Posted on 08/17/2014 4:50:29 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
Some of the best analyses lie not in the field of economics, but in books like The Giver—dystopian tales sitting on shelves marked Young Adult.
Meryl Streep and Jeff Bridges in The Giver.
The world is an increasingly unequal and unfair place, economists tell us. Every year, it becomes a little harder to picture what equal opportunity and egalitarianism even look like. As the rich attract capital like Jupiter attracts space debris and the poor fail to make any substantial gains, the gap between them comes to seem to us less surmountable, more of a force of nature than something for which we can even imagine a reasonable counterfactual.
Fortunately, we have literature to help us out with that.
Specifically, we have young adult literature, and its fascination with the way that the world is made, unmade, and remade.
If you grew up in the 1980s or 1990s and were of a bookish turn, you either read The Giver or had it read to you, despite the numerous times that moral hawks tried to keep it out of your hands. (Naturally, this only made it more attractive.) The book, and numerous others that followed it, imagined worlds where economic conditions dictate the facts of human life, as of course they have a tendency to do....
(Excerpt) Read more at theatlantic.com ...
“What’s the price of perfect equality?”
“In the long run, we are all dead.”
Nathaniel Chipman, Sketches of the Principles of Government 177--82
Volume 1, Chapter 15, Document 51
Of the Nature of Equality in Republics.
Some of the most eminent writers on government, have supposed an equality of property, as well as of rights to be necessary in a republic. They have, therefore, prescribed limits to individual acquisition. The Reason given is, that riches give power to those who possess them, and that those who possess power, will always abuse it to the oppression of others. If this be a good reason for limiting the acquisition of riches, there is equal reason for limiting the improvement of bodily strength and mental abilities. Such a step would be an abridgement of the primary rights of man, and counteract almost all the laws of his nature. It would, perhaps, could it be reduced to practice, place the whole human race in a state of fearless quietude; but it would be a state of tasteless enjoyment, of stupid inactivity, not to be envied by the lowest tribes of the animal creation.
If such be the principles of a republican government, it is a government out of nature. Those have made a wiser choice, who have submitted to the less tyrannical principles of absolute monarchy. These are not the principles of a republic. They are the principles of anarchy, and of popular tyranny.
We have just now enquired into the nature of equality among men, and have seen in what it consists; a free and equal enjoyment of the primary rights, which are, the intellectual rights, and the right which men have of using their powers and faculties, under certain reciprocal modifications, for their own convenience and happiness. The equality necessary in a republic, requires nothing more, than this equality of primary rights. I shall here instance in the right of acquisition only, as being sufficient for my present purpose.
To the security of this right, certain regulations, as to the modes and conditions of enjoying the secondary rights, or in other words, of holding property, are necessary. Not, indeed, as to the quantity, but the freedom of acquisition, use, and disposal. To give to any individual, or class of men, a monopoly, an exclusive right of acquisition in those things, which nature has made the subjects of property, to perpetuate, and render them unalienable in their hands, is an exclusion of the rights of others. It is a violation of the equal rights of man. Of this nature are all exclusive privileges; all perpetuities of riches and honor, and all the pretended rights of primogeniture. Inequality of property, in the possession of individuals, is not directly, nor by inevitable consequence, subversive of genuine liberty. Those laws are, indeed, subversive of liberty, which, by establishing perpetuities, deprive the owner of a right of disposal, and others, so far as they extend, of the right of acquisition; which annex privileges to property, and by making it a qualification in government, create a powerful aristocracy.
Riches are the fruit of industry. Honor the fruit of merit. Both ought, as to their continuance, and the influence which attends them, to be left to the conduct of the possessor. If a man, who, by industry and economy, has acquired riches, become indolent, or profligate, let him sink into poverty. Let those who are still industrious and economical, succeed to his enjoyments, as to their just reward. If a man, who, by noble and virtuous actions, has acquired honor, the esteem of mankind, will behave infamously, let him sink into contempt. To exclude the meritorious from riches and honors, and to perpetuate either to the undeserving, are equally injurious to the rights of man in society. In both it is to counteract the laws of nature, which have, by the connection of cause and effect, annexed the proper rewards and punishments to the actions of men. Wealth, or at least, a competency, is the reward, provided by the laws of nature, for prudent industry; want, the punishment of idleness and profligacy.
If we make equality of property necessary in a society, we must employ force, against both the industrious and the indolent. On the one hand, the industrious must be restrained, from every exertion, which may exceed the power, or inclination of common capacities; on the other hand, the indolent must be forcibly stimulated to common exertions. This would be acting the fable of Procrustes, who, by stretching, or lopping to his iron bedstead, would reduce every man to his own standard length.
If this method should be deemed ineligible, the only alternative will be, either by open violence, or the secret fraud of the law, to turn a certain portion of the well-earned acquisitions of the vigilant and industrious, to the use of the indolent and neglectful.
Let us not, in a Republic, attempt the extreme of equality: It verges on the extreme of tyranny. Guarantee to every man, the full enjoyment of his natural rights. Banish all exclusive privileges; all perpetuities of riches and honors. Leave free the acquisition and disposal of property to supply the occasions of the owner, and to answer all claims of right, both of the society, and of individuals. To give a stimulus to industry, to provide solace and assistance, in the last helpless stages of life, and a reward for the attentions of humanity, confirm to the owner the power of directing, who shall succeed to his right of property after his death; but let it be without any limitation, or restraint upon the future use, or disposal. Divert not the consequences of actions, as to the individual actors, from their proper course. Let no preference be given to any one in government, but what his conduct can secure, from the sentiments of his fellow citizens. Of property, left to the disposal of the law, let a descent from parents to children, in equal portions, be held a sacred principle of the constitution. Secure but these, and every thing will flow in the channel intended by nature. The operation of the equal laws of nature, tend to exclude, or correct every dangerous excess.
Thus industry will be excited; arts will flourish, and virtuous conduct meet its just reward, the esteem and confidence of mankind. Am I deceived? or are these the true principles of equality in a democratic republic? Principles, which will secure its prosperity, and, if any thing in this stage of existence can be durable, its perpetual duration.
The Founders' Constitution
Volume 1, Chapter 15, Document 51
http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/v1ch15s51.html
The University of Chicago Press
Perfect equality ban only be achieved via the equal distribution of abject misery.
Which is what government does when it possesses all the riches and all the power.
"Government is the greediest, most corrupt and murderous force on Earth." --E. Pluribus Unum
Kurt Vonnegut wrote a brilliant short story called “Harrison Bergeron”. It was about the USA of the future where everyone was finally equal. It was achieved by bringing everyone down to the lowest common denominator. Anyone with any ability or talent had to wear “handicaps” to mitigate it.
A short but good read—highly recommended.
When the democrats take full control they will bring true equality:
The fleet of foot will have to wear leg irons
The well spoken will have their tongues split
The intelligent will undergo a compulsory frontal lobotomy
The keen of eyesight will have their eyesight surgically diminished
The agile will have their bones broken
The attractive will be disfigured
The light skinned will have their skin chemically darkened
As usual, ‘The Atlantic’ propagandist gets it wrong at the outset. Never in the history of the world have so many poor people had it so good. The worst situations of misery in the world are the result of political arrangements, and are in no way caused by those who happen to be better off honestly accumulating wealth.
By equality, in a democracy, is to be understood, equality of civil rights, and not of condition. Equality of rights necessarily produces inequality of possessions; because, by the laws of nature and of equality, every man has a right to use his faculties, in an honest way, and the fruits of his labour, thus acquired, are his own. But, some men have more strength than others; some more health; some more industry; and some more skill and ingenuity, than others; and according to these, and other circumstances the products of their labour must be various, and their property must become unequal. The rights of property must be sacred, and must be protected; otherwise there could be no exertion of either ingenuity or industry, and consequently nothing but extreme poverty, misery, and brutal ignorance.
St. George Tucker, View of the Constitution of the United States , 1803.
As long as there is inequality of ambition there will always be inequality of outcome.
Not everyone aspires to be a CEO.
For some reason, I pictured Diana Moon Glampers to look exactly like Janet Napolitano. When I read that story, in the ‘80’s. Spooky...
>>Perfect equality ban only be achieved via the equal distribution of abject misery.<<
We have a instant example in Venezuela. Recently a capabilities mecca, reduced to toilet paper shortages and a Black Market only available to those with friends in the USA who can send them hard currency in a few years.
Might fail to thrive? No, children of over one year who cry or have other annoying habits are "released".
Any mistake by adult or child that is deemed of great enough annoyance will end with them being "released".
It is an oatmeal world where everything is bland.
Funny I just had this discussion with a gal earlier today about racial / culture equality. She made a good point; not all cultures are equal. Many have different moral values / codes and customs, different living conditions and expectations, different religions, etc...her basic point is that word, equality is being used as a tool to take from producers and give to non-producers...
> As long as there is inequality of ambition there will always be inequality of outcome.
Not everyone aspires to be a CEO.
Well spoken...
I pictured someone like Diane Feinstein, but there is a lot of similarity there.
It’s true that cultures have different values, and that’s not all bad until you make “inequality” a crisis instead of simply accepted. Take a culture like the Navajo; their tradition has many excellent features. However, as long as it’s important to them to live in the desert Southwest, “between the holy mountains,” they’re never going to be economically equal with people who are willing to move to where the jobs are.
If they accept that, and say, “The cost of the good parts of our traditional way of life is that we will live in relative poverty,” then they should be content. However, if a group of people thinks they should be able to live a culture that does not promote economic efficiency, yet have the same standard of living as one that does, then they’re SOL.
“A society that puts equality before freedom will get neither. A society that puts freedom before equality will get a high degree of both.”-Milton Friedman
-- Neil Peart, "The Trees" by Rush
Scouts Out! Cavalry Ho!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.