ONE of the risks of writing something like this is the danger of duplication. I do believe that I have written something like this, but not precisely this, once before. I believe that it was published in one of my own publications, namely “Analysis and Explanations.” Working on this assumption I feel that it is safe to publish it here. If it were published it was a long time ago, and, I repeat, this is not quite the same, although it deals with the same issue.
A long time ago (but not in a galaxy far away) there was a highly imaginative book entitled Defending the Indefensible. It consisted of a series of essays each one taking as absolutist a libertarian position on many issues, and “defended” (as much as possible) the free choice/trade position.
One of the defended issues was the speculator. The conceit used was a city under siege during war. The speculator buys up all the food and then, as supplies become scarce, he sells them back to his fellow citizens. The normal reaction to this is disgust and lynching. I am not defending the speculator, but I am going to defend something very similar.
Consider the same city under siege and the bread is running out. The rulers can give everyone one half of a loaf a day, or they can give the soldiers two loafs a day. I add that one half of a loaf is not enough to live on, indefinitely. And it is not enough to provided energy to undertake heavy exertions. Two loafs is enough to do both. Upon even momentary analysis the choice is clear. Without strong and well-fed soldiers the city will fall. However, if the soldiers can still defend the walls then, maybe, they can prevent the enemy from taking the city. If victory and survival are priorities then the rulers will feed only the soldiers… and let the children starve.
The emotional repulsion to this rationality comes also from the desire for equality. Most of you feel that people should “fairly” share the collective burdens. Right? I hope that you have noticed that this is exactly what the current administration and the “Occupy Wall Street” movement want. They want the soldiers to be weak(er), and the rich to be poor(er).
In times of peace and prosperity this foolish emotional inclination towards equality may be tolerated, or even (in theory only) embraced. However, in times of stress, want and crisis the stronger need to be made stronger, even if at the expense of the weaker. And this means that the rich, namely those who have made a lot of money, and who are greedily trying to get more, should have their loafs increased. This means that their taxes should be reduced. That is, they should if the city residents want things to get better.
Without going into detailed economic reality, simply consider it in this way. Which is more likely to happen? An “extra” $100 given in one sum to a businessman yields a profit (and thus increases prosperity. The same $100 yields the any general prosperity if it is given in 50 cents payments to 200 poor people. Of course, no political leader will defend the rich. Most people would rather die than win, if it means that others profit.
How is that for defending the indefensible?
New plays by Oscar Wilde are available on Amazon and Lulu.com (Who’s Afraid of a Long Day’s Journey into the Drawing Room?).
Comments