However, what if the nine other persons decided to form a government. They band together, and elect themselves to various offices. Despite best efforts, the tenth person is not elected to any office. After forming this government, the nine decide to pass a law, imposing a 90% "tax" on the property of those in the top 10% income bracket. The new law is voted on, and passes by a strong majority, 9 to 1. After the vote, the nine each move into, and take possession, of one of the homes and surrounding farmland of the tenth person. Is this "legal?" What say ye?
10 comments:
Legal? Its happening now, so I guess so. Ethical... I don't think so!
I think a far more likely scenario would consist of a gov't setup for the common good being used against the majority for the benefit of the minority. Say one of the islanders decided to make a backroom deal with the head of coconuts to sell the coconut contracts exclusively to him and to make a law preventing the rest of the islanders from growing or owning their own coconuts. Then refining the coconuts into product and selling them back to the islanders at a profit despite the initial collective ownership of said coconuts. By controlling laws and coconut supply preventing any other islander from profiting the same way. Thus one of the individuals becomes highly successful not necessarily by industry and thrift but by a lack of moral code and ethics. What do I know though I've never lived on an island.
Thanks for commenting John and Kristen. I suppose you are right. Can there be an illegal law? And, if so, how do you charge somebody for violating it.
If the government derives its just powers from the consent of the governed, can the government have powers and rights that the individuals do not posses?
I guess when the illegal laws get to be too much, you have the Declaration of Independence option.
Thanks for commenting Rollin. I like your analogy. Very cool.
In work I see this all the time and it makes me wonder how people sleep at night Joe
Democracy is three wolves and one sheep voting on what's for dinner
Awesome. I'm gonna use that line Aaron!
I think the truth lies somewhere between your scenario and "Rollin Skinner's" scenario.
Government, imperfect as it is, is there to level the playing field. Truthfully, it is not the well to do that need protection. Through their wealth they have access to levels of protection that those of us in the middle and lower class only dream of.
A fairly cogent argument can be made that the wealthy should contribute a greater share of their wealth to the common good as they have access to and use more of the Nation's resources than the poorer class. Their industries and companies use much more of the infrastructure of the nation to garner and increase their wealth. They certainly pollute more per capita than the common man.
In a capitalistic system the main thing is to not kill the "golden goose". Tax the rich too much and he moves and uses his assets elsewhere. He no longer invests wisely to increase his wealth, but uses his wealth and influence to secure his money. The nation including the lower classes all lose.
Finally, the past few months clearly indicate that unchecked avarice is not good for the nation. The wealthy bear watching by the only organization that can, the Govt. as imperfect as it is. As I write this it is also obvious that the govt. did fail us. Probably, in part because wealthy men had too much influence and used it to further their unethical aims.
And therein lies the conundrum you address in your analogy.
I think it well to remember, that seldom in history has the common man had too much influence on society and the wealthy. It is usually the inverse.
I will try to address a few of your points.
First, if you mean by a level playing field, that the government's purpose is to provide equality of opportunity, then I agree. If you mean, as many do these days, that the government should guarantee an equality of outcome, then I strongly disagree.
Second, I disagree with your assessment of the cause of our current financial mess as "unchecked avarice." Greed, self love, or self interest have always been with us, it is not new. Furthermore, I believe, as Michael Douglas said in "The Firm", that greed is good. I agree with Adam Smith that it is our self interest that builds our own wealth, and the wealth of nations.
You suggest that the government needs to put a check on our greed. I say that it is the unavoidably corrupt government regulation that is the chief cause of our current financial problems. Encouraging more government oversight and regulation is like having the fox guard the hen house.
While I was commenting on your analogy particularly, it is true I drew some attention to our current predicament. I think "Rollin" was trying to say that often the greedy go getter ends up exploiting the rest of the people. I agree with his position if that is what he was saying. And the only remedy to that, which has happened in history more times than I would like to think, is some Govt. intervention. I do admit that Govt. is imperfect and should be as limited as possible, but still strong enough to stop the excess of greed.
I'll attempt to clarify my position.
I believe Govt. has another important role besides trying to provide equal opportunity: That is ensuring that men's greed (that does power capitalism) does not encroach on freedom and human decency. Unchecked capitalism can result in horrible abuses of power. We have only to examine child labor, sweat shops, 16 hour work days, massive pollution of the nation's water, air, and soil as well as the denuding of forests, and strip mining with it's ugly and unhealthy pollution of whole counties, by companies unchecked by Govt.
I do agree with you that Govt. aided and abetted those men who profited from the mess we are in. Govt. was the cause, I think, as it pushed banks to lend to people who were unfit to own a home. but as I said: Govt. is not perfect and it does often exacerbate a problem rather than help. However, the "unseen hand" is also imperfect and can do awful things before the pendulum swings back.
We live in an imperfect world. Unchecked capitalism is not perfect, and neither is Govt. The friction between the two is healthy as long as one doesn't become too powerful.
Post a Comment