I didn't say that providing a safety net would do that. I said that creating a RIGHT to a share of the output of the collective in lieu of a right to the product of one's own efforts would. I try hard to be definitive and clear. I can't believe that distinction, upon which I have pounded, is not evident.
Here is the problem I have with what you are saying. You seem to think that one's wealth can be seen simply as "the product of one's own efforts." I think that that is an illusion, and that one's wealth is the product of one's own efforts plus the efforts of a multitude of other people and institutions and simple historical chance/individual luck. Disentangling what part belongs to "one's own efforts" and what part to other factors is well nigh impossible in our complex, interdependent world. Your view may have been right in a world of subsistence farming (although the factor of chance is very evident to them), but in our world matters are different. That creates all sorts of problems, because it is obvious that even if my view is true, individuals still have to take responsibility for their own lives. But consider the following paragraph taken from an article that you just posted:
The Bush administration is in negotiations to broaden its $700 billion financial rescue plan to include U.S. auto companies, potentially opening the door to an array of industries to seek federal aid.
Where does responsibility lie? Should the executives/management of these companies that are now eligible to receive federal aid be considered to have "earned" their money by "their own efforts"? Should they be fined for having jeopardized the livelihoods of their employees and the returns of their shareholders? Our methods of compensation have always been dicey, but they seem to me to have become completely absurd over the past few decades, making the very notion of what one "deserves" itself meaningless.
I've spent far too much time on the web today, have to go, will look forward to resuming the conversation later, though. |
