Column on Warren’s Non-Sequitor

Warren’s Non-Sequitor

Tibor R. Machan

So Elizabeth Warren, Massachusetts candidate for the US Senate, says “there is nobody in this country who got rich on his own. Nobody.” And so she is said to reject that it is possible for Americans to become wealthy “in isolation.” (As if someone defended that silly idea!)

So she sounds off about this, with evident righteousness, as follows: “You built a factory out there? Good for you,… But I want to be clear: you moved your goods to market on the roads the rest of us paid for; you hired workers the rest of us paid to educate; you were safe in your factory because of police forces and fire forces that the rest of us paid for. You didn’t have to worry that marauding bands would come and seize everything at your factory, and hire someone to protect against this, because of the work the rest of us did.” And she goes on to declare, “Now look, you built a factory and it turned into something terrific, or a great idea? God bless. Keep a big hunk of it. But part of the underlying social contract is you take a hunk of that and pay forward for the next kid who comes along.”

First of all, nothing at all follows from any of this about how Ms. Warrant has any authority at all to rearrange the world her way. My nose and ears and kidneys and eyes weren’t created on my own but none of that implies for a second that Elizabeth Warren is entitled to start invading my body and decide how its parts ought to be used. Nor even that my parents actually own me!

Of course, property rights start simple enough and then become complex. But that is just why a free country has a law of property instead of Ms. Warren as a tyrant who orders us all to do as she wishes.

It is necessary to be careful about how property is properly allocated, with close attention to original and subsequent creation, with what has been voluntarily shared, given away, earned through work and exchange, etc. Why?

Well, from the time of Aristotle it has been clear to quite a few political theorists and economists that common ownership sucks. As the ancient Greek sage put the point:

“That all persons call the same thing mine in the sense in which each does so may be a fine thing, but it is impracticable; or if the words are taken in the other sense, such a unity in no way conduces to harmony. And there is another objection to the proposal. For that which is common to the greatest number has the least care bestowed upon it. Every one thinks chiefly of his own, hardly at all of the common interest; and only when he is himself concerned as an individual. For besides other considerations, everybody is more inclined to neglect the duty which he expects another to fulfill; as in families many attendants are often less useful than a few.” (Politics, 1262a30-37).

Then there was Thucydides on the commons, noting that “[T]hey devote a very small fraction of the time to the consideration of any public object, most of it to the prosecution of their own objects. Meanwhile, each fancies that no harm will come to his neglect, that it is the business of somebody else to look after this or that for him; and so, by the same notion being entertained by all separately, the common cause imperceptibly decays.” (Thucydides, The History of the Peloponnesian War, bk. I, sec. 141).

So John Locke came along who didn’t even deny that to start with property is commonly owned but that it is best to create a system of private property so that property will be taken good care off and because those who work hard to improve it are justified in benefiting from it and make use of it as they see fit.

So not only is Ms. Warren way off with her idea that the state gets to decide what happens to property and that there is some kind of unwritten–i.e., not consented to–social contract that obligates us all to give to the state. But it is a wasteful and bad idea, as the Soviets and other socialists who disallow private property in their realm, have found out to everyone’s despair.

But of course it is not going to be easy to get agreement to statist redistribution policies if all this is admitted. So Warren needs to attempt the impossible and show that she, not you and I, get to say what happens to what we own because how we obtained it involved other people! Again, it doesn’t follow!

This entry was posted in Uncategorized and tagged , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

3 Responses to Column on Warren’s Non-Sequitor

  1. Xerographica says:

    What if taxpayers had the freedom to directly allocate their taxes? For example, at anytime throughout the year I could go to the Environmental Protection Agency website and submit a payment. I’d save my receipts from any payments I had made throughout the year and then submit them to the IRS by April 15.

    That way the factory owner can decide for himself how he wants to allocate his taxes among public roads, public education, the police department and the fire department.

    I’m willing to “accept” taxes if liberals can “accept” that no two public goods produce the exact same benefit to society. If taxes are a “fact” then I want them to be put to their best possible use. Is that a fair exchange? The only way to gurarantee the best possible use of public funds is if each and every taxpayer is allowed to consider the opportunity costs of their tax allocation decisions. How much public education is the factory owner willing to sacrifice for better roads?

    What I can’t quite grasp is how significant the allocation disparity would be between A) 535 congresspeople allocating other people’s money and B) millions and millions of taxpayers allocating their own hard earned taxes. According to Hayek’s concept of partial knowledge the information disparity between congress and taxpayers should be very significant…so it seems like the tax allocation disparity would be very significant as well.

    What was the allocation disparity between a king allocating taxes and parliament allocating taxes? Was this disparity the basis of the motive that allowed the barons to strip the king of his power to tax? I’m guessing the allocation disparity between congress and taxpayers is the key to transferring control of taxes to taxpayers themselves.

    Any thoughts you have on applying the invisible hand to the public sector would be greatly appreciated.

    • szatyor2693 says:

      If taxpayers could allocate the funds of which they are deprived by governments, the policy would no longer amount to taxation.

      • Xerographica says:

        When the power of the purse was transferred from a king to parliament…it still amounted to taxation. When the power of the purse is transferred from congress to taxpayers…it will still amount to taxation…given that it is your money being spent in the public sector.

        But tell me about what happens when taxpayers can choose which government organizations they give their taxes to.

        Let’s say that there are two restaurants…a private one and a public one. Maybe the chef is pretty terrible at the public restaurant? Let’s say he can only cook one or two dishes better than the chef at the private restaurant. So what happens to the rest of the items on the public menu? You’re not going to spend your taxes ordering something that you don’t want to consume. I’m not going to spend my taxes ordering something that I don’t want to consume. So what would end up being on the public menu? Obviously only the items that consumers (taxpayers) were willing to spend their hard-earned taxes on.

        “Treat all economic questions from the viewpoint of the consumer, for the interests of the consumer are the interests of the human race.” – Bastiat

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s