"It taxes one class for the support of another, and what is worse, taxes the poor for the sake of the rich. It thus produces that inequality, which is the bane of republics; for it is in fact the influence of the few, or, in other worse, aristocracy. Now, though no just government will interfere, by sumptuary laws, to restrain the acquisition of wealth, and thereby prevent inequality, so neither will any just government, by fostering particular interests, at the expense of others, promote inequality. This is the opposite, and the worst extreme of sumptuary laws. Nor is the inequality which is produced by the interference of the law, by any means as harmless as that which results from different dispositions, and different capacities in human beings. Whilst the one may act as a salutary stimulus to industry, and its worst consequences are continually neutralized by the alienation and division of property, the other, by creating distrust in the government, produces despair, and depresses industry; and the dread of retributive justice, which always accompanies wealth unjustly acquired, so far from giving rise to division of property, inevitably leads to concentration and primogeniture,--to legal safeguards, corporations, charters, monopolies, and privileged orders." -- Report of the Committee on Agriculture, on the memorial of the Delegates of the United Agricultural Societies of sundry counties in the state of Virginia, February 2, 1821, p.55-56.The first bolded passage is the old mantra of the Democracy, the one that tied the working class to the southern planter. This resonates still, but its target is the poor. The idea that public policy is structured to tax the poor and distribute to the rich, while making occasional appearances, remains largely unformulated at the level of popular discourse these days.
I think that in the second bolded passage we find the central disconnect between those who believe the massive increase in inequality in recent decades is a problem, and those who believe that is a reflection of talent, however obtained, hard work, and luck. The passage suggests that inequality is not in itself problematic, but rather that it is inequality ill-gotten, achieved as a result of courtier leverage.
This brings to mind Elizabeth Warren's claim that "no on in this country got rich on their own." Warren's claim is about a broader understanding of the communal basis for individual success, and for a broader understanding of success. But much of what is animating popular support for Occupy Wall Street seems to be somewhat more narrow, and at the same time, something more politically tractable: that a sliver of people in this country got rich by taking, by having given to them, by appropriating from the damned rest of us, and that this appropriation was enabled and in some cases directly and deliberately accomplished by government action. And that, empowered by the state through the discriminatory policies of the conservative nanny state-- through the distribution of tax policy, trade policy, our largely hidden and poorly coordinated industrial policy--a privileged class has been erected, one that will be able to use its power to further entrench itself, to wrap the commonwealth more tightly in its web.
I prefer the broadness of Warren's critique, its unwavering answer to the apologists of inequality who eulogize hard work, talent, brilliance. But I prefer the cut, the anger, the barely contained hatred of the latter. Inequality is not a very good motivator for political action. Theft from the public good, profiteering at the expense of the community, and odious distinctions between classes, especially those that distribute from the poor to pay for the luxury of the rich, have been wonderful motivators throughout American history, and I suspect they remain today.
So, raise the banner high and repeat the old mantra: They have taken untold millions that they never toiled to earn....
No comments:
Post a Comment