Freedom for Bread

August 1, 2008 by Mike Wilson · 9 Comments

One of socialism’s fundamental tenets is its desire for the government to universally care for people, whether it be through single-payor healthcare or ensuring jobs and even equal wealth for all. These are lofty and admirable goals and desires. However, what are the potential costs?

Many conservatives will point to the actual fiscal costs of accomplishing these goals; that it will result in a higher tax burden and therefore a slower economy (because we know it’s all about an “efficient” economy). Others will point to the idea that if the government gets involved in providing everything for everyone, it takes away self-reliance, which is almost a god to be worshiped by many conservatives.

Philosophers and economists from the late 18th century put forth the argument that because the government receives its power from the people, the government can’t do anything that people can’t do. Therefore, because an individual cannot forcibly take money from one person and give it to another, the government should not be able to forcibly tax people and give the money as handouts to others.

Liberals will say, “but taxes aren’t forcibly taking money; we’ve agreed as a society run things this way.” Just try not paying your taxes and see how much force lies therein.

All of these points have some validity, but none of them are strong enough or philosophically fundamental enough to sway me. They don’t address the fundamental problem with government-mediated wealth redistribution or provision for all needs from cradle-to-grave. The fundamental problem has to do with agency and freedom. Let me explain.