Continuing from the first post, I now tackle the other bit of the comment. I call this an ultrafisk because it’s like fisking except you respond to one sentence with a diatribe. 

The second bit of Tom James’ comment was:

I don’t see why just because someone is poor and/or lazy and/or stupid they should have a bad life just so a bunch of better-off smarter, hard-working folks can buy themselves additional useless tat they don’t really need.

So there’s a few rather revealing things here. I hope Tom doesn’t feel I’m being unfair putting this level of scrutiny on what was probably a rather quick throwaway comment.

But quick throwaway comments are the best, because they expose the subconscious links between concepts that we’re barely aware exist. For working out how people think, get their gut reaction. 

But anyway, let’s take one bit out of context:

I don’t see why just because someone is poor and/or lazy and/or stupid they should have a bad life 

Me neither. The version of capitalism we have might not be perfect, might not be entirely “Free Trade” but it has delivered higher standards of living, made all sorts of labour saving devices affordable to even the most modest incomes and it’s given us technology that makes entertainment ubiquitous and widely available for next to nothing.

My beliefs, such as they are, are about this process continuing. Better technology, cheaper costs, more efficiency and better quality of life for everyone. It’s 100 years of Capitalism – wealth generation and technological advance – that have made the biggest difference to the lives of people compared with Gladstone’s era. Not the welfare state. 

So no, I don’t believe the stupid/lazy/poor should have a bad life. A good life should be accessible to all – it’s the means. My friend Jock Coats has much to say on the subject of how Land and Rent related issues do more to keep people poor, and Tristan Mill has a lot to say on the perils of Corporatism. Both of these guys are, like me, economic liberals and both of them are just as concerned with insummountable obstacles that keep people down.

But none of us believe the solution is to cheat and simply take money from those who have it and give it to those that don’t. That addresses the short term symptoms but it does not get to the root cause. We also believe this makes the situation worse. 

But let’s get back to Tom:

…should have a bad life just so a bunch of better-off smarter, hard-working folks can buy themselves additional useless tat they don’t really need.

It’s the ‘just so’ bit that I find fascinating. It implies that ‘the bad life’ for the stupid and/or poor and/or lazy would be caused by not taking money off the better off, smarter, hard working folks. 

This isn’t the truth though.

The smarter, hard working folks might not need their tat but they’ve earned their tat, it’s theirs. 

It’s about incentives, at the end of the day. Economists are obsessed with incentives. If you reward need, you encourage need. If you reward effort, you encourage effort. 

So if the quote becomes, “I don’t see why poor/stupid/lazy people should have a bad life and better off/smarter/hard working people should have a good life” then it becomes an entirely different proposition and much more morally ambigious. 

Except that’s not the end of the story. Whilst I have no problems whatsoever with stupid or lazy people having a worse life than clever or hardworking people – I mean, really, I don’t at all. Does this make me evil? – I do have a problem with the clever, hardworking people being made poor. That’s a problem.

But the quote said, “bad life ‘just so’ ” as if the obligation is on those who are against redistribution to justify why the better off people need the money back, while those on the other side are debating the morality of taking it in the first place.

So you can see, it’s all rather messy, and to get all Spin Doctorish, it’s about not accepting the premise of the question. 

Of course there’s always going to be some level of taxation – there’s services that must be run in order to keep the country going. I’m open as to what those might be, but that’s a subject for another day.

Tom, I apologise for subjecting you to this, but I’m very grateful for the opportunity to write a post like this. Thank you.