Never have so few
Taken so much
From so many
For so long.
Sure, I'm plagiarizing the motto of socialists, property is theft! My intent is to turn that canard on its head. If it is one thing we have had pounded into our heads by the experience of the last 30 years it is that socialism as an economic theory doesn't work. The reemergence of serious intellectual thought about the small state in books by Robert Nozick and others are indications that we have left socialism behind along with tie-dye shirts and flower power. Good riddance.
But in America we still have holdovers from the bad old days of 'creeping socialism,' outdated gewgaws as welfare. I am using the word welfare in its broadest definition to include all income transfers made where there is no benefit returned for the money transferred. That includes welfare for the 'rich' and 'poor' alike, food stamps and farm subsidies. I want to examine why welfare might be considered theft. First, let us try a thought experiment. I present two different situations.
Situation one, I am walking down the street. A man comes up to me and tells me a long sad story about losing his job, his children are starving, and tomorrow is Christmas. In the spirit of the Holidays, I pull a $20 bill, along with a few moths that fly out, from my old wallet and hand it to the man. He blesses me and goes off. Feeling virtuous, I continue down the mall.
Situation two, while continuing down the street. A man steps out from the alley and points a pistol at me. The steel glints in the light and my heart beats in an accelerated and uncertain fashion. He tells me that he is desperate, his family is starving. He has no choice. He demands my wallet which I hand over. The man disappears into the alley with my wallet, a few moths, and some cash.
Now, I want to do a quick analysis of the morality of the various actors in our drama. In situation one above, has the beggar done any moral or immoral actions? We actually have little information to make the judgment. If his children were starving then most of us would consider his actions necessary and moral, that is, doing what is needed to feed his family. But if he is lying and intends to spend the money on drink, then most of us would consider such action, lying, to be immoral. Certainly, lacking information his actions are, at best, morally ambiguous.
In two above, I think this is an easy analysis. All of us would consider the actions of the gunman, theft with threat of violence, as immoral, whether or not his family was starving. The ends did not justify his means.
But let us turn the same analytic eye on my actions in these little dramas. In situation one, I think all moral systems would applaud my action. I can't think of a single moral system that does not consider charity a laudable activity.
How about situation two? It is certain that I did the smart thing. Everyone would agree that is was necessary that I hand over the wallet. But was it a moral action? I think not.
In both cases, I gave money to a starving family. What was the difference? In the second case, it was not voluntary. I was under the threat of violence and my actions were compulsory, not free. Compulsion removes the morality from my actions and they become morally neutral. The same action, in one case laudable, in the other is simply survival. The point is that compulsion removes the positive moral nature of the action from all of the actors in the drama. Let us keep that in mind.
Now, let's look at a third scenario. Again, I am walking down the street. A policeman comes up to me puts his hand quite obviously on his gun and demands to know how much money I have. I tell him $100. He opines that I don't need all of that, informs me that a new law allows him to take money he deems 'excess,' and tells me I owe $20 to help the starving people of the city. I see his shiny well used handcuffs dangling from his belt, and I hand over the money. He then gives this money to a man he thinks deserves it.
Let us apply the same analysis to this scenario. What is the difference between scenario two and three? In three, the person taking the money is an officer of the state operating in accordance with the law. Does this change the moral calculus?
In both cases my actions were compulsory. I had no choice. Therefore, following the reasoning about compulsory actions in scenario two, I have done nothing moral. Compulsion removes the moral nature of my action.
Well, how about the policeman? He is citing a law which allows him to take my money and give it to another. Does that change the morality of the taking? No, it does not. Just as we reasoned in scenario 2, compulsion removes the positive moral nature of the action. The forced redistribution of money is at the heart of it, immoral. Whether it is bald theft in scenario two or legal theft using the State's coercive powers in scenario three, taking money involuntarily to give it to another for their personal aggrandizement is immoral.
Scenario three is welfare. The state using its taxing power, which is always supported quite explicitly with the police power of the state, takes money from one person and gives it to a second person. Person two has provided nothing of value to receive the money. They didn't build a bridge, pave a road, or even install a sewer. It is theft at the behest of the State. It is nothing more than robbing Peter to pay Paul and gain Paul's vote in the next election.
Not all will agree with this. Some will argue that there is a social benefit in providing money to the 'poor.' That is, society is better off by this re-distribution of wealth. Really? First, most transfer payments made are not made to the poor. Second, even when money is being provided to the poor, a possible social benefit, that doesn't change the immoral nature of the transaction when the holdup man sticks a gun in someone's face. It is still theft and it is still immoral whatever the possible benefit of this 'redistribution.' Substituting the IRS to steal the money doesn't change the immoral nature of the 'taking' transaction. The fact that a social benefit, re-distribution, occurs after the theft doesn't change the immoral nature of the initial taking of the money.
The second argument supporting welfare is that it is, in fact, voluntary. A citizen voluntarily pays taxes, some of which is used for welfare. I propose another thought experiment. Let us estimate the cost of welfare and other transfer payments. Now, calculate the tax bill less those items. Put this on line x of the tax return. Show the amount of tax bill due to welfare and add that to the total arrived at before and give taxpayers the ability to choose which of the two payments they are going to make. What percentage of people do you think will pay the higher tax bill which includes welfare? Right, three very rich very narcissistic liberals in Hollywood who will hold a news conference showing how they are going to pay it and want everyone to bow down in approbation. Other than that, no one will. Welfare is not paid for voluntarily.
I hear someone screaming from the back, but all taxes are coercive. Yes, absolutely. And that is why only necessary governmental functions should be funded through taxes since they are, in fact, not voluntary and always collected by threat of the police power as represented by the IRS. While it is possible and probably unavoidable that we can argue about what are necessary governmental functions; is the military necessary, are public roads necessary, etc., it is easy to say that all transfer payments, which amount to nothing more than robbing Peter to pay Paul, will never meet the threshold of necessity. Any argument on necessary government spending will never include welfare.
Let me stress again that welfare in the modern state isn't helping the poor. No indeed, most welfare in the modern state goes to those who can buy Congressmen. For instance, farm subsidies, money sent to millionaire farmers, totaled 25 billion dollars in 2005. I read somewhere that two-thirds of all American households receive some sort of governmental check. We tax ourselves to redistribute the money to ourselves. That's berserk but as long as we feel we have a chance to be the one getting more than we pay, we support the system. We aren't getting over because in the center sits a tremendous governmental bureaucracy at the Federal, state, county, then city level each one eating up much of the money to pay for the inherent inefficiencies of government. Does this sound like a rational system?
It is theft, hidden behind the auspices of the Government. But it is theft, pure and simple. And even worse, it is a stupid theft. We steal from ourselves because we keep hoping that we are going to be Paul, getting Peter's money, when most of us are Peter paying for the few with political connections and the inefficiencies of the system. Brothers and sisters, wake up and smell the stink of our current system.
If you think this all makes sense, you might just be a Libertarian. Check out the Libertarian Party.
I'd love to hear your thoughts about this discussion especially if you think there are weaknesses in the argument that could be strengthened.
Or you can e-mail me directly
Return to Serious Discussions homepage
Copyright Rod O'Steele © 2007, 2008