I often rant about how it’s wrong for the government (or anyone) to use force to take money from one person and give it to another.
One of my biggest gripes against the democrats (and sometimes republicans too) is that it seems like their solution to every problem is to increase taxes and spending, and increase the power and use of force by government to intrude into people’s lives, and I am fundamentally opposed to that.
Yet I realize that there is a need to do something to help those at the bottom of the ladder, who for whatever reason can’t seem to make it on their own.
What can we do?
In the long run, I think that the adoption of libertarian social and economic policies will lead toward a more prosperous society with fewer poor people.
But we still have a problem today.
And even in my libertarian utopia, there may still be a few who just can’t make it.
How can we deal with that?
Many people who don’t know me well probably think that I’m a cold heartless bastard because I oppose government social programs.
Again, it’s not that I am against helping the poor; it’s that I am against the initiation of force (including taxation) to achieve social or political goals.
Use of force creates resentment.
If people are unwilling to help the poor, I think the proper solution is to find a way to change their will, rather than to force them.
Use a carrot, rather than a stick.
Use shame or guilt or compassion to get people to act, but don’t use a gun.
So here’s my idea: pair up the wealthiest and the poorest, one by one.
Pick a person or family in the top 1% by income or wealth and a person or family in the bottom 1% and tell the rich guy “this is your poor person, please help him out.”
Do the same for the people in the 2
nd and 98
th percentile, 3
rd and 97
th percentile, etc.
Ideally they should live near each other and should be encouraged to meet periodically.
Details of the poor person’s life, a sort of biography explaining his history and why he’s poor, should be provided to the rich person.
Neither one should be obligated or compelled to do anything.
Here’s why I think it would work:
1. People feel a much greater sense of compassion toward an individual who they know than toward a statistic.
“A single death is a tragedy, a million deaths is a statistic” Stalin said, and I think that applies to poverty and other problems as well.
If you meet someone, get to know them, learn their story, and know that they have only you to help them out, you will be much more inclined to help them out.
2. The givers will have an incentive to take a personal interest in the receiver’s life, in order to understand the cause of poverty and what can be done about it.
They may give advice, provide education or training, take an interest in “fixing the system”, or whatever else it takes to solve the problem.
They may go far beyond what the welfare system does to help people, because they will have a personal incentive to get this person back on his feet (so they can stop supporting him).
And successful people know what it takes to be successful, so they are in an ideal position to pass on this knowledge to others.
3. The recipients will be more thankful for the help, since it is given to them voluntarily by someone they know, rather than taken as an entitlement from a big faceless system.
They will appreciate it, rather than expecting it and taking it for granted.
4.
I think a lot of wealthy people resent the fact that so much of their money is taken by government to feed the system, and they figure that since they have paid their taxes they have no further obligation to help the poor.
They may even resent the poor who are perceived (often rightfully so) as taking advantage of the system and leaching off of it.
If taxes were reduced and social programs eliminated in favor of this system, that source of resentment would no longer exist.
5. Eliminating a large beaurocracy which is rife with waste and fraud would save lots of money.
If a giver is truly heartless and refuses to help, his name should be published in the newspaper and on a web site.
If a receiver is truly a lazy leach and tries to take advantage of the giver, his name should be published as well.
People should be accountable for their actions, and shame and social pressure can be incredibly powerful forces.
Perhaps both givers and receivers should have an opportunity to post comments or reviews of each other on a public web site.
Clearly this doesn’t solve every problem.
Severely disabled people, for example, may always need support.
But I think this would be a far better system than the one we have today.
I think it would motivate those in power to find real solutions that work, rather than simply raising taxes and wasting more money.
Obviously I don’t have all the details worked out, but my point is to show that there are more creative alternative solutions to many of our problems which do not involve the use of force by government.
What else can we apply this sort of thinking to?
What do you think?
5 comments:
Tas, I always enjoy your creative solutions. I see some benefits and flaws to your system.
Benefit - This system eliminates the bystander effect. Remember the highly publicised stabbing that occurred in the streets of NYC among dozens of onlookers in their homes? The murder took almost an hour, but no one called the police because responsibility was diffused. The same is true with the current aid system. Your system eliminates the bystander effect because no one else will pick up any given person's slack.
Flaw - I think there needs to be an element of choice involved in selecting the aid recipient. I would be compelled to give more money to someone with whom I identify (i.e., non-religious, inquisitive, ect.). The system should be set up in a way that maximizes the distribution of aid.
Flaw - I'm comfortable with using shame as a motivator. Clearly, much, if not all, of my aversion is irrational, and thus should not be considered. Still, I'd like to explore why this is an appropriate incentive.
btw read my friggin blogs!
Edit: I'm *not* comfortable with using shame as a motivator.
I agree, there should be a way to deal with givers and receivers who are incompatible for whatever reason. There should probably be an element of choice on both sides. But these are details to be worked out.
Don't think of it as shame, think of it as social pressure. I think it would be unwise to try to induce shame in order to cause people to act. But in this case, shame would only occur if the rich guy refused to help the poor guy and did not feel fully justified in his refusal to act. If he felt justified in his refusal, no shame would occur. I see nothing wrong with shining light on hypocrisy as a way of inducing people to act. It's far better than using the blunt force of government.
Your blog postings are not very controversial. If you advocate, say, government subsidizing fuel for the alien spacecraft that bring Hello Kitty to earth, I might have something to say!
Don't give me that plop! I know you can come up with something. I feel it in my heart!!!
Maybe it could be like the questionnaire you fill out when applying for a room in the dorms "i would like a non religious and highly motivated homeless person..."
Post a Comment