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 Inequality And The Social Compact A recent article in Newsweek by Robert Samuelson discussed the implications of a government report on household income. While the standard of living of the poor continues to improve, he decries the apparent growing income inequality and says it threatens America’s “social compact”, which, he says, depends on a shared sense of well being. The term “social compact” carries a lot of baggage, and any related discussion requires clarification of the term for a real understanding. A compact is an agreement or contract between two or more parties. The term “social compact” implies that we, as members of society have made an agreement with society. None of the terms of that agreement are explicit, but many smart people think they know what those terms are. Under the compact, it seems that society is the guardian who takes care of the poor, the aged, the sick, the downtrodden. One of the most wonderful characteristics of the human race is a seemingly innate tendency to care for others. It is an important part of culture and civilization. It is an essential element of all significant religious traditions. People do help others out of the kindness of their heart. Billions of dollars and countless thousands of volunteer hours arrived on the scene for every major or minor disaster, from the Indonesian tsunami, and Hurricane Katrina, to local families burned out of their home. Nobody had to demand it. People care. The social compact, for some, is a logical extension of that caring for others. And, in the sense that people choose to help in whatever situation and whatever capacity they want, that extension appears harmless. What is not harmless is the notion that, by being a member of society, everyone is bound to support any pet project that “society” deems worthy. Society is not a thing or being that makes decisions or helps poor people, or provides services. Society is a collection of people making individual decisions. Because a vocal individual decides that something is worthy of society’s beneficence does not mean that anyone under any circumstances should be bound by that choice. America does not have a social compact and never did. Nobody I know has ever agreed to one. Maybe the Soviet Union had one. Maybe the French people choose to bind themselves under one. That is okay. They must sustain the burden of it. But America’s vision is freedom. It is freedom to make decisions, to try, to fail and to try again. That vision has brought about that increasing standard of living for the poor, documented in the report, to well beyond that of most humans living on this planet. In talking about “the poor”, many assume that once poor, always poor. They also assume that “the rich” spend their whole lives in the upper echelons of income. The reality is that the makeup of all of the categories varies a great deal. A study of individuals over time shows that there is significant mobility between the categories. A very small percentage of people remain in an income category over time. Someone gets laid off or has serious hard times and lands in the lowest category. In the next year, things turn around and he bounces up to another category. A very small percentage of people in the highest level are still in that level several years later. Opportunities change, times change, incomes change. What doesn’t change is that the greatest level of freedom carries with it the greatest level of opportunity and the highest potential for growth. What the social compact discussion usually boils down to is using government to dispense charity. It is the same false philanthropy that forms the basis of all forms of socialism. It is using other people’s money instead of your own. It is the reason that “do gooder” is a derogatory term. Charity begins at home. Wealthy politicians that are truly concerned for the poor have every opportunity to donate their millions to the cause. They don’t do that because helping the poor is not what politics is about. Politics is power, and using the poverty issue is often an effective way to consolidate power. America is a wonderful country of opportunity for all. The freedom on which it is founded is the best hope for any country that wishes to help it’s poor. Socialist programs of all stripes are antagonistic to that freedom. They mock the charity that our people are known for, and strip it of it’s power.
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

Inequality And The Social Compact

A recent article in Newsweek by Robert Samuelson discussed the implications of a government report on household income. While the standard of living of the poor continues to improve, he decries the apparent growing income inequality and says it threatens America’s “social compact”, which, he says, depends on a shared sense of well being.

The term “social compact” carries a lot of baggage, and any related discussion requires clarification of the term for a real understanding.

A compact is an agreement or contract between two or more parties. The term “social compact” implies that we, as members of society have made an agreement with society. None of the terms of that agreement are explicit, but many smart people think they know what those terms are. Under the compact, it seems that society is the guardian who takes care of the poor, the aged, the sick, the downtrodden.

One of the most wonderful characteristics of the human race is a seemingly innate tendency to care for others. It is an important part of culture and civilization. It is an essential element of all significant religious traditions. People do help others out of the kindness of their heart. Billions of dollars and countless thousands of volunteer hours arrived on the scene for every major or minor disaster, from the Indonesian tsunami, and Hurricane Katrina, to local families burned out of their home. Nobody had to demand it. People care.

The social compact, for some, is a logical extension of that caring for others. And, in the sense that people choose to help in whatever situation and whatever capacity they want, that extension appears harmless. What is not harmless is the notion that, by being a member of society, everyone is bound to support any pet project that “society” deems worthy. Society is not a thing or being that makes decisions or helps poor people, or provides services. Society is a collection of people making individual decisions. Because a vocal individual decides that something is worthy of society’s beneficence does not mean that anyone under any circumstances should be bound by that choice.

America does not have a social compact and never did. Nobody I know has ever agreed to one. Maybe the Soviet Union had one. Maybe the French people choose to bind themselves under one. That is okay. They must sustain the burden of it. But America’s vision is freedom. It is freedom to make decisions, to try, to fail and to try again. That vision has brought about that increasing standard of living for the poor, documented in the report, to well beyond that of most humans living on this planet.

In talking about “the poor”, many assume that once poor, always poor. They also assume that “the rich” spend their whole lives in the upper echelons of income. The reality is that the makeup of all of the categories varies a great deal. A study of individuals over time shows that there is significant mobility between the categories. A very small percentage of people remain in an income category over time.

Someone gets laid off or has serious hard times and lands in the lowest category. In the next year, things turn around and he bounces up to another category. A very small percentage of people in the highest level are still in that level several years later. Opportunities change, times change, incomes change. What doesn’t change is that the greatest level of freedom carries with it the greatest level of opportunity and the highest potential for growth.

What the social compact discussion usually boils down to is using government to dispense charity. It is the same false philanthropy that forms the basis of all forms of socialism. It is using other people’s money instead of your own. It is the reason that “do gooder” is a derogatory term.

Charity begins at home. Wealthy politicians that are truly concerned for the poor have every opportunity to donate their millions to the cause. They don’t do that because helping the poor is not what politics is about. Politics is power, and using the poverty issue is often an effective way to consolidate power.

America is a wonderful country of opportunity for all. The freedom on which it is founded is the best hope for any country that wishes to help it’s poor. Socialist programs of all stripes are antagonistic to that freedom. They mock the charity that our people are known for, and strip it of it’s power.

Hit Counter