On today’s Op/Ed Page, University of Richmond professor and sometime blogger Thad Williamson has a challenging and thoughtful guest column arguing that people have no moral claim to their pre-tax earnings.

You should read it for yourself, but the gist of it is that the view of the market as a wealth-creator and government as a wealth-consumer is erroneous. Without the government’s protection of property and without government services such as roads, the market couldn’t operate as well as it does. In fact, government makes our participation in the economy possible. Therefore, while it’s reasonable to debate the appropriate level of taxation, we have no right to claim the government is “taking our money.“

There are two substantial problems with this argument.

The first, somewhat lesser, problem is empirical. While it’s certainly true that some government activities are necessary for society to function—cops and courts, first and foremost—those make up a minute fraction of most government spending. It’s not clear whether the economy would grow or shrink if government abandoned most of the other activities it engages in, and it’s pretty hard to test. (Were it not for the trillions spent on creating a culture of dependency through welfare, for instance, we might be even richer than we are now. Who’s to say for certain?) Williamson’s argument relies, to a considerable extent, on an untestable factual thesis.

The second big problem—and the more serious one—is that his argument applies to non-economic rights, too. For instance, if it were not for government, people could not enjoy the right to free speech to the extent they do. But from this fact, it does not follow that people have no right to free speech other than what the government allots them. Williamson seems to be making the case that rights do not exist ab initio and that government is instituted to protect them. Rather, he makes it seem as if government exists ab initio, and society determines collectively what privileges should be granted to individuals. Yikes!

P.S.—Thad has added some ripostes to this rebuttal in the comment section. Read those, too!

Margie,

The fact that the US recognizes and upholds many important rights is a fact for which we can all be grateful. And the reason why I (and I suspect you as well) believe this a good thing is because we believe that the rights our founders died to protect and uphold (or “give”, as you say) were good things in themselves—worth of fighting and dying for. I actually indented with my post to take the word “rights” _out_ of moral limbo that Thad would place them in, so that we can recognize them for what they are: real moral goods that motivate us (and the Founders) to action.

You seem to be implying that rights are inherent, Andrew. Not so. We have only the rights our forefathers died to give us. If they had not been willing to do so, we would not have them. To say they exist in some moral limbo, whether applied or not, makes no useful sense.

The WAC’s turned me down at 18 because I did not weigh 110lbs. I passed the written test, failed the physical. I admit my motives for wanting to join were selfish. My cousin was a WAC and recieved free college courses.

There is so much to respond to in Thad’s post, say one thing, in support of Bart’s “second big problem”:

There is something wrong with defining “rights” in a merely descriptive sense: i.e. that rights merely summarize how a government and a society chooses to treat the individuals within it. If this were the case, we should banish the word “right” from all political discourse—not just from cross-cultural judgments. Say, for example, the US government banned several newspapers. The editors claimed a first amendment right but the government holds firm for a time. Does that mean, that as long as the rights are ignored in practice that they do not exist? No! Rights are fundamentally moral (or, as you prefer to say “theological”) concepts. They are meant to explain why a government should or should not do something—which, most of the time is something other than what it is actually doing. The editors would claim that they had a right to publish, and what they would really mean is that “the government should not (in a moral sense) interfere with my ability to peacefully publish my opinions.“ Thad, you say that the Liberal (in the broad sense) modern state has ascendency and you are “glad of it.“ Why are you glad of it? Is it because pavlovian conditioning has trained you to approve of these moral claims in the same way I have been conditioned to hate zucchini? Or is it because you actually believe that these moral claims that justify broadly liberal rights are _true_? It is easy to pretend to believe that morality and rights claims are relative to cultures and to history, but what do you actually say to the Chinese (or Roman) torture victim? “Too bad!?“ “I guess you weren’t lucky enough to be born in the ‘historical (and perhaps still fragile) achievement which (again) is inextricably intertwined with the emergence of liberal state constitutions’ !?“ I hope not.

Margie on mandatory military duty: “consider the duty we all owe for the priviledge of being American. If you aren’t willing to fight for it, you don’t deserve it.“

How much of your life did you devote to the marine corps, Margie?

Now don’t you go messing with my gat, Larry! I’m a little old lady living alone. My rolling pin just won’t cut it. Seriously, we part company on that one. Citizens right to bear arms is sacred territory to me. Although I can see your point. Everyone should be required by law to train in the use of firearms before being allowed to purchase one. (Maybe even take a meditation class). Joking. Just joking. On the other hand, the bad guys won’t have much trouble arming themselves illegally, no matter how many bans we pass.  But I think we are straying from taxation.

“ No one seems to have a better solution, just outrage.“

That’s right on-the-money Margie. I’ve yet to hear anybody suggest (soberly) how the nation can maintain decent standards without taxation — or social services for that matter.

Here’s why: No social services, no welfare, increasing poverty = An increase in crime. Oh no…wait…I forgot, we can all ‘Pack Heat’ and blow everybody’s head-off. That’ll stop the increase in crime. I almost forgot about the 2nd Amendment.

This is not a popular idea, but I’ve thought a lot about the WPA established to provide jobs during the depression. Whether it was a success or not, I don’t know. But it kept a lot of people from starving. And they were happy to work in order to survive.

Ross McKensie has brought forward an idea I think might make a huge difference in the future of our young people, insofar as dropping out of school, hanging in the streets, getting mixed up in the drug world that leads to crime and imprisonment. In short, setting themselves up for failure. Mandatory millitary service for every 18 year old, or community service work. Self-discipline, taught very well by the military, seems to be the key ingredient lacking in many future drop-outs.Would it make a difference in the future need for social services? I think it would.

Before you object on the grounds of coersion, consider the duty we all owe for the priviledge of being American. If you aren’t willing to fight for it, you don’t deserve it.

What good is working for mom and pop going to do you if you can’t survive on your paycheck? Maybe mom and pop should not be in business if they can’t make enough profit to pay their employees enough to live on. If they were not making enough to live on themselves, they would seek a living elsewhere. Back to the tired old question. What would you suggest that the low percentage of minimum wage workers do who are not teens, not retired, not bored housewives, but men or usually single mothers attempting to feed a family? All I’ve heard from conservatives is what they should not do: what ever they have to do to make it. No one likes their tax dollars to go to social services. No one seems to have a better solution, just outrage.

When social services offered by government exceed what mom and pop stores can provide for employees, then there is a problem.
It is no wonder people are faking unemployement.
They can raise their standard of living by doing so.
Meanwhile mom and pop use all profits earned the first 4 months of the year to pay their taxs to the very same government thats competing for their employees!

Post Your Comments: