Ain't we got fun!

As the song goes, the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. Indeed, by some estimates this is the case in the US. Of course, there are a few questions:

• Is it true?
• Is it important?
• Is it actionable by government?

Here are two takes on the problem:

• http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1033902 The author argues that, as a civilized society, we need to increase the equality of income. He proposes a "wealth tax" that would be levied against overall wealth. This would mitigate against accumulation of wealth and would redistribute it to the lowest 20% of the population.
• http://mises.org/story/1229 The author argues that wealth inequity does not mean deprivation. Furthermore, the bottom 20% of the population lives as well as the wealthy did 50-100 years ago, and in some aspects, even better.

Two things do not pass the smell test.

• If we assume that people are and should be responsible for their own actions, we come to the conclusion that the chickens should come home to roost. If you work hard, sacrifice and save, you should acccumulate the fruits of your labor. Furthermore, you should be able to pass the fruits of your labor on to whomever you wish. Likewise, if you choose to be less productive than needed for your own survival, you should rely upon the goodness of your friends, neighbors and community for charity.
• If we assume that people are not responsible for their own actions, we come to the conclusion that everything is just a matter of random chance. A person works hard because of the random nature of his environment and a random gene collection within his cells. A person doesn't work for the same reason. A person is a criminal for the same reason. Under this philosophy, goodness is just a statistical commonality, not an absolute. If more people believe that it is not right to murder, it just reflects a majority opinion of the gene-environmental pool, biased by their makeup. Any judgement is based on opinion, not on fact. For example, if a person works hard, that is who that person is. If another person doesn't work hard, that is who that person is. Neither should be rewarded or punished for who they are. If we assume that outcomes are genetically and environmentally desired to be equal (a large logical leap), then government has the duty to equalize outcomes. The problem is that we do not have evidence that outcome equality is a desired result. Indeed, in my discussion with patients with different lifestyles, I have heard voiced different goals. The desire of government to simplify people to an equality of income is dehumanizing to those who do not fall into the majority position.

DocBrain has concluded that income redistribution on a federal level is an evil. If people are responsible for what they do, let the good people gain from freely donating time, goods and money to the poor and the poor learn to admire the good who help and to emulate them as they themselves rise from poverty. If people are what they are, products of genetics and environment, it is dehumanizing to assume that you can get into their heads and know what they want and need. The best thing government can do is to get out of their way or to enable everyone to do what is in their nature. This means anarchy, no laws, absolute freedom. Anything short of either of these positions is nuanced dishonesty.

Of course, many people will take the position that we have limited control of ourselves, so we should have some limited level of responsibility. Here, the devil is in the details. How much control should a person have? Do you measure this statistically, or is it an individual thing, with each person being his own standard?

If we use a universal standard for goodness, no one is perfect. If we use the individual standard for goodness, everyone is perfect. DocBrain believes that human evolution has to include goodness. It is our duty to future generations to move towards greater universal goodness by clearly defining goodness, raising the bar, and allowing people to strive for it, using reward and punishment. A good government is one that allows individuals to be good, not one that usurps its definition of goodness from the people. Such a government produces people whose goodness has been excised. A rich person doesn't give charity because the government gives it in form of tax redistribution. A poor person doesn't appreciate the sacrifices of his fellow citizens as gifts flow from the government, not his neighbors.

We get a schizophrenic world when we try to equalize that which cannot be assumed to be an equal desire. The only equality that all people seem to agree upon is equality under the law. Perhaps that is where it should stay.