Saturday, July 14, 2012

Rationalizing Robbery

Take my money, my cigarettes
I haven't seen the worst of it yet
I wanna know, can't you tell me?
I love to stay
--Talking Heads

A society consists of 100 people. They produce and engage in trade. The productivity of 25 people is relatively low; these people earn $10,000 each. The productivity of seventy four is 5X that of the low producers; people in this group earn $50,000. One of the individuals is 100X more productive than the low producers and earns $1,000,000.

Naturally, all of the people would like higher incomes. One way to do this is to become more productive. Increased productivity requires a) more hours of work or b) combining economic resources that have not been consumed into tools that increase output per hour of labor.

The other way to do this is to acquire income produced by others. Acquiring resources in this manner requires either voluntary charity, where those with more share with those who have less, or force, where those with more are forced to surrender income to those with the power to do violence.

Because people generally prefer less effort over more effort and leisure over work, there is a likelihood that some will seek to forcefully take resources from others. As such, the people form a government authorized to use force in order to assist individuals in protecting their property from forceful invasion by others.

However, it crosses the minds of a number of low and mid-range producers that they might employ the strong arm of government to acquire income from some of the higher producers--particularly that single $1 million earner.

Perhaps if they argued that the high earners should surrender a 'fair share' of their property in the name of 'social justice,' then a majority of people will back a decree that agents of the government shall take a fraction of income from the high producers under conditions of force. This income will be redistributed to others at the discretion of government officials.

Worth a try, the group of lower producers thought. They get busy on their plan.

1 comment:

dgeorge12358 said...

The state does not give, it merely takes. All this argument, however, is a concession to the obfuscation with which custom, law and sophistry have covered up the true character of taxation. There cannot be a good tax nor a just one; every tax rests its case on compulsion.
~Frank Chodorov