[Jason Vines]

For a seminar at the Cato Institute tomorrow, I have just read a sharp essay George Orwell wrote in 1946, "Politics and the English Language." In the essay, Orwell laments the devolution of English into a morass of fuzzy imprecision. Orwell links this devolution to political hackery, which utilizes euphemisms for "the defense of the indefensible."

Some excerpts:

George Orwell said:

Many political words are similarly abused. The word Fascism has now no meaning except in so far as it signifies "something not desirable." The words democracy, socialism, freedom, patriotic, realistic, justice have each of them several different meanings which cannot be reconciled with one another. In the case of a word like democracy, not only is there no agreed definition, but the attempt to make one is resisted from all sides. It is almost universally felt that when we call a country democratic we are praising it: consequently the defenders of every kind of regime claim that it is a democracy, and fear that they might have to stop using that word if it were tied down to any one meaning. Words of this kind are often used in a consciously dishonest way. That is, the person who uses them has his own private definition, but allows his hearer to think he means something quite different. Statements like Marshal P?tain was a true patriot, The Soviet press is the freest in the world, The Catholic Church is opposed to persecution, are almost always made with intent to deceive. Other words used in variable meanings, in most cases more or less dishonestly, are: class, totalitarian, science, progressive, reactionary, bourgeois, equality.

George Orwell said:

In our time it is broadly true that political writing is bad writing. Where it is not true, it will generally be found that the writer is some kind of rebel, expressing his private opinions and not a "party line." Orthodoxy, of whatever color, seems to demand a lifeless, imitative style. The political dialects to be found in pamphlets, leading articles, manifestoes, White papers and the speeches of undersecretaries do, of course, vary from party to party, but they are all alike in that one almost never finds in them a fresh, vivid, homemade turn of speech. When one watches some tired hack on the platform mechanically repeating the familiar phrases -- bestial atrocities, iron heel, bloodstained tyranny, free peoples of the world, stand shoulder to shoulder -- one often has a curious feeling that one is not watching a live human being but some kind of dummy: a feeling which suddenly becomes stronger at moments when the light catches the speaker's spectacles and turns them into blank discs which seem to have no eyes behind them. And this is not altogether fanciful. A speaker who uses that kind of phraseology has gone some distance toward turning himself into a machine. The appropriate noises are coming out of his larynx, but his brain is not involved as it would be if he were choosing his words for himself. If the speech he is making is one that he is accustomed to make over and over again, he may be almost unconscious of what he is saying, as one is when one utters the responses in church. And this reduced state of consciousness, if not indispensable, is at any rate favorable to political conformity.

For Orwell, hazy writing reflects orthodoxy substituting for thought.

We see this as much today as in Orwell's time. Think of hot political phrases:

• Collateral damage. Impression: Some buildings collapsed and roads buckled. Reality: Innocent civilians died horribly from fire and shrapnel.
  
• A woman's right to choose. A woman cannot exercise free will if she cannot terminate a life-form at her desire.
  
• Rights of the unborn. Can anyone say what exact rights the "unborn" have?
  
• Gun control. This means anything from, I can't use an M16, to, I can't use guns at all. In other words, it can mean anything, so it means nothing.
  
• Renewable energy. We often don't know specifically to what this refers, but it makes us happy!
  
• Democracy. "Democracy" signifies the rule of whomever can demogogue together the biggest mob. Aristotle considered democracy one of his bad forms of government, and classical liberals such as the Founding Fathers opposed democracy. But today, "democracy" has become a catchall term for any "good" society, regardless of its mode of government.
  
• Making the world safe for democracy. By this, we mean invading countries and killing people. ("War is peace.")

Today, when doublespeak from our elected and nonelected officials shrills at an unprecedented pitch, we need to pay attention to Orwell's "Politics and the English Language."

We can stop the degradation of public discourse by writing more precisely and reading more carefully.

[Bondo]

On the whole, I'm against regulating word use, although it means that you have to be vigilant regarding what is actually being said. "Freedom," in particular, is coming under increasing attack.

other examples: "war on terror."
Extraordinary rendition
Bush had a really fancy word for torture, but I forget what it was. And the concept of torture itself has been refined.
Animal House
Death Tax
Insisting we're not giving "amnesty" to illegal immigrants.

The military has been coming up with some real doozies lately. Oh and when Bush says he's a "uniter" or that we're "working together" that has historically meant that people do what he says.

And then there are subcultures which are vibrant centers of word generation. With their blings and izzles and whatever that can be related, especially if they put a new meaning on an existing word. Pimp is a fairly current example.

[Sim]

Another rather Orwellian term is the word "freedom". Some people use it as euphemism to describe the worst kinds of exploitation, wage slavery, social hardship and advocacy of unlimited private power for big business, used to oppress the poor and weak.

Especially libertarians use the word "freedom" that way, painting social conditions which are not much better than the oppression in Nazi Germany or the USSR as a good thing, when they advocate a hyper-capitalistic dictatorship of the rich over the poor, by denouncing social democratic programs which have the goal of improving an equality of chances.

This post has been edited by Sim: 11 April 2007 - 10:12 AM

[Jason Vines]

Sim, on Apr 11 2007, 11:09 AM, said:

Another rather Orwellian term is the word "freedom".

Orwell warned against using fuzzy language without definite meaning. Under that criterion, "freedom," as libertarians use the word, doesn't qualify for the label "Orwellian." Classical liberals know exactly what freedom means:

• Security in one's property, which John Locke defined as "lives, liberties, and estates." So a free person can live without fear of people--either individually or collectively through government--trying to kill him or steal his possessions. Now, the question arises, what is liberty?
  
• Liberty entails a person's ability to do whatever he wants without interference from other people. The Declaration of the Rights of Man and Citizen, a French classical liberal document upon which American ambassador to France Thomas Jefferson exerted influence, said about liberty: "Liberty consists in the freedom to do everything which injures no one else; hence the exercise of the natural rights of each man has no limits except those which assure to the other members of the society the enjoyment of the same rights." So, a free person can do anything he wishes that doesn't curtail anyone else's freedom.

To a libertarian, the paragon of a free society does not tolerate a Hobbesian state of nature wherein no government exists to limit any behavior. Indeed, for libertarians, any free society must have a government that vigorously protects Locke-ian property rights.

(Additionally, only the very few anarcho-capitalists would embrace the world of Jennifer Government.)

Sim said:

Some people use it as euphemism to describe the worst kinds of exploitation

What do you mean by "exploitation"? Can you cite any examples of "exploitation" libertarians supposedly tolerate, if not love?

Sim said:

wage slavery

That's a self-contradictory term, like "square circle" or "omnipotent being." A slave is a person who, through forcible coercion, must toil without compensation. Someone who earns a wage in a capitalist economy, though, freely contracts to do so and receives compensation for the work he does.

Sim said:

social hardship

What is "social hardship"?

Sim said:

advocacy of unlimited private power for big business

Not a libertarian in the world advocates any such thing.

Sim said:

Especially libertarians use the word "freedom" that way, painting social conditions which are not much better than the oppression in Nazi Germany or the USSR as a good thing

Do you care to justify this claim?

Sim said:

by denouncing social democratic programs which have the goal of improving an equality of chances.

People are different, so even in a Harrison Bergeron world, "equality of chances" would constitute a chimera.

Judging by your phrasing--"social democratic programs which have the goal of improving an equality of chances" instead of "social democratic programs which achieve an equality of chances"--I think you realize equality of chances is a hopeless dream.

How could you condemn libertarians because they don't believe the government should knowingly embark on quixotic adventures?

[Sim]

Jason Vines, on Apr 11 2007, 06:31 PM, said:

Orwell warned against using fuzzy language without definite meaning. Under that criterion, "freedom," as libertarians use the word, doesn't qualify for the label "Orwellian." Classical liberals know exactly what freedom means:

• Security in one's property, which John Locke defined as "lives, liberties, and estates." So a free person can live without fear of people--either individually or collectively through government--trying to kill him or steal his possessions. Now, the question arises, what is liberty?
  
• Liberty entails a person's ability to do whatever he wants without interference from other people. The Declaration of the Rights of Man and Citizen, a French classical liberal document upon which American ambassador to France Thomas Jefferson exerted influence, said about liberty: "Liberty consists in the freedom to do everything which injures no one else; hence the exercise of the natural rights of each man has no limits except those which assure to the other members of the society the enjoyment of the same rights." So, a free person can do anything he wishes that doesn't curtail anyone else's freedom.

To a libertarian, the paragon of a free society does not tolerate a Hobbesian state of nature wherein no government exists to limit any behavior. Indeed, for libertarians, any free society must have a government that vigorously protects Locke-ian property rights.

As you say it: "Freedom" for libertarians only means "protection from the government". That private people, poverty, and capitalism can endanger your freedom just as much as the government is deliberately ignored. But poor people are not free, they are chained. When you are poor, maybe you have some freedom on the paper, but you will not be able to use it, ever.

Example: When someone has to work 12h/day to make a living, there is no time left for political engagement, and thus this person has no freedom of participating in politics. The basic necessities of life, as well as the capitalistic system, force these people out of basic civil rights, much like government interference would force them out of civil rights in totalitarian systems.

Another example: When you are so poor you cannot afford good education, because the education system is privately organized according to a capitalist order, your right on the paper on education is worth nothing. You will never be able to use it, much as if the state denied you education by law.

The libertarian use of the word "freedom" is Orwellian, because it is just their idea of "protection of property" that creates poverty for many, and thus the worst kind of oppression. There is no freedom without a certain redistribution of wealth to ease poverty and exploitation.

Quote

(Additionally, only the very few anarcho-capitalists would embrace the world of Jennifer Government.)

Yet basically all libertarians use the euphemism "freedom" when they oppose measures to reduce poverty, which actually have the goal of creating more freedom -- because their idea of "freedom" is one-sidedly focused on freedom from oppression by the state and protection of private property. That is why they ignore oppression due to material inequality, and even support this oppression, or an increase of this oppression, using the word "freedom".

Quote

What do you mean by "exploitation"? Can you cite any examples of "exploitation" libertarians supposedly tolerate, if not love?

Yes: For example, underpaid jobs (no minimum wage). No security for the employee/worker, such as dismissal protection, right on holiday, etc pp. No social programs to ease poverty, which would increase freedom.

I don't say libertarians "love" this kind of exploitation. They just ignore the consequences and the lack of freedom that arises from these conditions, because they have a one-sided understanding of the word "freedom". I don't doubt they have the best intentions.

Quote

That's a self-contradictory term, like "square circle" or "omnipotent being." A slave is a person who, through forcible coercion, must toil without compensation. Someone who earns a wage in a capitalist economy, though, freely contracts to do so and receives compensation for the work he does.

Yes, this term certainly is polemic. But some jobs are underpaid. Just think of the exploitation of illegal immigrants who do hard farm work for $1/hour, without health ensurance or any kind of labour protection. Wages like that are almost like slavery. Maybe actual slaves were even more free, materially, because they possibly got better food from their owners, and more regularly, and possibly better medical treatment, than today's "wage slaves" can buy from this "wage".

The only difference to actual slavery is that the problem for the slave/ respectively worker, was shifted from a legal level (legal slavery) to a collective social problem of society (extreme material inequality). Don't get me wrong, I think this shift already was a huge progress. But when you really advocate "freedom", you cannot stop here.

Quote

What is "social hardship"?

If you don't like that word, then let's use the word "poverty". IIRC, a common, widely accepted definition of poverty says "poor is he who has an income of less than 25% of X, while X is the average income in that country".

Quote

Not a libertarian in the world advocates any such thing.

Ok, sorry. I mean "almost unlimited". At least "free" from social programs.

Quote

Do you care to justify this claim?

Ok: Just look at the statistics dealing with poverty-connected problems in society. You'll see that poverty is a big problem with far-reaching consequences. Some may argue that a society that even denies some people the basic necessities such as food and shelter is not any better than a society with massive governmental totalitarist control.

What difference does it make when you cannot participate in politics, for example, because your labour conditions in the capitalist system keep you from using this right, compared to a system where the government explicitly denies you this right, by law? None.

What difference does it make if the government explicitly denies a certain social group the right on education, by law, or if they simply cannot use this right because they cannot afford education? None.

Quote

People are different, so even in a Harrison Bergeron world, "equality of chances" would constitute a chimera.

I said "equality of chances", not "equality". The state neither is capable, nor ought to implement total equality. But it at least should do everything it's capable of in order to create a situation where efforts and hard work pay off and people have a chance of achieving, when they are willing to work for it.

Quote

Judging by your phrasing--"social democratic programs which have the goal of improving an equality of chances" instead of "social democratic programs which achieve an equality of chances"--I think you realize equality of chances is a hopeless dream.

No. I think we can at least approximate this dream with social democratic programs.

Again, you are arguing "we cannot eliminate the problem to 100%, so why bother doing anything against it at all?" -- an obviously flawed view. Maybe social democratic programs cannot eliminate the problem of poverty entirely, but I'd be happy enough if it would eliminate 50% or 70% or 90% of the problem, and this percentage would be reason enough to support this idea.

If politicians only took measures which will eliminate a certain problem to 100%, but restrained from any measure that will not eliminate the problem all together, but only reduce it -- there would not be much left for politicians to do at all.

Quote

How could you condemn libertarians because they don't believe the government should knowingly embark on quixotic adventures?

In many places of the world, there are certain social democratic programs enacted that were very helpful at reducing poverty, and thus increasing freedom. This is why I wouldn't call them "adventures", despite of all the waste and inefficiency that sometimes comes with them.

This post has been edited by Sim: 13 April 2007 - 09:26 AM

[Jason Vines]

LOL, I spent hours crafting a reply, only to lose everything because I closed the Firefox tab.

I'll have to start writing my responses in an external editor.

Edit: I am almost done reconstructing my response. I will finish and post it tomorrow night.

This post has been edited by Jason Vines: 16 April 2007 - 11:09 PM
Reason for edit: Status update.

[Jason Vines]

Okay, let's try this again.

Sim said:

As you say it: "Freedom" for libertarians only means "protection from the government".

I say no such thing. Let me emphasize some parts of what I wrote:

"So a free person can live without fear of people--either individually or collectively through government--trying to kill him or steal his possessions."

"Liberty entails a person's ability to do whatever he wants without interference from other people."

"To a libertarian, the paragon of a free society does not tolerate a Hobbesian state of nature wherein no government exists to limit any behavior."

Sim said:

But poor people are not free, they are chained. When you are poor, maybe you have some freedom on the paper, but you will not be able to use it, ever.

That cannot be true, considering:

• Poor people can vote. Granted, according to the US Census Bureau, only 36.5 percent of voting-age Americans with family incomes below $10,000 participated in the November 2004 election, whereas 60+ percent of voting-age Americans with family incomes above $40,000 participated. One could argue, though, much of the disparity in turnout stems from the occurrence of American elections on workdays, when poor people could not afford to take the time to vote. That is not an economic problem, though, but a political one. And it would vanish if Election Day became a federal holiday or moved to the weekend.
  
• Poor people enjoy freedom of religion, freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, freedom to protest, security in their estates and persons, and all the other rights and liberties in the Bill of Rights and other constitutional amendments.

Sim said:

Example: When someone has to work 12h/day to make a living, there is no time left for political engagement, and thus this person has no freedom of participating in politics.

Actually, middle- and upper-class Americans work long hours and hold multiple jobs to a greater extent than lower-class Americans do.

As MSNBC reports:

MSNBC said:

Still, longer hours are a reality for many Americans. Economist Peter Kuhn at the University of California, Santa Barbara, finds greater numbers of men now work over 50 hours a week ? most of them highly educated, well paid, white-collar workers. Though numbers leveled off in the 1990s, one-fifth of American men work those hours, up significantly from 25 years ago. At the same time, most get bigger salaries and bonuses, part of what Kuhn calls "the incentivization of white-collar work": more compensation for longer hours and more job commitment, with implied penalties if you don't give your all.

Indeed, that pressure to perform may have flipped the hourly balance. "It used to be that when you got a college degree you could get a white-collar job and take it easy," Kuhn says. "It's just the opposite now. It's blue-collar folks who have more time for leisure."

(Emphasis mine.)

And, as Olaf Gersemann reveals in "Bowling with the Truth":

Olaf Gersemann said:

Also ignored is that only one-in-four multiple jobholders in America says he actually needed more than one job to meet expenses or pay off debt. This point is reinforced by the fact that the higher your formal education, the more likely you are to take a second job. Among Americans with a Master's degree or a Ph.D., multiple jobholding is almost three times as common as it is among high school dropouts.

(Emphasis mine.)

Even as many Americans are choosing to toil more for higher incomes, the Seattle Times indicates lower-class Americans tend to work "normal" 9-to-5 jobs:

Seattle Times said:

Hourly workers, who must by law be paid time-and-a-half for overtime, tend to work about 40 hours a week, just as they did in the '70s.

Despite working more hours and holding more jobs than their poorer counterparts, wealthier Americans still vote more, as the Census Bureau data shows, and engage in more civic activity, as the Washington Post avers.

So your argument fails twice, both in its portraiture of the poor person slaving away more than eight hours a day, and in its assertion working more than standard hours would affect political participation in any event.

Sim said:

The basic necessities of life, as well as the capitalistic system, force these people out of basic civil rights, much like government interference would force them out of civil rights in totalitarian systems.

You have not shown that.

Sim said:

Another example: When you are so poor you cannot afford good education, because the education system is privately organized according to a capitalist order, your right on the paper on education is worth nothing. You will never be able to use it, much as if the state denied you education by law.

A study from the Cato Institute, "Private Education is Good for the Poor: A Study of Private Schools Serving the Poor in Low-Income Countries," demonstrates otherwise.

Sim said:

The libertarian use of the word "freedom" is Orwellian, because it is just their idea of "protection of property" that creates poverty for many

If that is true, then why are Americans, who inhabit one of the most economically liberal countries on the planet, on average wealthier than Europeans, who live in social democratic nations? To borrow again from Gersemann:

Olaf Gersemann said:

Adjusted for price level difference, the per-capita income in America in 2003 was 36 percent higher than in France and 42 percent higher than in Germany.

But those numbers, according to critics like Sommer, are simple averages and, therefore, hide the fact that the U.S. is becoming a bipolar society with a few well-to-do and lots of low-income families--and no middle class in between.

That criticism is incorrect, though, according to Cato Institute senior fellow Daniel Griswold in "Middle Class Squeeze?":

Daniel Griswold said:

If we define the middle class as households earning between $35,000 and $75,000 a year, the middle class in America remains a huge demographic group. According to the Census report, Table A-1, the middle class made up 33.3 percent of U.S. households in 2005. That share is indeed somewhat smaller than in 1980, when 38.2 percent of households earned between $35,000 and $75,000 a year in real (inflation-adjusted) 2005 dollars.

Aha, so the middle class really is shrinking if not exactly disappearing, the alarmists might respond. But the Census numbers also show that over the past 25 years, the share of U.S. households earning less than $35,000 a year has also shrunk, from 44.5 percent in 1980 to 38.4 percent in 2005. Meanwhile, the share of households earning more than $75,000 a year has jumped from 17.4 percent to 28.3 percent.

In other words, if the middle class in America has shrunk, it is only because so many formerly middle-class households have moved to the upper-income brackets, while a significant number of households previously in the lower brackets have moved up to the middle class and beyond.

If libertarian economic policies create poverty, then Americans shouldn't be wealthier than Europeans and getting richer still.

Sim said:

That is why they ignore oppression due to material inequality

No, they do not. Libertarians believe classical liberalism in both economics and politics is the best way to address material scarcity and inequality. Historical evidence and present reality confirm that; medieval feudalism, 17th-18th century mercantilism, 19th century protectionism, and 20th century communism and social democracy have never achieved the mass prosperity and class dynamism of free market capitalism. This isn't to say capitalism will forever remain the best economic system, just that it's better than the extant alternatives.

Sim said:

Yes: For example, underpaid jobs

By what objective standard, other than the laws of supply and demand, could you deem a job "underpaid"? You've said on TrekWeb how much people make should reflect the value of the products they make or services they provide for their employers. But wages do reflect that in the form of raises and bonuses for productive employees.

Sim said:

no minimum wage

Minimum wage laws force many individuals out of work. Think about it: If a particular job is worth a certain amount to an employer, but the government forces the employer to pay above that amount to anyone he hires for that job, then the employer is more likely not to fill that job at all. Doing so wouldn't be the worth the expense to him.

So by setting a minimum wage, government obliterates altogether the wages of thousands, if not millions, of people. Given that, I don't see how you could call lack of a minimum wage "exploitation." I'd call it good economic sense to avoid unemployment, certainly a worse problem than wages some people arbitrarily consider too low.

Sim said:

No security for the employee/worker, such as dismissal protection, right on holiday, etc pp.

Europe showcases the results of such "security": Since employers have difficulty firing workers, they are reluctant to take chances with inexperienced or unskilled people. Amongst the consequences of this are high unemployment, especially for the young and undereducated. (Of course, that means less competition for people who already have cushy jobs. )

Sim said:

Just think of the exploitation of illegal immigrants who do hard farm work for $1/hour, without health ensurance or any kind of labour protection.

And yet, such a job is better than anything the illegal immigrants could get back home, prompting them to risk their very lives sneaking into this country. I don't see how anything other than negative externalities of mutually beneficial economic transactions should concern anyone but the parties involved.

In any case, the wages and benefits of illegal immigrants are artificially low because if they demand too much, they risk enraging people who might report them to the government. Letting Mexicans work here legally, without harassment from the government, would allow them greater freedom to seek better treatment.

Sim said:

IIRC, a common, widely accepted definition of poverty says "poor is he who has an income of less than 25% of X, while X is the average income in that country".

So he might live like a king in comparison to the average person in Africa. Is calling such a person "poor" appropriate? I think it helps us ignore the person is much better off than he would be almost anywhere else on the globe.

Sim said:

Some may argue that a society that even denies some people the basic necessities such as food and shelter is not any better than a society with massive governmental totalitarist control.

Germany has homeless people, just as the United States does. I presume you are therefore willing to call your home country "not any better than a society with massive governmental totalitarist control" because it "denies some people the basic necessities such as food and shelter."

Sim said:

I said "equality of chances", not "equality". The state neither is capable, nor ought to implement total equality. But it at least should do everything it's capable of in order to create a situation where efforts and hard work pay off and people have a chance of achieving, when they are willing to work for it.

That describes a classical liberal state more than anything else. Europeans living in social democratic nations, after all, are poorer than Americans and, because of their high unemployment rates, have more difficulty finding work.

As someone, possibly Thomas Paine or Thomas Jefferson, once said, "That government is best which governs least."

Sim said:

Again, you are arguing "we cannot eliminate the problem to 100%, so why bother doing anything against it at all?" -- an obviously flawed view. Maybe social democratic programs cannot eliminate the problem of poverty entirely, but I'd be happy enough if it would eliminate 50% or 70% or 90% of the problem, and this percentage would be reason enough to support this idea.

When better ways exist to approach the problem, then yes, I think the criticism that something offers chimeric dreams more than concrete results is a legitimate one.

Sim said:

If politicians only took measures which will eliminate a certain problem to 100%, but restrained from any measure that will not eliminate the problem all together, but only reduce it -- there would not be much left for politicians to do at all.

I have no problem with that!

[Sim]

Jason Vines, on Apr 18 2007, 03:44 AM, said:

Okay, let's try this again.

Must have be too annoying ... I'm glad you finally made it.

Quote

I say no such thing. Let me emphasize some parts of what I wrote:

"So a free person can live without fear of people--either individually or collectively through government--trying to kill him or steal his possessions."

"Liberty entails a person's ability to do whatever he wants without interference from other people."

"To a libertarian, the paragon of a free society does not tolerate a Hobbesian state of nature wherein no government exists to limit any behavior."

Ok, but this definition does not take into account the threat to freedom posed by inequality, or, in extreme cases, poverty. On the contrary: It even defends this tyranny of society on material fields, by over-emphasizing the protection of private property.

Quote

That cannot be true, considering:

• Poor people can vote. Granted, according to the US Census Bureau, only 36.5 percent of voting-age Americans with family incomes below $10,000 participated in the November 2004 election, whereas 60+ percent of voting-age Americans with family incomes above $40,000 participated. One could argue, though, much of the disparity in turnout stems from the occurrence of American elections on workdays, when poor people could not afford to take the time to vote. That is not an economic problem, though, but a political one. And it would vanish if Election Day became a federal holiday or moved to the weekend.
  
• Poor people enjoy freedom of religion, freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, freedom to protest, security in their estates and persons, and all the other rights and liberties in the Bill of Rights and other constitutional amendments.

I was talking about the right to engage in politics, not just the right to vote. If you have to work in three McJobs, maybe 12 hours per day, and then have to raise kids as well, there is not much time left to join a party, or candidate for a political office -- or even to inform yourself properly, through news and education.

It's really simple: When you don't have enough free time on your hands, because basic necessities of life take it from you, your freedom is limited already.

Quote

Actually, middle- and upper-class Americans work long hours and hold multiple jobs to a greater extent than lower-class Americans do.

But the difference is: They *chose* to do that, they are not forced to. But poor people are *forced* to work that long in many cases, if they want to make enough money to make a living, to feed their kids, or to pay for health ensurance (or doctors, if they are not in an ensurance).

These people take additional jobs for more luxury, while some people do it for survival. I am not sure how many that are, but poverty certainly is a problem in America.

Quote

So your argument fails twice, both in its portraiture of the poor person slaving away more than eight hours a day, and in its assertion working more than standard hours would affect political participation in any event.

As I've explained, this is not the case.

Quote

You have not shown that.

Well I don't really need to explain to you how hard life is for some poor people. They are not concerned with the problem how to maintain or enlarge an even higher level of luxury, but are going through massive hardship in order to even survive.

I'm sure I don't need to dig up according reports from the view of such people, because I think your imagination suffices to understand what I'm talking about.

Quote

A study from the Cato Institute, "Private Education is Good for the Poor: A Study of Private Schools Serving the Poor in Low-Income Countries," demonstrates otherwise.

This study does not even answer the question how many children from very poor people actually get any education at all, so the answers presented in this study don't say anything about my point. The only point it makes is that education in private schools is better than in public schools, and that some of these schools offer special programs for the poor.

Quote

If that is true, then why are Americans, who inhabit one of the most economically liberal countries on the planet, on average wealthier than Europeans, who live in social democratic nations? To borrow again from Gersemann:

Olaf Gersemann said:

Adjusted for price level difference, the per-capita income in America in 2003 was 36 percent higher than in France and 42 percent higher than in Germany.

The answer is simple: The average of wealth does not say anything about the distribution of that wealth, or the amount of poverty.

I believe easing poverty is a higher goal than improving the average wealth, while increasing inequality.

Quote

But those numbers, according to critics like Sommer, are simple averages and, therefore, hide the fact that the U.S. is becoming a bipolar society with a few well-to-do and lots of low-income families--and no middle class in between.

That criticism is incorrect, though, according to Cato Institute senior fellow Daniel Griswold in "Middle Class Squeeze?":

Daniel Griswold said:

If we define the middle class as households earning between $35,000 and $75,000 a year, the middle class in America remains a huge demographic group. According to the Census report, Table A-1, the middle class made up 33.3 percent of U.S. households in 2005. That share is indeed somewhat smaller than in 1980, when 38.2 percent of households earned between $35,000 and $75,000 a year in real (inflation-adjusted) 2005 dollars.

Aha, so the middle class really is shrinking if not exactly disappearing, the alarmists might respond. But the Census numbers also show that over the past 25 years, the share of U.S. households earning less than $35,000 a year has also shrunk, from 44.5 percent in 1980 to 38.4 percent in 2005. Meanwhile, the share of households earning more than $75,000 a year has jumped from 17.4 percent to 28.3 percent.

In other words, if the middle class in America has shrunk, it is only because so many formerly middle-class households have moved to the upper-income brackets, while a significant number of households previously in the lower brackets have moved up to the middle class and beyond.

If libertarian economic policies create poverty, then Americans shouldn't be wealthier than Europeans and getting richer still.

I'm not expert enough to rebutt these statistics; but I'm sure they are biased. Whenever I read about other studies, I found that it is generally accepted that inequality in America is considerably higher than in most European countries.

And while I admit this is an ad-hominem argument, and thus is not suited to falsify your claims, I'd say that it is no wonder an institute with the declared ideological goal of advancing free-market ideology would come to such conclusions, through selective choice of data; much like you would expect government reports to downplay state inefficiency, or neo-con studies to emphasize the positive effects of the Iraq invasion.

Quote

No, they do not. Libertarians believe classical liberalism in both economics and politics is the best way to address material scarcity and inequality. Historical evidence and present reality confirm that; medieval feudalism, 17th-18th century mercantilism, 19th century protectionism, and 20th century communism and social democracy have never achieved the mass prosperity and class dynamism of free market capitalism. This isn't to say capitalism will forever remain the best economic system, just that it's better than the extant alternatives.

I beg to differ. The West-German "social economy market" for example was both, economically very efficient and succesful, and very social at the same time, creating more equality than less social models.

This said, this German model is not suited any longer under the new conditions of globalization: it has to be modified, and I don't think it has to be replaced by a much more capitalist model. Countries like the Netherlands or Sweden have proven that extensive social welfare is not opposed to economic prosperity.

Quote

By what objective standard, other than the laws of supply and demand, could you deem a job "underpaid"? You've said on TrekWeb how much people make should reflect the value of the products they make or services they provide for their employers. But wages do reflect that in the form of raises and bonuses for productive employees.

I'm no Marxist, which is why I wouldn't want to change the free market principle that a job is only worth as much as the market determines. But I think models have to be found to compensate these low-paid workers: Be it a kind of "combination wage model", where the state pays additional money to the employer, or a "negative income tax" .

I'm not sure how to determine how high such an additional salary should be, because I'm no expert on that matter. But it should be made sure that every job brings enough money to make a living.

Quote

Minimum wage laws force many individuals out of work. Think about it: If a particular job is worth a certain amount to an employer, but the government forces the employer to pay above that amount to anyone he hires for that job, then the employer is more likely not to fill that job at all. Doing so wouldn't be the worth the expense to him.

So by setting a minimum wage, government obliterates altogether the wages of thousands, if not millions, of people. Given that, I don't see how you could call lack of a minimum wage "exploitation." I'd call it good economic sense to avoid unemployment, certainly a worse problem than wages some people arbitrarily consider too low.

Agreed; which is why I'd consider alternatives to minimum wages, such as mentioned above.

Quote

Europe showcases the results of such "security": Since employers have difficulty firing workers, they are reluctant to take chances with inexperienced or unskilled people. Amongst the consequences of this are high unemployment, especially for the young and undereducated. (Of course, that means less competition for people who already have cushy jobs. )

Yes, that is the bad side of such regulations. It is a matter of weighing one evil against the other ... the topic has to be scientifically examined thoroughly, before one can draw a line and decide which evil is worse: Massive insecurity for the employees, or the negative effects on the economy and the job market.

Quote

And yet, such a job is better than anything the illegal immigrants could get back home, prompting them to risk their very lives sneaking into this country. I don't see how anything other than negative externalities of mutually beneficial economic transactions should concern anyone but the parties involved.

In any case, the wages and benefits of illegal immigrants are artificially low because if they demand too much, they risk enraging people who might report them to the government. Letting Mexicans work here legally, without harassment from the government, would allow them greater freedom to seek better treatment.

Agreed. But this problem is not limited to illegals; there are even many legal citizens who suffer from horrible work conditions, or underpaid jobs.

Quote

So he might live like a king in comparison to the average person in Africa. Is calling such a person "poor" appropriate? I think it helps us ignore the person is much better off than he would be almost anywhere else on the globe.

But poverty is a matter of equality: You are only poor in comparison to your fellow countrymen. When inequality is so extreme that there are many poor people, according to this definition, it means something is going wrong in the country, because it allows such massive inequality.

In generally poor countries, on the other hand, there is no wealth which could be distributed differently, in order to solve the poverty problem.

Quote

Germany has homeless people, just as the United States does. I presume you are therefore willing to call your home country "not any better than a society with massive governmental totalitarist control" because it "denies some people the basic necessities such as food and shelter."

In theory, every homeless here has the right on social welfare. Those who end up homeless are basically those who are even incapable of enregistering for social welfare -- mostly alcoholics, drug addicts or mentally ill people (who were not discovered and sent into hospitals, or who escaped from them, refusing treatment there). People who don't even manage the simple task of taking money from the state.

There is only so much a state can do, like at least offering money -- running behind all people who need that money, but don't take it, would be asked too much (and yet, there are many social workers).

That is why I'd say at least offering that money is good enough.

Quote

That describes a classical liberal state more than anything else. Europeans living in social democratic nations, after all, are poorer than Americans and, because of their high unemployment rates, have more difficulty finding work.

I don't think people here are generally poorer, as the *average* numbers suggest: There is less inequality, which means more people are not poor here.

Unemployment indeed is a problem, and I agree that we need a little less state here. But I don't question the idea of social welfare systems in general; a little streamlining of these systems would do it.

And by the way, economic growth last year is higher in Germany than in the US!

Quote

As someone, possibly Thomas Paine or Thomas Jefferson, once said, "That government is best which governs least."

I'd agree with that, on some fields. On other fields, I'd say less government means less freedom.

Quote

When better ways exist to approach the problem, then yes, I think the criticism that something offers chimeric dreams more than concrete results is a legitimate one.

I don't think capitalism, or libertarian ideology, offers sufficient solutions to the problems of poverty and inequality; much like socialism has neither, as history has shown. The answer has to be: Let's drop ideology, and get pragmatic -- when more state helps solving a problem, let's not block it for ideological reasons. And when more economic liberty offers a solution, let's use it and not block it because of ideological reasons.

And with the same token, I could tell you: Liberty, as you define it, is just an ideal. It will never be achieved completely. So why do we even bother fighting for liberty at all?

[Sam Cogley]

Yes. America is more unequal than say...France, where "undesirable" immigrants are shoved off into ghetto suburbs without the opportunity to get a good education or a good job. Sure.

[Sim]

Sam Cogley, on Apr 29 2007, 07:48 PM, said:

Yes. America is more unequal than say...France, where "undesirable" immigrants are shoved off into ghetto suburbs without the opportunity to get a good education or a good job. Sure.

Well I know it's part of the American self-awareness to look down on France, and to feel ultimately superior to these cheese-eating surrender monkeys ... but in fact, equality is indeed better in France than America, despite the serious problems France is facing regarding the integration of their immigrants.

At least according to a classification in the "Le Monde Atlas of Globalization", regarding a ranking of equality:

Countries like Sweden, Finland, Netherlands and Germany are in category #1 (most equality); Britain, France, Italy, Poland and others are on #2 and the USA are in category #3 ... many less developed countries are scoring much worse, of course.

[Jason Vines]

Sim, in your reply to my last post, you're essentially saying you can't prove your points, but you believe them, anyway. A word exists to describe that: faith. Since we've now left behind rational discussion in favor of religious conviction, I see no point in continuing the debate. We'll just have to agree to disagree on some of the points we've discussed.

Of relevance to this thread, though, are these interesting links:

"[Capitalism is] The Real Solution to Poverty" by Arnold Kling

Kling said:

In the United States, the poverty threshold for a family of four is just under $20,000 a year in income. However, consider what would happen if you were to force every family of four all over the world the world to live on $20,000 a year. The majority of families would say, "Thank you." Outside the United States, there are more people living under our poverty threshold than over it. Perhaps as many as one billion people are living on less than one-tenth of our poverty threshold, or less than $2000 a year for a family of four.

...

If $500 a year per person represents extreme poverty, then consider that in the year 1800 the average income per person in the world was half that. What we consider extreme poverty today would have been considered upper-middle-class two hundred years ago. If that seems implausible, consider that even in Africa longevity has more than doubled over the past hundred years. This reflects better nutrition and public health, even though African economies on the whole are doing very poorly. William Nordhaus, in The Health of Nations, argues persuasively that if improvements in longevity were included in GDP, then our estimates of growth over the last century would roughly double.

Overall, as David R. Henderson and Charles L. Hooper wrote three years go for TCS, virtually every American alive today is in the top one percent of income, if one takes a worldwide historical perspective. It would be better to live on $20,000 a year in America today than to be a relatively wealthy person living here one hundred years ago.

"Has U.S. Income Inequality Really Increased?" by Alan Reynolds

And, to address a point that is still debateable:

Quote

When inequality is so extreme that there are many poor people, according to this definition, it means something is going wrong in the country, because it allows such massive inequality.

Why must people be equal? You repeat that mantra as if it's self-evident, but I don't think it is. I can't think of any advantages that accrue to Europe because it tries to force greater equality on people.

Certainly, no one should live in squalor. And application of the law should not be capricious or discriminatory. But, after obviating those evils, why care about equality? Why shouldn't an engineer or a doctor have more than a janitor or a waiter?

If you answer, no reason why not, then you do not support equality.

[Sim]

Jason Vines, on May 10 2007, 04:51 AM, said:

Sim, in your reply to my last post, you're essentially saying you can't prove your points, but you believe them, anyway.

WTF ?!?

Only in ONE SINGLE POINT, I said I don't have the articles at hand which I read. ALL OTHER POINTS were valid responses to your strawmen, unconnected arguments which didn't adress my points and reminders of the points you ignored.

When I find the time, I will dig up all the articles proving my point that capitalism does not further equality.

And you really shouldn't take your CATO propaganda stuff without a grain of salt. It's like quoting Pravda for proving the Soviet economy is up and well -- both are focusing on specific points and ignoring others, in order to prove an ideological point. For example, you can be sure CATO would not publish studies which found social welfare is better suited to fight poverty than capitalism, simply because it doesn't fit their agenda.

Quote

"[Capitalism is] The Real Solution to Poverty" by Arnold Kling

This excerpt does not even mention the problem people inevitably have to live in squalor in capitalism -- it just advocates capitalism as a system suited to develop underdeveloped economies: Strawman.

Quote

Why must people be equal?

Maybe it's a language barrier thing, but when we say "equal" here, it doesn't mean absolute equality, it may also mean the differences between the rich and poor in income are not *too* big.

Quote

Certainly, no one should live in squalor.

That's exactly what I mean.

This post has been edited by Sim: 10 May 2007 - 07:33 AM

[Sim]

Here, as promised, a link:

Poverty in the USA

Quote

Poverty in the US is Growing

8/30/2005

Washington (epo) -- 12.7% of the US citizens are living in poverty. The poverty ratio has increased in the richest country of the world for four years in a row, the US Census Bureau in Washington declared. There is a total of 37 million people in the USA living in poverty, 1.1 million more than last year. The number of people without health ensurance has risen from 45 million to 45.8% million.

A family with two children is considered poor, when it has less than $19,157 US per year. For a single, $9,060 US are the margin of poverty.

Poverty has increased, although economy has grown massively in the past years and 2.2 million new jobs have been created, the National Center for Poverty at the Michigan University explaines. Because of that, poverty is lower than in the 80s and 90s, but a new economic boom is not to be expected.

As you can see, capitalism has not solved the poverty problem in the US. Especially the number of children living in poverty is overproportionate, the study below claims, and has increased in the past decades.

(And don't beat this strawman again: I believe when you say poverty did not increase since Reagan. But that's not the point I made.)

This post has been edited by Sim: 10 May 2007 - 07:00 AM

[Sim]

And here an interesting work on a comparison between poverty in the US and Europe (University Munich):

Page 8:

Quote

(...) In the USA, the richest 10% are 15.9 times richer than the poorest 10%. This makes America the 79th of 127 classified nations, and not a single EU state is scoring worse than the USA. (...)

This study also claims that real income for poor families has indeed increased since the 1980s, but only in dollar numbers. When you consider inflation and purchasing power, you'll find income has not really grown, according to this work (page 6).

As for purchasing power of the poorest 20% of the respective population (page 51):

Quote

Scoring better than the USA: Luxembourg, Denmark, Ireland, Finland, Sweden, Austria, Germany, Belgium, Netherlands, France (10 of the EU 25)

Scoring worse than the USA: Italy, Slovenia, Czech Republic, Spain, United Kingdom, Greece, Slovakia, Portugal, Hungary, Lithuania, Poland, Estonia, Latvia (13 of the EU 25)

As you can see, those European countries with extensive welfare states are generally scoring better in real numbers than the US, while those with neo-liberal policies such as the United Kingdom and many formerly socialist east European states are scoring worse.

This post has been edited by Sim: 10 May 2007 - 07:17 AM

[Jason Vines]

Sim said:

WTF ?!?

Only in ONE SINGLE POINT, I said I don't have the articles at hand which I read. ALL OTHER POINTS were valid responses to your strawmen, unconnected "arguments" which didn't adress my points and reminders of the points you ignored.

Don't you even read what you write?

"I am not sure how many that are, but poverty certainly is a problem in America."

"Well I don't really need to explain to you how hard life is for some poor people."

"I'm sure I don't need to dig up according reports from the view of such people..."

"I'm not expert enough to rebutt these statistics; but I'm sure they are biased."

"And while I admit this is an ad-hominem argument, and thus is not suited to falsify your claims..."

Sim said:

And you really shouldn't take your CATO propaganda stuff without a grain of salt. It's like quoting Pravda for proving the Soviet economy is up and well -- it *may* be true, but very certainly it's propaganda for an ideological goal.

I am certainly open to the possibility Cato, or anyone else, is wrong about something. And I won't presume somebody is automatically right. At the same time, if an argument is convincing, and its factual support jibes with what I know to be true, then for me to still assume it's a pack of lies would fall into cynicism, which isn't any better than believing everything you read.

In any case, the Pravda comparison is absurd. Pravda was a state-run newspaper without any challengers. Cato is an independent, nonpartisan think tank that must face intense competition from other organizations as it tries to appeal to both parties. For it to practice deception is against its best interests, and thinking it does so without evidence is absurd.

I will entertain any argument against a position Cato has taken that has convinced me. But it must be an argument. If all you have are ad hominem attacks on Cato, then sorry, that's not enough. No thoughtful person will abandon what he believes on such a basis.

Sim said:

This excerpt does not even mention the problem people inevitably have to live in squalor in capitalism -- it just advocates capitalism as a system suited to develop underdeveloped economies: Strawman.

No, its very point is that people under capitalism do not live in squalor. (I used the acronym function on that word for a reason. Squalor is not another word for "poverty"; it's actually an objective concept.)

Sim said:

Maybe it's a language barrier thing, but when we say "equal" here, it doesn't mean absolute equality, it may also mean the differences between the rich and poor in income are not *too* big.

Hover your mouse cursor over the underlined instance of "equality."

What you are talking about is not equality, and claiming it is constitutes sophistry: You're using a high-minded word to hide arbitrary considerations of how big of a difference between rich and poor should exist.

I don't care how far apart people are on the income scale. If people are not living in squalor--which they don't under modern capitalism--then that is good enough for me.

Sim said:

That's exactly what I mean.

No, it's not. Your conception of poverty has nothing to do with whether people are living in squalor.

[Sim]

Jason Vines, on May 10 2007, 02:36 PM, said:

Don't you even read what you write?

"I am not sure how many that are, but poverty certainly is a problem in America."

Ok, I have added two sources proving this point now.

Quote

"Well I don't really need to explain to you how hard life is for some poor people."

"I'm sure I don't need to dig up according reports from the view of such people..."

This is common sense. When you are so disconnected from the worries of common people, living in your ivory tower of inherited wealth, you should go out on the streets and ask some people how their lives look like. At least I have had to deal with quite a few people of that kind.

Quote

"I'm not expert enough to rebutt these statistics; but I'm sure they are biased."

"And while I admit this is an ad-hominem argument, and thus is not suited to falsify your claims..."

I have added a work by the University Munich now which backs up my claims.

Quote

I am certainly open to the possibility Cato, or anyone else, is wrong about something. And I won't presume somebody is automatically right. At the same time, if an argument is convincing, and its factual support jibes with what I know to be true, then for me to still assume it's a pack of lies would fall into cynicism, which isn't any better than believing everything you read.

I agree, which is why I acknowledged I have to back up these claims, which I did now.

Quote

In any case, the Pravda comparison is absurd. Pravda was a state-run newspaper without any challengers. Cato is an independent, nonpartisan think tank that must face intense competition from other organizations as it tries to appeal to both parties. For it to practice deception is against its best interests, and thinking it does so without evidence is absurd.

Just because CATO is "nonpartisan" regarding the US political parties, it doesn't mean it is nonpartisan in the original sense of the word: They have the declared goal of advancing liberal thought and ideology. While I admit that such an approach is a valuable contribution to public discourse (even partisan sources achieve that), it's certainly not nonpartisan; couldn't be farther from that.

Quote

I will entertain any argument against a position Cato has taken that has convinced me. But it must be an argument. If all you have are ad hominem attacks on Cato, then sorry, that's not enough. No thoughtful person will abandon what he believes on such a basis.

Ok, I hope the study by Munich University achieves that. I'm sorry it's in German, but I didn't find one in English language right now (and don't have the time to search much longer right now).

Quote

No, its very point is that people under capitalism do not live in squalor. (I used the acronym function on that word for a reason. Squalor is not another word for "poverty"; it's actually an objective concept.)

Hover your mouse cursor over the underlined instance of "equality."

What you are talking about is not equality, and claiming it is constitutes sophistry: You're using a high-minded word to hide arbitrary considerations of how big of a difference between rich and poor should exist.

Well I don't feel like bickering about definitions of words right now; maybe I do advocate equality.

I believe the difference between rich and poor must not be too big (while a certain difference is absolutely necessary in my opinion, for reasons I won't explain in detail now), because a society where the rich get richer on the backs of the poor, and where the poor do not sufficiently share a part of the general wealth, is extremely inhumane.

Quote

I don't care how far apart people are on the income scale. If people are not living in squalor--which they don't under modern capitalism--then that is good enough for me.

I think a single mother, for example, who has to work 12 hours per day to make a living, and thus doesn't have basically no leisure time or time to care for her children, *IS* living in squalor. Maybe your concept of squalor is way stricter than mine.

This post has been edited by Sim: 10 May 2007 - 07:59 AM

[Jason Vines]

Sim, on May 10 2007, 07:40 AM, said:

Here, as promised, a link:

Poverty in the USA

According to the Census Bureau, the average poverty rate of the 2000's is lower than that of either the 1990's or the 1980's. And, in the year after the one you cite, the poverty rate decreased slightly. So don't crow about increasing American poverty just yet.

Sim said:

(And don't beat this strawman again: I believe when you say poverty did not increase since Reagan. But that's not the point I made.)

Then what is the point you're making?

Sim said:

In the USA, the richest 10% are 15.9 times richer than the poorest 10%.

So what?

Sim said:

This study also claims that real income for poor families has indeed increased since the 1980s, but only in dollar numbers. When you consider inflation and purchasing power, you'll find income has not really grown, according to this work (page 6).

That's self-contradictory. Real income is income adjusted for inflation.

Sim said:

This is common sense. When you are so disconnected from the worries of common people, living in your ivory tower of inherited wealth, you should go out on the streets and ask some people how their lives look like. At least I have had to deal with quite a few people of that kind.

Actually, when I lived with my mom as a little kid, we were so poor, we had to live in a trailer. And life was fine: I ate enough flood, I slept under a sound roof, I enjoyed safety from the elements, I watched TV, I played with toys, I ran around with other trailer park kids, etc. We definitely weren't as well-off as other people, but we hardly suffered.

Sim said:

Just because CATO is "nonpartisan" regarding the US political parties, it doesn't mean it is nonpartisan in the original sense of the word: They have the declared goal of advancing liberal thought and ideology. While I admit that such an approach is a valuable contribution to public discourse (even partisan sources achieve that), it's certainly not nonpartisan; couldn't be farther from that.

I didn't say Cato is non-ideological. But nonetheless, targeting both major political parties and appealing to the American public at large requires Cato not to distribute phony numbers, with which its opponents could easily discredit the institution. It must try to provide an accurate representation of reality, even if its interpretation of that reality might be subject to debate.

Of course, that doesn't mean Cato can't be incorrect about something. But automatically presuming its deceitful, like Pravda, is misguided.

Sim said:

I believe the difference between rich and poor must not be too big (while a certain difference is absolutely necessary in my opinion, for reasons I won't explain in detail now), because a society where the rich get richer on the backs of the poor, and where the poor do not sufficiently share a part of the general wealth, is extremely inhumane.

But your criteria are arbitrary. "Too big" and "sufficiently share" can reasonably mean different things to different people.

Sim said:

I think a single mother, for example, who has to work 12 hours per day to make a living, and thus doesn't have basically no leisure time or time to care for her children, *IS* living in squalor. Maybe your concept of squalor is way stricter than mine.

It's not my definition, but Merriam-Webster's: "marked by filthiness and degradation". Your hypothetical mother, even though she doesn't have an easy life, is not living in squalor.

These people are living in squalor:



I bet such people wouldn't mind the kind of life your example mom has.

[Jason Vines]

Friedrich Hayek on equality in Constitution of Liberty:

Constitution of Liberty pp. 92-93 said:

It is instructive at this point to glance briefly at the change that the ideal of equality has undergone in this field in modern times. A hundred years ago, at the height of the classical liberal movement, the demand was generally expressed by the phrase la cariere ouverte aux talents. It was a demand that all man-made obstacles to the rise of some should be removed, that all privileges of individuals should be abolished, and that what the state contributed to the chance of improving one's conditions should be the same for all. That so long as people were different and grew up in different families this could not assure an equal start was fairly generally accepted. It was understood that the duty of government was not to ensure that everybody had the same prospect of reaching a given position but merely to make available to all on equal terms those facilities which in their nature depended on government action. That the results were bound to be different, not only because the individuals were different, but also because only a small part of the relevant circumstances depended on government action, was taken for granted.

This conception that all should be allowed to try has been largely replaced by the altogether different conception that all must be assured an equal start and the same prospects. This means little less than that the government, instead of providing the same circumstances for all, should aim at controlling all conditions relevant to a particular individual's prospects and so adjust them to his capacities as to assure him of the same prospects as everybody else. Such deliberate adaptation of opportunies to individual aims and capacities would, of course, be the opposite of freedom. Nor could it be justified as a means of making the best use of all available knowledge except on the assumption that government knows best how individual capacities can be used.

When we inquire into the justification of these demands, we find that they rest on the discontent that the success of some people often produces in those that are less successful, or, to put it bluntly, envy. The modern tendency to gratify this passion is developing into a serious threat to freedom. Recently an attempt was made to base these demands on the argument that it ought to be the aim of politics to remove all sources of discontent. This would, of course, necessarily mean that it is the responsibility of government to see that nobody is healthier or possesses a happier temperament, a better-suited spouse or more prospering children, than anybody else. If really all unfulfilled desires have a claim on the community, individual responsibility is at an end. However human, envy is certainly not one of the sources of discontent that a free society can eliminate. It is probably one of the essential conditions for the preservation of such a society that we do not countenance envy, not sanction its demands by camouflaging it as social justice, but treat it, in the words of John Stuart Mill, as "the most anti-social and evil of all passions."