Fairness requires that President Obama read up on his Kurt Vonnegut.
The year was 2081, and everybody was finally equal. They weren't only equal before God and the law. They were equal every which way. Nobody was smarter than anybody else. Nobody was better looking than anybody else. Nobody was stronger or quicker than anybody else. All this equality was due to the 211th, 212th and 213th Amendments to the Constitution, and to the unceasing vigilance of agents of the United States Handicapper General.
So began Kurt Vonnegut's 1961 short story "Harrison Bergeron." In that brave new world, the government forced each individual to wear "handicaps" to offset any advantage he had, so everyone could be truly and fully equal. Beautiful people had to wear ugly masks to hide their good looks. The strong had to wear compensating weights to slow them down. Graceful dancers were burdened with bags of bird shot. Those with above-average intelligence had to wear government transmitters in their ears that would emit sharp noises every 20 seconds, shattering their thoughts "to keep them"¦from taking unfair advantage of their brains."
But Harrison Bergeron, who was far above average in everything, was a special problem. Vonnegut explained, "Nobody had ever borne heavier handicaps."¦ Instead of a little ear radio for a mental handicap, he wore a tremendous pair of earphones, and spectacles with thick wavy lenses." To offset his strength, "Scrap metal was hung all over him," to the point that the seven-foot-tall Harrison "looked like a walking junkyard."
The youthful Harrison did not accept these burdens easily, so he had been jailed. But with his myriad advantages and talents, he had broken out. An announcement on TV explained the threat: "He is a genius and an athlete"¦and should be regarded as extremely dangerous."
Harrison broke into a TV studio, which was broadcasting the performance of a troupe of dancing ballerinas. On national television, he illegally cast off each one of his handicaps. Then he did the same for one of the ballerinas, and then the orchestra, which he commanded to play. To shockingly beautiful chords, Harrison and the ballerina began to dance.
Not only were the laws of the land abandoned, but the laws of gravity and the laws of motion as well."¦The studio ceiling was thirty feet high, but each leap brought the dancers nearer to it. It became their obvious intention to kiss the ceiling. They kissed it. And then, neutralizing gravity with love and pure will, they remained suspended in air inches below the ceiling, and they kissed each other for a long, long time.
SOCIAL SAFETY NETS that provide basic help for the needy to prevent human suffering are easily justifiable on moral grounds. Nearly everyone supports them to prevent severe hardship among those disabled, widowed, orphaned, or even just temporarily down on their luck. In modern and wealthy societies like ours, there is broad voter consent to such policies, which ensure people do not suffer deprivation of the necessities of life: food, shelter, and clothing. This recognizes we have a moral obligation to help our fellow man. It's always an open question how much of that should fall to private charity and how much should be done through government taxation. That said, the truth is, such safety nets, if focused on the truly needy and designed to rely on modern markets and incentives, would not be costly compared to the immense wealth of our society.
But once such policies are established, going further"”taking from some by force of law what they have produced and consequently earned, and giving to others merely to make incomes and wealth more equal"”is not justifiable. Vonnegut's story helps explain why.
First, achieving true and comprehensive equality would require violating personal liberty, as the talented and capable must be prevented from using their advantages to get ahead. Under this philosophy, the most productive must be treated punitively through high tax rates simply because they used their abilities to produce more than others. What we have just described is a progressive tax system. Work and produce a little bit, and we take 10 percent. Work and produce more, and we take 20 percent, and so on. Some societies take as much as 90 percent of the marginal output, as the U.S. did after World War II.
In a society where men and women are angels who always put the welfare of others ahead of their own, this system"”from each according to his ability, to each according to his need"”might even work. High tax rates wouldn't have any negative consequences because everyone would work for everyone else's benefit. Society would be like one, large commune, with everyone working for the common good. The ambitious, hard worker would get the same pay as the one who sleeps in and lives a lazy lifestyle. Output would be high, and we would have almost complete equality of outcome.
The problem, of course, is that men are not angels. We are driven by self-interest-not entirely, of course, but enough that giving everyone an equal share despite unequal contributions would severely deter work incentives. This is why in all those societies that have tried to enforce the more extreme vision of mandatory equality, totalitarian governments and poverty have emerged. And, by the way, in practice these societies are not very equal either. Richer and freer countries tend to have smaller income disparities than poorer and less free nations.
Moreover, as Vonnegut's story illustrates, inequalities of wealth and income are not the only important differences in society. If equality is truly a moral obligation, then inequalities of beauty, intelligence, strength, grace, talent, etc. logically all should be leveled as well. That would require some rather heavy-handed government intervention. It is not fair that LeBron James has a 40-inch vertical leap, and we have a 4-inch vertical leap (combined). It is not fair that some have high IQs, and others are below average. It is not fair that Christie Brinkley is beautiful, that some people are born with photographic memories, that one person gets cancer and the next one doesn't. We Americans were born in a land of opportunity and wealth, while billions around the world are born into poverty and squalor. We won the ultimate lottery of life just by being born in this great and rich country. Where is the justice in that?
THE GOAL OF A SOCIETY should not and cannot be to make people equal in outcomes, an impossibility given the individual attributes with which we were each endowed by our creator. It is the opposite of justice and fairness to try to equalize outcomes based on those attributes. It is not fair to the beautiful to force them to wear ugly masks. It is not fair to the strong to punish them by holding them down with excess weights. It is not fair to the graceful and athletic to deprive them of their talents. In the same way, it is not fair to the productive, the risk taking, or the hard working, to deprive them of what they have produced, merely to make them equal to others who have worked less, taken less risk, and produced less.
As Vonnegut's story shows, putting social limits on the success people are allowed to achieve with their own talents and abilities makes everyone worse off, because it deprives society of the benefits of their brilliance and beauty and skill and talent. The fact that Bill Gates and Steve Jobs made billions of dollars in income"”more than some whole societies make"”has on paper made America more unequal. But is the middle class better or worse off for Microsoft and Apple products? Should we curse the invention of the personal computer, which is now in nearly every home in America, simply because it made these men unthinkably wealthy? Since hundreds of millions of people buy their products willingly, it would seem self-evident that Mr. Gates and Mr. Jobs generated a better world for everyone, not just for themselves.
Finally, this vision of equality as a social goal, with equal incomes and wealth for all, is severely counterproductive economically, and so makes for a poor society as well. Pursuing such a vision would require very high marginal tax rates on anyone with above-average production, income, and wealth, which theory and experience show leads to decreased production. As we saw in our discussion of tax policy above, the less people are allowed to keep of what they produce, the less they will produce.
Stephen Moore is a member of the Wall Street Journal editorial board.
Peter Ferrara is Senior Fellow at the Carleson Center for Public Policy, Director of Entitlement and Budget Policy for the Heartland Institute, and General Counsel of the American Civil Rights Union. He served in the White House Office of Policy Development under President Reagan, and as Associate Deputy Attorney General of the United States under the first President Bush. He is the author of America’s Ticking Bankruptcy Bomb, now available from HarperCollins.
A great read!
I remember reading Vonnegut's short story in high school in the late 60's. I doubt if any high school will allow anyone to read it now.
Ironically, Vonnegut was a dyed in the wool liberal who smoked Pall Malls.
That's how his story was so accurate.
"Ironically, Vonnegut was a dyed in the wool liberal who smoked Pall Mall"
Which is why he was chosen for this piece: Orwell wasn't exactly WFB, you know. Ben Franklin liked to cat around. I told that to a dumkopf Midwestern German-American, and he replied "that was when he was younger"
DUH! what, an old guy in the 1700s could take cialis?
I fail to understand why the authors equate 'angelic' behavior with collectivism, and then go on to say that humans are not angels (i.e. 'fallen') and 'driven by self-interest'.
Human beings are first and foremost individuals, and striving to do the best for oneself (and those one cares about), while not actively harming others, is the best societal arrangement that has been tried.
Equating collectivist perfection with the angels is falling right in line 'Marxist' thinking.
I recommend you familiarize yourself with this line:
If men were angels, no government would be necessary.
Of course, I agree with the main argument of the article.
However, with this sentence:
In a society where men and women are angels who always put the welfare of others ahead of their own, this system"”from each according to his ability, to each according to his need"”might even work.
the authors implied that putting the welfare of others ahead of oneself is 'angelic behavior' (and thus "good").
Man's history is littered with attempts at self-perfection, of changing our inherent nature in a way to become more 'perfect'. (See John Passmore's "The Perfectibility of Man')
And thus lies tyranny.
As we know angels in the western Christian tradition, they do put everyone ahead of themselves. They defer to God and God loves humans, so the angels put others, humans, before themselves.
However, I agree that the author could have said more to make it absolutely clear that such a system can never work in our world. Indeed, it never has.
The use of the phrase "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need", followed by the phrase "might even work", bothers me as well, and that thinking seduces otherwise sane people to believe in this insanity.
Right. Even a saint would very likely prefer to cultivate his own plot, which he could then use for the benefit of others as HE saw that benefit - not as Barack Obama and Nancy Pelosi see it.
If anybody disagrees, they should really stop selfishly donating to charity and start selflessly giving the money to the federal government.
when the individual is not free the collective is not free.
"while not actively harming others"
Actively? libertopians are actively harming philosophy, to start with.
Make that last line end: with 'Marxist' thinking.
I had always pictured Janet Reno as the United States Handicapper General.
Burning people to death without consequence goes beyond handicapping.
I guess you don't know how the story ends.
Pick up "Welcome to the Monkey House". It's a collection of Vonnegut's short stories.
Read Full Article »