Back to basics: economic justice (political)

[Varian P]

Yes, there are a LOT of political threads right now. I'm hoping a few threads on the basics--fundamental issues that are core to societies everywhere--will be a bit more inclusive of people who aren't so interested in the vicissitudes of the U.S. electorate, and also allow for discussion of the issues at stake, rather than the celebrity fuck fest that is always the U.S. presidential campaign.

So, for starters:

What, for you, is economic justice? And how can the government best ensure it?

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

For starters, if I wuz President your earned retirement benefits would follow you from job to job, ditto for your earned leave time. As it is, employers promise benefits and fuck you if they can.

 

[Pure]

economic justice has several facets:

the most basic principle is that justice and morality play a role in economic transactions, *even where there is no force or fraud.* and the standards are NOT dependent purely on economic considerations. to take three examples:

the distribution of wealth, for example, can be too extreme in consideration of the 'goods' of the several parties. e.g. in some latin american countries.

as capitalists figured out some while back, say a hundred years, having workers NOT impoverished is in everyone's interest. the concept of a 'living wage' is part of economic justice.

secondly, the idea of 'fair return on investment' is key. risk has to be rewarded, but there is such a thing as excess. a key historical example is usury. the r c church and the criminal law of most areas recognizes a crime of asking 50% interest for a week. BUT it's easily obtained by loan sharks.

the loaners of money, like other investors deserve a fair return, not a killing.

thirdly: there is the concept of an 'unconscionable contract', even though it's in some sense voluntary. a person pledges their first born to secure a doctor's services for the spouse.

 

[rgraham666]

That's a damn good question. I'm still working on the answer.

At minimum, to me, government should maintain a safety net so that when people fall off the mad ride that is life they don't go 'Splat!' It should do what it can to maintain a minimum level of nutrition, shelter and health care.

If you want to argue the economics of this safety net, just ask which is cheaper? Said safety net? Or the massive number of police, courts and jails that will be required to keep a lot of people without hope in line.

 

[Belegon]

It's a complex question. Of course, most of the good ones are...

Ok, quickly and just writing as I think (which means I may have to solidify my thinking and adjust my positions, but still...)

I believe that if there are no government controls on the economy and on the market, you end up with a huge gap between have and have-nots. One that is similar to what I observe in the country a few miles south of me. For years, I have seen the effects of Mexico's economic reality.

However, I also believe that there must be rewards available to those who do extraordinary things. I firmly believe that if you remove the financial incentive from success, not just as an entrepreneur but as a doctor or lawyer or public servant or almost any position, then you greatly reduce the motivation for people to exceed expectations.

Obviously, not everyone is motivated by money. But many are, and those who are not don't usually mind the perks.

I also believe that a thriving middle class is good for almost everyone. It provides incentives for growth, a target market for products, people who can afford to educate their kids in the best schools. It also serves as a stepping stone. People on the low end of the income scale may have difficulty believing the can achieve the upper end of the scale, but they do feel they can reach the middle. People in the middle feel that with hard work and diligence they can reach the top end.

To achieve this, I feel it is just and in everyone's long term best interest to encourage movement towards the center. So, I do believe in the redistribution of wealth to a certain extent. I do not worry too much about overtaxing the top end too much, partially because I believe that the things that create their wealth are encouraged and enhanced by the result of "propping up" the majority.

But it is a very difficult balancing act. You have to maintain incentives at all levels. You have to protect and encourage that middle class. You have to keep the bottom end from feeling discouraged and grant them the dignity of accomplishment. (yes, the "dignity of work". I feel that long term welfare can be a soul-crushing thing.) And you have to not demotivate the top end by making their higher dollar commitment demotivating.

And it is not just taxes. There is the market to consider, and retirement and so much else.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

Sure! Living Wage for everyone!

Then appoint bureaucrats to approve your purchases, gifts, expenses, etc. so you live within your Living Wage.

 

[rgraham666]

When I worked my employers always made a concerted effort to remove every shred of dignity of the employees.

'Human resources' sums up their attitude perfectly. Humans are resources; molded into products, used until broken and then discarded.

 

[amicus]

Not worth the effort....

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

"Economic justice" is a clever codeword for wealth redistribution. It is the practice of using government coercion to take from one group and give to another based on an arbitrary, politically-determined definition of "fairness." America's founders would have rejected the concept because they understood that it's ultimate purpose and effect is to empower government at the expense of the people.

Freidrich Hayek on a closely related point:

" . . . Socialism was to bring ‘economic freedom,’ without which political freedom was ‘not worth having.’

"To make this argument sound plausible, the word ‘freedom’ was subjected to a subtle change in meaning. The word had formerly meant freedom from coercion, from the arbitrary power of other men. Now it was made to mean freedom from necessity, release from the compulsion of the circumstances which inevitably limit the range of choice of all of us. Freedom in this sense is, of course, merely another name for power or wealth. The demand for the new freedom was thus only another name for the old demand for a redistribution of wealth."

 

[Varian P]

"Economic justice" is a clever codeword for wealth redistribution. It is the practice of using government coercion to take from one group and give to another based on an arbitrary, politically-determined definition of "fairness." America's founders would have rejected the concept because they understood that it's ultimate purpose and effect is to empower government at the expense of the people.

While I'm not discounting your response, I should clarify:

I'm interested in hearing what you think would be a just/moral way of ordering a society's economic policies, and what the core values are that ought to inform those policies.

 

[Varian P]

Not worth the effort....

Finally, a succinct and accurate presentation of your point of view.

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

While I'm not discounting your response, I should clarify:

I'm interested in hearing what you think would be a just/moral way of ordering a society's economic policies, and what the core values are that ought to inform those policies.

I appreciate that, but think through what you're really talking about. Individuals work to put bread on the table for themselves and their family. This subject is about nothing more or less than using coercion to take some of that away and give it to someone else.

 

[Varian P]

I appreciate that, but think through what you're really talking about. Individuals work to put bread on the table for themselves and their family. This subject is about nothing more or less than using coercion to take some of that away and give it to someone else.

Then perhaps your answer to the original question might be something along the lines of, "Economic justice is leaving an individual's earnings in her hands, to do with as she sees fit."

 

[TE999]

True economic justice (sic) is to have a fair and equitable tax system. This hodge-podge of favoritisim, exemptions, subsidies and general malfesence we struggle with now is neither fair or equitable. Not to mention the Gestapo-like enforcement powers the IRS possesses. That is a direct threat to individual liberty.

Keep taxes low and the people will prosper, increase them and you blunt all incentives to succeed. The 'rich' will flee with their wealth or simply relocate it and the middle class will find ways to avoid the taxes. End result: revenue shortfall.

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

Well, I think your answer could be, "Economic justice is leaving an individual's earnings in her hands, to do with as she sees fit."

Interestingly, western philosophy was born with Socrates asking, "What is justice?" He was deemed the wisest of men because his answer essentially boiled down to, "Fuck if I know."

If no action is taken by any third party then an individual's earnings will remain in her hands, to do with as she sees fit.

The very introduction of a concept called "economic justice" is the contemplation of some other outcome. What does that say about the concept?

 

[rgraham666]

Incentives to succeed? Hilarious!

I bought that myth. If you're smart, work hard and are honest you'll succeed.

It's bullshit. I never worked for a single company that was the least interested in those things. What they wanted was nice, normal people who didn't rock the boat.

All I got for twenty years of work in the private sector was insane.

 

[DeeZire]

If no action is taken by any third party then an individual's earnings will remain in her hands, to do with as she sees fit.

The very introduction of a concept called "economic justice" is the contemplation of some other outcome. What does that say about the concept?

It says that the earnings of the individual don't exist in a vacuum. They exist in the midst of other individuals who interact with each other to form a society. The level of enlightenment of that society could be perceived by how it cares for its less fortunate individuals. The more the super-successful individuals ignore the rest of society, the more they deny the reality that their very existence is interdependent with the society they're ignoring (since that's the environment where they're making their money.)

These super-successful individuals who are ignoring society could be seen as either too stupid to comprehend their dependence on that society, or too selfish to care. Regardless of how they're perceived, they are, in fact, denigrating their society by ignoring it. Now, if I was Amicus, making this argument, this is where I'd say that the selfish ones should be drawn and quartered in the town square. But I'm not Amicus, I'm me, and my solution would be progressive taxation, combined with a minimum wage at a living wage standard

(It's a good think Rox has me on ignore, huh? I don't think she'd like this response to her post. Doesn't matter - I'm going on vacation.)

Edited to add: Please notice, nowhere in my solution is the word 'communism'. I don't believe in it. What I do believe in is common sense, a concept that seems to fly out the window as soon as the free market takes over.

 

[SEVERUSMAX]

The fruits of one's labor belong to those who labor for it. Anything else is injustice. That means that taking from the rich to give to the poor is robbery, period, not matter how many majorities approve it. It's coerced distribution and quite unnatural.

But I'm a Libertarian. So I'd also oppose those who push through corporate welfare, too.

The government has little or no creative role in the economy. What role it assumes for itself is largely destructive.

 

[Pure]

rox is honest, despite herself

"Economic justice" is a clever codeword for wealth redistribution. It is the practice of using government coercion to take from one group and give to another based on an arbitrary, politically-determined definition of "fairness." America's founders would have rejected the concept

translation: the founders did not say anything about "wealth redistribution." ayn rand's and rox's opinions are another matter.

but let me put different words to this concept, so that that the anti-communists don't freak so much. the islamic religion, mormonism, judaism, and calvinism all recognize DUTIES on the part of the well off, to contribute to the welfare of the very badly off.

having the gov't do this is NOT that different in prinicple from the old Massachusetts way: everyone goes to church; everyone contributes, preferably 10 percent of earnings, to the church; the church, that is, its leaders and people spend the money, for example, feeding the poor.

this is something rox has a problem with. but there is a long tradition of moralists who've argued for the special duties of the well off, and the exceptional duties of the very well off and powerful, e.g. the kings.

the bottom line: justice in the area of the economy is furthered when the well off recognize and carry out their duties.

added: i see that DeeZire, above, has made a similar point.
===

as to severus principle, alleged to be self evident:
The fruits of one's labor belong to those who labor for it.

the above interpretation does NOT, strictly speaking, deny sev's principle. i merely add: "and those to whom a lot belongs have special duties toward their poorly off fellow citizens and human beings." to keep it simple, channeling 10% of "a lot" to one's fellows does not noticeably and negatively affect the well being of the very well off.

the duties incumbent on the very well off are recognized widely, e.g. in the Bill and Melinda Gates foundation, by mr Buffet and others.

 

[Liar]

The very introduction of a concept called "economic justice" is the contemplation of some other outcome. What does that say about the concept?

Uh. You don't have to contemplate. Just look at the world. That other outcome is in play in every society, one way or the other. If you think this is principally wrong, then wealth redistibution by coercion or force is "economic INjustice", is it not?

Seriously, I can't fathom what it is you're defensive against. Not in this thread. An open question was asked, and your response is "Eep, a commie"? There are some somewhat socialist answers posted. But the question, is not.

 

[Liar]

Me, I don't believe in economic justice.

I believe in economic common sense.

Some centrally administred expenses are nessecary to make society better. Crime fighting and national defense are two that very few disagree with. I'd also like to add crime prevention to the list. A part of that is some kind of a social safety net. Securing a work force is another, because you want people out of said net that is economically ineffective. This is done by making sure people are healthy enough to work, and educated enough to be of use.

Like Rob said, it's more cost effective to take care of people before they hit rock bottom than to deal withthe mess afterwards.

 

[Pure]

good points, liar

some of these issues seem like common sense. for any insurance, a broader base is cheaper: hence a universal health insurance is going to be cheaper. and empirical studies back that up, e.g. comparing Canada and the US.

the problem comes with ideology: rox's ideology, on the surface seems to say that if entrepreneuring and trading were the processes,
(lacking force or fraud), then ANY outcome is by definition, fair and just. alternatively, one might say, she rejects anyone, esp. commie dreamers instead of hard headed realists like herself from evaluating outcomes, e.g. the Joe has 1000 times the assets of Jack. or that Joe the owner has a large crystal mansion, and Jack, who's labored in Joe's mine, has a hut he rents from the company, despite having worked in the mine for 40 years.

if i may use an analogy, rox approaches economics like you or i would a chess game between the US and the Swedish grandmaster.
IF one said, "what is a fair outcome?" the answer cannot be "the Swede wins" or "a tie". the answer is, "let them play fair and abide by the rules. THEN whatever happens, whatever outcome, is fair."

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

the islamic religion, mormonism, judaism, and calvinism all recognize DUTIES on the part of the well off, to contribute to the welfare of the very badly off. having the gov't do this is NOT that different in prinicple

Wrong, it's very different. Religious strictures are about morality, which necessarily means choice, not coercion. Welfare state (or theocratic) wealth redistribtion is about coercion and no choice. You can't be moral if you can't choose to be.

Seriously, I can't fathom what it is you're defensive against. Not in this thread. An open question was asked, and your response is "Eep, a commie"? There are some somewhat socialist answers posted. But the question, is not.

I'm not being defensive, or "eep-commie!"ing. The purpose of my posts was just to concretize what the term "economic justice" is really about - using coercion to take people's stuff.

Would you rather talk about something else, like charity? In that discussion we would talk about morality and individual choice.

Your other post is about a different subject altogether, which is core functions of limited government. This thread is about wealth redistribution.

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

the islamic religion, mormonism, judaism, and calvinism all recognize DUTIES on the part of the well off, to contribute to the welfare of the very badly off. having the gov't do this is NOT that different in prinicple

Wrong, it's very different. Religious strictures are about morality, which necessarily means choice, not coercion. Welfare state (or theocratic) wealth redistribtion is about coercion and no choice. You can't be moral if you can't choose to be.

Seriously, I can't fathom what it is you're defensive against. Not in this thread. An open question was asked, and your response is "Eep, a commie"? There are some somewhat socialist answers posted. But the question, is not.

I'm not being defensive, or "eep-commie!"ing. The purpose of my posts was just to concretize what the term "economic justice" is really about - using coercion to take people's stuff.

Would you rather talk about something else, like charity? In that discussion we would talk about morality and individual choice.

Varian wanted to go "back to basics," but didn't go "back" quite far enough.

~~~

Your other post is about a different subject altogether, which is core functions of limited government. This thread is about wealth redistribution.

 

[gauchecritic]

You wanna take part in society, you play by society's rules.

Society as an organism must be dynamic, the dynamism in a modern fiscal society comes from economic injustice.

What was the question again?