Dan McLaughlin

Voices For Freedom Read Columns Daniel McLaughlin
To Home Page Latest Newsletter Column Archives Click to get these columns for your local paper	© 2006 Daniel J. McLaughlin Freedom versus Egalitarianism Necessity is the mother of invention. That is a familiar old saying that is still powerful, even if some of the shine has been worn off with age and overuse. People are generally creative when finding ways to satisfy wants and needs, of their own and of others. Humans are acting beings, they make decisions and take action. They use certain tools and do things a certain way to attain a specific end that they have in mind. When they make decisions, they use their knowledge of cause and affect, and their goals and their assumptions about the future to determine the best course of action. To an outsider, some choices may seem irrational, but those choices are the best for the chooser at that point in time, based on his assumptions. People do what they think will give them the best results in any particular situation. This is neither good nor bad, it just is. People weigh the benefits against the costs of available courses of action to decide what to do. Those costs and benefits may be financial, material or strictly emotional. In most cases the decision is nearly instantaneous, with little conscious thought, but the process is the same. People are motivated to act when they perceive that the benefits outweigh the costs. This has many important social implications. When people are not allowed to reap the benefits of their own toils, there is little motivation for significant effort. The cost is too much for the benefit received. This is the case even in situations where the actor would reap a portion of the benefits of a group. This phenomenon was described in the diary of William Bradford, governor of the Plymouth Bay Colony in 1621. Those early settlers practiced what was called “farming in common”. Individuals did not own the property and whatever they produced was combined in a common pool. The produce was divided between them according to need. There was little incentive for people to work hard or innovate. The result was that during the first winters, half the population of the community died of starvation, malnutrition and exposure. In 1623, they changed their method. The property was divided up among the people for them to provide for themselves. The incentives changed and the results were astounding. As Governor Bradford described it, “This had very good success, for it made all hands very industrious, so as much more corn was planted than otherwise would have been”. In 1647, the Governor wrote that they had not suffered any general want or famine since that time. As in Plymouth Bay Colony, creativity and initiative is stifled when the innovators and producers are not allowed to benefit in proportion to the benefit they give. If highly productive people get the same portions as unproductive people, their productivity will diminish. If they are allowed to benefit greatly from their production, their productivity will greatly increase. Some people view that as a fault of human nature, as a black mark on the human race and seek to eradicate it. Rather than being a fault, however, that characteristic is the motive force behind all human progress. It is the reason that economic freedom enhances the standard of living for even the poorest of the people. Singapore and Hong Kong are not democracies, but they enjoy the highest levels of economic freedom of all societies in the world. It is not surprising that they also reap the benefits of the highest standards of living. The implications of this are striking. There is a tremendous modern rush toward the ethics of economic equality of all people. Egalitarians, those who endorse the idea that everyone should share the wealth equally, recommend using the coercive power of the state if necessary to bring about what is euphemistically called social justice. The perversity of this branch of political thinking is that the methods they propose would shake the foundation of the economy that has made our poor better off than most people of the world. They ignore the reality of economics and human action and seek to punish the people responsible for the most benefit to society. The first colonists were economically equal. They all shared in an equally miserable existence, much like those in the former Soviet Union and many other modern egalitarian nations. America became strong and prosperous because people were free to benefit from their own efforts and resources. Let’s help our poor by encouraging that freedom and the resulting productivity and prosperity.
Contact us Privacy Policy
Daniel Mclaughlin Copyright © 2006 [Daniel McLaughlin]. All rights reserved. Revised: 03/18/08

Voices For Freedom

Read Columns

Daniel McLaughlin

To Home Page

Latest Newsletter

Column Archives

Click to get these columns for your local paper

Freedom versus Egalitarianism

Necessity is the mother of invention. That is a familiar old saying that is still powerful, even if some of the shine has been worn off with age and overuse. People are generally creative when finding ways to satisfy wants and needs, of their own and of others.

Humans are acting beings, they make decisions and take action. They use certain tools and do things a certain way to attain a specific end that they have in mind. When they make decisions, they use their knowledge of cause and affect, and their goals and their assumptions about the future to determine the best course of action. To an outsider, some choices may seem irrational, but those choices are the best for the chooser at that point in time, based on his assumptions.

People do what they think will give them the best results in any particular situation. This is neither good nor bad, it just is. People weigh the benefits against the costs of available courses of action to decide what to do. Those costs and benefits may be financial, material or strictly emotional. In most cases the decision is nearly instantaneous, with little conscious thought, but the process is the same.

People are motivated to act when they perceive that the benefits outweigh the costs. This has many important social implications. When people are not allowed to reap the benefits of their own toils, there is little motivation for significant effort. The cost is too much for the benefit received. This is the case even in situations where the actor would reap a portion of the benefits of a group.

This phenomenon was described in the diary of William Bradford, governor of the Plymouth Bay Colony in 1621. Those early settlers practiced what was called “farming in common”. Individuals did not own the property and whatever they produced was combined in a common pool. The produce was divided between them according to need. There was little incentive for people to work hard or innovate. The result was that during the first winters, half the population of the community died of starvation, malnutrition and exposure.

In 1623, they changed their method. The property was divided up among the people for them to provide for themselves. The incentives changed and the results were astounding. As Governor Bradford described it, “This had very good success, for it made all hands very industrious, so as much more corn was planted than otherwise would have been”. In 1647, the Governor wrote that they had not suffered any general want or famine since that time.

As in Plymouth Bay Colony, creativity and initiative is stifled when the innovators and producers are not allowed to benefit in proportion to the benefit they give. If highly productive people get the same portions as unproductive people, their productivity will diminish. If they are allowed to benefit greatly from their production, their productivity will greatly increase.

Some people view that as a fault of human nature, as a black mark on the human race and seek to eradicate it. Rather than being a fault, however, that characteristic is the motive force behind all human progress. It is the reason that economic freedom enhances the standard of living for even the poorest of the people. Singapore and Hong Kong are not democracies, but they enjoy the highest levels of economic freedom of all societies in the world. It is not surprising that they also reap the benefits of the highest standards of living.

The implications of this are striking. There is a tremendous modern rush toward the ethics of economic equality of all people. Egalitarians, those who endorse the idea that everyone should share the wealth equally, recommend using the coercive power of the state if necessary to bring about what is euphemistically called social justice. The perversity of this branch of political thinking is that the methods they propose would shake the foundation of the economy that has made our poor better off than most people of the world. They ignore the reality of economics and human action and seek to punish the people responsible for the most benefit to society.

The first colonists were economically equal. They all shared in an equally miserable existence, much like those in the former Soviet Union and many other modern egalitarian nations. America became strong and prosperous because people were free to benefit from their own efforts and resources. Let’s help our poor by encouraging that freedom and the resulting productivity and prosperity.

Hit Counter