In the ongoing farce that serves for discussion in Neil’s world, he lets slip a truism:
…most voters will vote to reduce inequality.
For once, he is right. I’m not sure he intended to reveal the dark underbelly of socialist thought, though. Mankind is selfish. Those words merely highlight that selfishness is not confined to the right, it is also found firmly embedded in the socialist mind-set as well. The difference lies in how it is managed.
I am selfish, you are selfish, we all are selfish – it’s why we go to work. I get up at four-thirty in the morning and ride halfway across the country for a reason; money. Okay, I happen to like my work, but if I didn’t need to, I wouldn’t work. I do because ultimately, I want things that money can buy; not least, a roof over my head and food on the table. That is selfishness.
What Neil is talking about here is not equality of opportunity but equality of outcome. Equality of opportunity is a noble aspiration, equality of outcome is a foolish one. So, while believing everyone should have an equal opportunity at the outset, to do with as they see fit, (it is up to them to make their life choices and suffer or enjoy the consequences) is fine; believing that we are all equal ignores the blindingly obvious; we are all different, with differing abilities, desires, strengths and fallibilities.
Are we really saying that all men are equal? Really? So, is the brain surgeon of the same stuff as the dustman? Do we want dustmen operating on our brains? Or, perhaps more pertinently, should a brain surgeon be remunerated at the same rate as the dustman? If that was so, then why bother with all that study and effort… Why not just nip along to Seta and get a job emptying dustbins if the outcomes are equal?
Yet in the fantasy land of the socialist, that is exactly what is supposed to happen. They want the brain surgeon to carry on operating on brains and they will redistribute his wealth to the dustman. The trouble is, why should the brain surgeon carry on with such an unequal arrangement? Yes, redistribution is an unequal outcome as it seeks to reward everyone equally despite their differing talents.
Then there is the entrepreneur. The person who takes high personal risks to build a business. Should that person receive the same renumeration as the person they employ on the shop floor? The socialist will argue that the employer is exploiting and oppressing the shop floor worker for their own ends and therefore redistribution is necessary to ensure “equality”. But, the shop floor worker is not taking the financial risk and did not have the necessary vision and courage to put everything on the line to create the business and see it through. The worker in this situation is a beneficiary of the entrepreneur’s risk taking. Am I envious of the wealth creators such as Richard Branson and others of his ilk? Damn right I am. However, I do not want to steal his money and give it to less talented people or even to myself. I merely want to work harder to achieve a fraction of what he has. But the socialist would have it differently. For the socialist, Richard Branson and those like him must be made “equal” to the under achiever.
On a personal level, why should I get up at four-thirty in the morning, travel halfway across the country to work only to have what I earn redistributed to someone who would rather stop at home and watch daytime television? If that is equality, then why am I bothering? If the outcomes are equal, I might just as well sit on the sofa all day. And there is the rub; if we redistribute wealth from those who have earned it, then one of two things will happen; either they decide it isn’t worth the effort, or, more likely, they pack their bags and take their wealth elsewhere.
None of this is an argument against the principle of taxation per se. There is a need to fund those activities that we can only achieve collectively and there is a moral duty to provide a safety net for those who need help. That, though, is not redistribution and it is not about equality. What Neil accurately identifies is the greed, envy and spite of the “have-nots” towards the “haves” and they want to take it away. They want it for themselves without actually going out and earning it. And, yes, they will vote for it.
We are not equal, we will never be equal and any belief that we can be is a pipe dream – or, more accurately, the envy and spite borne of the talentless and the incapable towards the high achiever.
“They want the brain surgeon to carry on operating on brains and they will redistribute his wealth to the dustman. The trouble is, why should the brain surgeon carry on with such an unequal arrangement?”
Because in Neil’s world they wouldn’t have been unequal in the first place. The problem is that Neil’s world hasn’t caught up with the most basic understanding of the price elasticities of supply and demand.
“What Neil accurately identifies is the greed, envy and spite of the “have-nots†towards the “haves†and they want to take it away. They want it for themselves without actually going out and earning it. And, yes, they will vote for it.”
Absolutely bang on. That is exactly what Neil wants and that’s what he means by “equality”, but it’s nothing like the high-minded altruistic thing he pretends it is.
What Neil would really really really love people to vote for is “equality for those worse off than me”, but, as usual, he’s fooling himself.
Yes, I said much the same thing recently to Paulie in one of our interminable conversations.
“That does not alter the fact that I consider the forced confiscation of the products of other people’s hard work as morally wrong; I do not view it as any more morally acceptable that those who have the vote always vote to give themselves more of other people’s property.
“It may be how things work, and you may well call it justice — I may even agree that a certain level of it is desirable (no civilised country should leave its citizens starving on the streets) — but, however you dress it up, what you are fundamentally doing is taking the product of one person’s hard work and giving it to someone who does no work.
“What we are arguing about, really, is whether that is a moral thing to do — not that you have addressed that: you have simply said that “this is what happens in a democracy. Poorer people vote to give themselves more of other people’s money.” Well, duuur…
“At what level is it acceptable to stop? If you were elected on a platform of 100% income tax that would be redistributed to the poor, would it be a sensible or moral thing to enact that policy, simply because people had voted for it? What about 90%? Or 80%? What’s high or low enough for you?”
DK
Indeed – and the answer is that it is not moral. The majority wanting it, voting for it, even, does not make it moral. The majority are quite capable of being wrong.
The term “equality” means nothing unless it is properly defined. What the likes of Neil Harding typically mean by it is equality of property. But equality of property means the death of liberty. As the great J F Stephen said in his masterful book “If human experience teaches us any thing at all, it proves that, if restraints are minimized, if the largest possible measure of liberty is accorded to all human beings, the result will not be equality but inequality…”
Equality of outcome is impossible without destroying freedom completely and ultimately destroying society itself. Even equality of opportunity is impossible. Some people will always have advantages not available to others. Although we can try to improve the lot of the less well off, there can never be equality in this sense. Ever.
The only sensible interpretation of “equality” is equality before the law, i.e. like cases treated alike. As the kleptocracy is constantly showing us that it believes that it is above the law, perhaps libertarians and others should spend more time objecting to this form of inequality. After all, if you claim some vague form of “equality” as some kind of social good, how could you object to equality before the law?
Ah Peter, that little conundrum is not much of a brainteaser for a man of Neil’s positively inter-planetary intellect.
You see, if you don’t advocate equality of property, you’re not really a proper person. And since equality before the law only applies to people…
I don’t.
LR
I know you don’t. But Cleanthes gets to the heart of the matter.What we don’t understand is that some are more equal than others!
Peter: HUSH! It’s not that some are more equal than others, it is that some carry the heavy burden of protecting the revolution and have awesome tasks to carry out to do so yada yada yada.
Sorry, I can’t even do this in parody without feeling ill. No wonder Neil’s always so miserable. And they think us bloggertarians are negative…
That always amuses me – I can have a self deprecating chuckle, the Neil’s of this world are far too serious.
This is not about absolute equality and reducing my argument to that shows the paucity of your debate. There is a morality to be upheld on both sides of the argument. The current situation (in the UK) is that 95% of the wealth resides with the top 50%. Are you telling me there is no moral argument for the bottom 50% to have more than 5% of the wealth? Are you really telling me that those at the top have all accrued their wealth fairly? Even Richard Branson and Rupert Murdoch had rich dads! Are you telling me that everyones wage is fair, that directors need to be earning thousands of times the wage of someone grafting 40 or more hours on the minimum wage (or lower)? Is that a moral situation? You lot are having a laugh – talk of being in your own worlds and being blind to the truth.
Yet again, Neil, you demonstrate how little you understand humanity or how commerce works in the real world. You accuse me of being blind to the truth. For fuck’s sake, just how ignorant can you get? I am self-employed; my earnings are directly related to my output. I couldn’t get any closer to reality if I tried.
A fair wage is what the buyer will pay for the product. It really is as simple as that. If you don’t like the wage your production earns, then you have options. In my case recently, it was worth fuck-all, so I had to diversify. I didn’t whinge about better paid people and how they should fund my inability to earn a decent living. I got off my backside and did something about it myself. That’s what we do; those of us who work in the real world.
Damn right, some will never achieve the heady heights, and damn right some folk earn thousands – hundreds of thousands – that most of us will only hope to achieve. It’s called life. Get used to it. Taking what people have earned and giving it to those who have not earned it is theft and people will respond in one of two ways – as I pointed out.
I do not get up at godawful o’clock in the morning to keep others in the life to which they have become accustomed, I do it for me and mine. Don’t like it? Think it isn’t fair? Think that my daily rate is exorbitant compared with someone on a minimum wage? Well, they can pay for their qualifications, they can get up at the crack of dawn and they can wear themselves out mentally and physically to do what I do – no one is stopping them. Don’t like that I want to keep what I have earned? Tough, get used to it, that’s life.
Of course, some of those people working for a minimum wage cannot do anything else. I acknowledge that and believe that they should be properly paid for what they do – but it will always be low, because unskilled labour is relatively plentiful and therefore cheap, but stop trying to cut off their job opportunities, because that is the logical outcome of your redistribution – and be assured, they won’t thank you for it. What you want to do – create a gross inequality through unfair redistribution (taking from those who earn it and giving it to those who do not) is deeply immoral and will eventually force companies to take their business elsewhere at the cost of jobs.
And, yes, having a rich daddy is perfectly moral and it is perfectly fair. We are not equal and we will never be equal – ever.
Your politics of envy are showing through once more. Whether directors need to earn what they do is immaterial – they take high risks for that gain and companies will not fill the posts if they do not pay the going rate. Those highly paid directors keep the company competitive and provide employment opportunities for others – that is genuine wealth distribution. If a company does not pay the going rate, the talented will simply go elsewhere at the cost of the company’s profitability – and, ultimately, its ability to provide employment. That is how it works in the real world. Think you could do better? Well, go apply for a job as a CEO for a blue chip company; go on, prove that you are worth what they earn. I could not nor would I wish to do what they do – that’s why I do not begrudge them their wealth.
Why am I no longer a socialist? Because I can observe for myself that it doesn’t work and never will.
Ultimately, though, socialism is profoundly misanthropic and works against humanity’s drive to succeed.
Longrider – your argument boils down to – “the market dictates these obscene wages so therefore it is moral”. I’m sorry but that is obvious rubbish. The market can never be fair unless it is properly regulated and that means that people are NOT necessarily paid what they deserve. I have nothing against people earning a good return if they DESERVE it – indeed as you point out this is essential. However, there is no moral justification for someone earning millions while others starve and there is certainly no justification for people having billions. That is the situation in the ‘real world’ and you have this one absolutist idea and ignore this really immoral world. There will always be inequality and I do not argue against this – what I argue against is the obscene inequality of the poorest half of the population only having 5% of the wealth. People at the top get fantastic wages because they are at the top and decide their own wage, not because they earn it. The real theft is that land and resources belong to everyone, but only a few people benefit from it.
Okay , a little lesson in reality here. I currently earn a fairly significant three-figure sum per day. This, to many, will seem a lot of money. The reason I can command this is because I work in a relatively small marketplace. This is a double edged sword, of course, but it does mean that there aren’t that many people around with the exact balance of skills, qualifications and experience to do the work. What commands that rate is the market and nothing else. What I cannot and never will be able to do is run a multinational corporation. I have none of the required attributes, therefore, I could not enter into negotiation to do so – I fall at the first hurdle. Those who do have this ability, quite rightly, have the power to negotiate a fat salary. And, unlike those in employment in the lower strata, they can be summarily dismissed for failure to achieve. The shop floor worker has a level of protection that these people do not have – that’s why they get paid huge sums and it is why they negotiate golden handshakes. Of course, if you were to argue that being paid a fat sum for failure is appalling, I might just go along with you…
The minute the state gets involved with regulation, it brings with it incompetence and unintended consequences. The market is not perfect and there are times when outside influences need to be brought into play – and, sometimes, but very rarely, state regulation. Consumer protection being one that I can go along with.
However, the minute you attempt to regulate what people should earn, you diminish their opportunities. I supported the minimum wage because I believed (and still do) that there should be a base level. But beyond that, no. Those millionaires and billionaires create jobs and opportunities for others. You may not agree that they earn their money, but that is immaterial. Every investment they make in the market creates an opportunity for someone less talented or less able to get into the job market.
So what if at the end of it those high earners set their own salaries? There’s nothing immoral in that. It is what I have done – I negotiated my daily rate. Is that immoral? I knew full well that my client needs to meet his targets and that I can help him do that. I negotiated to my advantage. That is how the market works – we both came away happy with the outcome.
So half the population have 95% of the wealth – that’s a pretty big chunk of the population, isn’t it? Rather more than, say a hundred years ago. That half of the population have to spend and invest that wealth. That 50% are investing so that the other half have opportunities to join them. The significant difference between socialism and allowing the market to create wealth for everyone is that the market does not seek to discriminate – anyone with the drive, ability and willingness to take the risk can succeed. Socialism seeks to suck that dry and give it to others. That is what is so immoral.
Your suggestion that people earning high incomes while others starve is immoral doesn’t hold water as the two are not linked. No one in this country needs to starve – that is the point of our social welfare system and that is what our taxes pay for – and no one in their right mind begrudges this.
Land and resources do not belong to everyone. That, frankly, is risible and unrealistic – if you think that the land I own belongs to everyone, you will have a fierce fight on your hands should you try to exercise that “ownership”.
And, finally, who are you – or anyone else for that matter – to decide what people deserve to earn? Clue; you are not, neither am I.
LR,
You’ve missed an obvious one here:
“The market can never be fair unless it is properly regulated and that means that people are NOT necessarily paid what they deserve. I have nothing against people earning a good return if they DESERVE it – indeed as you point out this is essential. “
Paraphrasing:
Sentence 1: I require that people are not paid what they deserve.
Sentence 2: I recognise that people earning what they deserve is essential.
Neil, do you actually think at all or do you just spout what ever Nu-Labour claptrap is funnelled in through your ear at regular intervals?
Cleanthes, Damn, yes, missed that one. Jolly good observation. As to your question, the answer, I suspect is pretty straightforward.
The logic – if logic is the right word – is that politicians should decide what people deserve to earn. The precedent on that score isn’t over-impressive. After all, they regularly award themselves pay increases that they certainly do not deserve…