At the start of the
1900s, government at all levels in America claimed about 5 percent of
personal income. A hundred years later, it takes something approaching 40
percentup by a factor of eight. So my first questions to you are these:
Why is this not enough? How much do you want? Fifty percent? Seventy
percent? Do you want all of it? To what extent do you believe a person is
entitled to what he (or she) has earned?
AN OPEN LETTER TO
STATISTS EVERYWHERE
January 18, 2011
by froivinber
Dear Statist Friends:
I know, I know. You’re already objecting to my letter. You don’t like
the label “statist.” You don’t think of yourselves as worshipping
government; rather, you think of yourselves as simply wanting to help
people, with government being your preferred means to achieve what is
usually a very worthy end. “Statist,” you say, is a loaded terma
pejorative that suggests an over-the-top affinity for the state.
Well, let’s wait and see how the term stacks up after you’ve read my
whole letter and answered its questions. Meantime, if you have any doubt
about whether this missive is directed at you, let me clarify to whom I
am writing. If you’re among those many people who spend most of their
time and energy advocating a litany of proposals for expanded government
action, and little or no time recommending offsetting reductions in state
power, then this letter has indeed found its mark.
You clever guys are always coming up with new schemes for government to
do this or that, to address this issue or solve that problem, or fill
some need somewhere. You get us limited-government people bogged down in
the minutiae of how your proposed programs are likely to work (or not
work), and while we’re doing the technical homework you seldom do, you
demonize us as heartless number crunchers who don’t care about
people.
Sometimes we all get so caught up in the particulars that we ignore the
big picture. I propose that we step back for a moment. Put aside your
endless list of things for government to do and focus on the whole
package. I need some thoughtful answers to some questions that maybe,
just maybe, you’ve never thought much about because you’ve been too
wrapped up in the program du jour.
At the start of the 1900s, government at all levels in America claimed
about 5 percent of personal income. A hundred years later, it takes
something approaching 40 percentup by a factor of eight. So my first
questions to you are these: Why is this not enough? How much do you want?
Fifty percent? Seventy percent? Do you want all of it? To what extent do
you believe a person is entitled to what he (or she) has earned?
I want specifics. Like millions of Americans planning for their
retirement or their children’s college education, I need to know. I’ve
already sacrificed a lot of plans to pay your bills, but if you’re aiming
for more, I’m going to have to significantly curtail my charitable
giving, my discretionary spending, my saving for a rainy day, my future
vacations, and perhaps some other worthwhile things.
I know what you’re thinking: “There you go again, you selfish character.
We’re concerned about all the people’s needs and you’re only interested
in your own bank account.” But who is really focused on dollars and cents
here, you or me?
Why is it that if I disagree with your means, you almost always assume I
oppose your ends? I want people to eat well, live long and healthy lives,
get the prescription drugs and health care they need, etc., etc., just
like you. But I happen to think there are more creative and voluntary
ways to get the job done than robbing Peter to pay Paul through the force
of government. Why don’t you show some confidence in your fellow citizens
and assume that they can solve problems without you?
We’re not ignorant and helpless, in spite of your many poorly performing
government schools and our having to scrape by with a little more than
half of what we earn. In fact, give us credit for managing to do some
pretty amazing things even after you take your 40 percent
cutthings like feeding and clothing and housing more people at higher
levels than any socialized society has ever even dreamed of.
This raises a whole series of related questions about how you see the
nature of government and what you’ve learned, if anything, from our
collective experiences with it. I see the ideal government as America’s
founders didin Washington’s words, a “dangerous servant” employing
legalized force for the purpose of preserving individual liberties. As
such, it is charged with deterring violence and fraud and keeping itself
small, limited, and efficient. How can you profess allegiance to peace
and nonviolence and at the same time call for so much forcible
redistribution?
Don’t invoke democracy, unless you’re prepared to explain why mightin
the form of superior numbersmakes right. Of course, I want the governed
to have a big say in whatever government we have, but unlike you I have
no illusions about any act’s being a legitimate function of government if
its political supporters are blessed by 50 percent plus one of those who
bother to show up at the polls. Give me something deeper than that, or
I’ll round up a majority posse to come and rightfully claim whatever we
want of yours.
Why is it that you statists never seem to learn anything about
government? You see almost any shortcoming in the marketplace as a reason
for government to get bigger but you rarely see any shortcoming in
government as a reason for it to get smaller. In fact, I wonder at times
if you are honestly capable of identifying shortcomings of government at
all! Do we really have to give you an encyclopedia of broken promises,
failed programs, and wasted billions to get your attention? Do we have to
recite all the workers’ paradises that never materialized, the flashy
programs that fizzled, the problems government was supposed to solve but
only managed into expensive perpetuity?
Where, by the way, do you think wealth comes from in the first place? I
know you’re fond of collecting it and laundering it through
bureaucracies“feeding the sparrows through the horses” as my grandfather
once put itbut tell me honestly how you think it initially comes into
being. Come on, now. You can say it: private initiative.
I’ve asked a lot of questions here, I know. But you have to
understand that you’re asking an awful lot more in blood, sweat, tears,
and treasure from the rest of us every time you pile on more government
without lightening any of the previous load. If anything I’ve asked
prompts you to rethink your premises and place some new restraints on the
reach of the state, then maybe the statist label doesn’t apply to you. In
which case, you can look forward to devoting more of your energies to
actually solving problems instead of just talking about them, and
liberating people instead of enslaving them.
Sincerely,
Lawrence W. Reed
President, Foundation for Economic Education
(www.fee.org)
(Based on an essay originally published in FEE’s journal, “The Freeman,”
in December 2000
https://fvdb.wordpress.com/2011/01/18/an-open-letter-to-statists-everywhere/
--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
