For richer or for poorer

In his essay "That It is Not Wicked to Be Rich," William Sumner discusses the call for the government to reapportion money to the poor. It is clear from the get-go that Sumner is in favor of a capitalist economy. Sumner argues that it is ridiculous to penalize someone for the efforts that have gained them wealth, often speaking of "the rich" in ideal terms. Sumner believes that the rich are humans of a more complex nature, suited to the labors of the mind that lead to new inventions and new capital: "Men of routine or men who can do what they are told are not hard to find; but men who can think and plan and tell the routine men what to do are very rare."

It is with logic that Sumner believes the rich come to be as rich as they do; it is society's debt to them: "They are paid in proportion to the supply and demand for them." Without this fiscal and moral encouragement of capitalism to accumulate wealth, Sumner believes that the progress of society would slow.  Sumner also points out that the majority of the reforms intended to assist the poor are represented by members of society's upper echelon and by no workers or laborers. And too often the benefits of the reforms ended up in the hands of classes that did not need them. Sumner also makes a very good argument about hypocrisy when he points out that society views the rise from poverty to riches as exemplary, but is quick to diminish the good intentions of anyone with money.

I agree with Sumner on the more practical points of his argument, but he definitely has a very high view of the rich. Sumner, in reverse to the position of his opponents, generalizes all members of the upper-classes as extremely generous and always willing to give their money to help the poor, things that are clearly untrue. Just like not all of the poor are nice people, neither are the rich. 

I also think that Sumner and his contemporaries were looking at economic gaps in too narrow of terms. It doesn't help anyone to simply redistribute wealth without any regard to an individual's contribution to society, but it's true that the poor are disadvantaged from the start. The greatest contribution the government could give (and can give, since these arguments are still applicable over a hundred years later) would be to provide its citizens with equal educational opportunities so that everyone could develop any skills they desired and be justly compensated.

INVISIBLE HAND OF DOOM

Oh, Adam Smith. You and your silly ideas about economics that mean I've been forced to learn about you every year since the fifth grade.

Ok, to be fair, Adam Smith knew what he was talking about. The man could decipher market behavior just by observing. None of these fancy studies or interviews scientists use now (oh look, the oldest rocks in the world...). For the most part, his ideas about the invisible hand and free trade are considered to be the foundation of modern economics. I agree with most of his statements on the excerpt from "The Wealth of Nations," except for one point he argues.

Smith believes that the reason for man's ability to work together is based on the human ability to reason and communicate through speech. He argues that the occasional cooperation between other animals is "not the effect of any contract, but of the accidental concurrence of their passions in the same object at that particular time." My question is, what is a contract based on if not the concurrence of passions? Contracts are created between humans to reach a common benefit. Like a pack will work together to kill an animal they all can feed on, so humans will merge two corporations to reap profit for all. All animals are born with the capability to cooperate for the greater good.

Hooray for Hypocrisy!

This week we read a speech delivered by Frederick Douglass at the celebration of the 76th anniversary of the Fourth of July. Douglass, unusually for his time, was greatly respected and honored former slave. As demonstrated in "What to the Slave is the Fourth of July?," Douglass was a strong believer in liberalism and in the liberal and democratic principles the United States was founded on.

Douglass expresses his beliefs as clearly as possible in the text of his speech. He repeatedly attests to a love and respect for the founders of the nation, saying "they loved their country better than their own private interests; and, though this not the highest form of human excellence, all will concede that it is a rare virtue, and that when it is exhibited, it ought to command respect." 

In spite of - or perhaps because of - this love, Douglass insists on sharing wit the audience the hypocrisy of their celebration. While they enjoy the freedoms and luxuries bequeathed by their forefathers, American citizens were displaying the same tyranny toward slaves that England displayed toward Americans: "You boast of your love of liberty, your superior civilization, and your pure Christianity, while the whole political power of the nation [...] is solemnly pledged to support and perpetuate the enslavement of three millions of your country men."

Douglass uses the sparks of the Revolution as a parallel to the cruelty of slavery. Douglass refreshes the memory of an imperialist ruler that handed down rulings and laws found to be oppressive and unreasonable. Douglass describes the actions of the patriots in terms that would be equally adequate for abolitionists: "to pronounce against England, and in favor of the cause of the colonies, tried men's souls. They who did so were accounted in their day, plotters of mischief, agitators and rebels, dangerous men." Douglass further notes that actions American citizens respected in their fathers were reviled in their contemporaries.

When the patriots felt that England gone too far, done too much wrong against their brethren, they chose to rebel and declare their independence. They were ultimately successful, creating a new nation of freedom and hope, a nation where the government was accountable to the people. As Douglass states, these "blessings, in which you, this day, rejoice, are not enjoyed in common." The American people turned their back on the principles of the Declaration, turned a blind eye to the suffering of others.

Douglass is realistic, but ultimately hopeful for the future of the nation. He believed that the nation's youth kept it from being too set in its ways, and eventually would overcome their hypocrisy.

Douglass, in terms of slavery, and to some extent racism, was right. The nation has tried to learn from its mistakes, but it has not always been successful. Douglass would not doubt be horrified by the liberties the American government has taken with freedom, after finally ensuring the rights of all. We can only hope we're still young enough to change.

How far we've, well, mostly failed to come

We started out the week discussing Thomas Hobbes and John Locke, two terribly interesting thinkers from before and after England's Glorious revolution. I am not much of a fan of either of these thinkers; I find them much too depressing. 

            All due credit to Hobbes for recognizing the importance of the social contract in government, but he was a bit overzealous with his beliefs about the rights of the appointed sovereign. It's all well and good to keep one's subjects united, but there is a thick black line between a representative of the people and a despot, and Hobbes wanted the Leviathan to skip right over that line without a backward glance. There is no sense in preserving natural human rights by giving them all up to one individual or ruling body.

            Locke took Hobbes ideas a step further, realizing that there must exist a means for the subject's protection against the oppression of a sovereign. Even a sovereign has to be ruled by the laws of society. Nonetheless, Locke is insistent of a higher power to rule the nation, an organization that may not be above the law, but it is certainly stuck behind it, pulling the strings of humanity's freedom.

            And so John Stuart Mill enters as a breath of fresh air, taking note from the French and American revolutions and the political theorists who followed in the footsteps of Hobbes and Locke. Mill's guiding principles are the tenets of modern liberalism. I agree wholeheartedly (of course I do, I'm a liberal) with Mill's ideas.

            Mill focuses on the human right to opinions and actions. He writes that for man "over himself, over his own body and mind, the individual is sovereign." Mill believes that as long as an individual takes no harmful action against another, there is no reason to prevent that individual from thinking and doing as it pleases: "the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm for others." Mill does make the exception that these principles apply only to "human beings in the maturity of their faculties," providing for the protection of children. 

            Mill also presents the argument that humans are civically bound to interfere when the life of another is at risk, saying "a person may cause evil to others not only by his actions but by his inaction and in either case he is justly accountable to them for the injury." This principle would be difficult to apply in a judicial setting, except in such cases as child negligence, but is certainly a belief which many people share.

            Mill then takes things even a step further saying first that human liberty expands to "liberty of conscience, in the most comprehensive sense; liberty of thought and feeling; absolute freedom of opinion and sentiment on all subjects, practical or speculative, scientific, moral, or theological." This ambitious statement is certainly representative of the ideals set down in the First Amendment of the United States Constitution. Mill continues in this vein with the belief that individuals should be able to "[frame] the plan of our life to suit our own character, of doing as we like, subject to such consequences as may follow." his statement is the foundation of liberal belief in freedom of lifestyle. The ultimate dimension of Mill's theory follows that of the First Amendment's right to assembly: "freedom to unite, for any purpose not involving harm to others."

            Certainly Mill's beliefs, like most liberals, are idealism of a most extreme nature. These values, while revered, are still subject to the hypocrisy inherent to all human opinions and activities.