now we're in arguably the "ideal" state, with allegedly the best party controlling the White House and Congress. Other than seeing the White House returning to a place of respect and a few things that flow from that, what's the difference? Political correctness still grows by the day. The liberals are in FIRM control of the minds of the masses, beginning with an iron grip on the education system and continuing control of adults through the joke that our mainstream media are. Bluntly put, the best we can now hope to accomplish wihtin our system is a slight slowing of the growth of insanity in our government.

An actual reversal of the insanity is impossible for me to imagine. Can anyone here realistically picture a coming time during which government handouts are cut off? Or when all able-bodied prisoners are subjected to hard labor that will make a return trip most unenticing? A repeal of the immorality that the progressive tax system is? In all these areas, again, all I can picture under the best case scenario is a slight retardation of the growth.

MM

[Eastbound]

Bump for Williams, Crockett, et al.