subject of competition. The first, by Daniel J. Mitchell, addresses the
under-explored subject of competition among governments and the
imperative of federalism. The second, by Alan Sears, speaks of the
pressures being exerted on private, voluntary charity by governments
unhappy with competition in the eleemosynary field. I recommend them
both.
Government "charity's" principal purpose is to purchase political
support. It's been clear since FDR's first term that a politician given
the power to buy votes with tax money will do so until he's been
manacled and shoved into a Black Mariah. This has been one of the most
powerful drivers of the expansion of government at all levels for nearly
a century. It will continue to swell them until it's been put down
violently and permanently. Unfortunately, that happy day appears still
to be far in the future.
For the moment, we must address the disincentives government charity
faces, in hope of intensifying them and so curbing the State's predatory
tendencies. Surely whatever wholesome forms of competition exist should
be encouraged and defended, as well as any disincentives we can erect to
the acceptance of government handouts. But a discriminating eye will be
required; not all such forms are plainly visible, or ethically
acceptable.
Consider the "underground economy:" that sphere of enterprise that pays
no attention to taxation, law, or regulation except what's required to
evade them. There's quite a lot of it these days: in part due to high
levels of taxation and oppressive labor laws; in part due to a desire to
exploit instances of consumer demand that the State has decreed illegal.
Every sort of enterprise practiced there implicitly reduces the State's
opportunities for its forms of "charity." But picking and choosing among
those enterprises is required of a man with any sort of moral code.
For example, tradesman Smith, who deals exclusively in cash, is to be
commended for his insistence on the privacy of his dealings, and for the
discount from "above-ground" rates he can offer to his customers. The
State already gets too much of our money; every extra dollar that flows
to Washington is a dollar too many -- indeed, a dollar that will be used
to tighten our shackles and shorten our fetters. So this method of
employing Smith, who might otherwise be unable to find work, is morally
acceptable, and excellent competition for the State's desire to provide
his sustenance.
But what of contractor Jones, whose low rates are made possible by his
employment of illegal aliens as labor? Leave aside the "American jobs /
jobs Americans won't do" arguments, as they can never be settled to
everyone's satisfaction. Jones is providing an incentive to break the
nation's border control laws. Does it matter how well he treats his
workers, or how low he prices his services? Or is it more relevant that
those illegals are already here, and would otherwise be dependents of
the state? What of the steady increase in minimum wage rates nationwide,
which has made it impossible to hire "legal" labor to do what Jones's
customers need done?
And then we have merchant Davis, who sells heroin and cocaine. Davis
might have no other means of support. His customers might value his
services greatly; indeed, it's odds-on that they do. But a steady
percentage of those customers will turn into addicts, unable thereafter
to choose freely whether or not to patronize him. Some customers will
move outside the law in other ways, as well. And of course, the drug
trade is fraught with violence, in which an active participant of
Davis's sort is likely to be caught sooner or later.
Some alternatives, clearly, are easier to judge than others.
The great political battle of our time is the one to re-confine
government within its Constitutional cage. That's where the big payoffs
are. In the interim, many persons will choose some extra-legal means of
evading the State's attentions and predations. Not all of these are
praiseworthy in and of themselves...but every one of them is a response
to governmental overreach. As such, they can be harnessed rhetorically,
in the argument over the proper sphere of government, and they should be
so harnessed. But we must remember to condemn the negative ones on their
own account; no other stance is morally acceptable, let alone
politically profitable.
No comments:
Post a Comment