A young woman was about to finish her first year of college. Like so many others her age she considered herself to be a very liberal Democrat and was for redistribution of all wealth. She felt deeply ashamed that her father was a rather staunch Republican, which she expressed openly. One day she was challenging her father on his beliefs and his opposition to higher taxes on the rich and the addition of more government welfare programs. Based on the lectures that she had participated in, as well as that occasional chat with a professor, she felt that, for years, her father had obviously harbored an evil, even selfish, desire to keep what he thought should be his. The self-professed objectivity proclaimed by her professors had to be the truth and she indicated so to her father.*I found this gem buried deep in my inbox, but, as unusual as it might seem, this one ain't from my favorite Aunt 'Net. It was sent by the Prez of our local Repub Club. Posted by Tiger at October 19, 2004 03:43 PM | TrackBackHe stopped her and asked her point blank, how she was doing in school.
She answered rather haughtily that she had a 4.0 GPA, and let him know that it was tough to maintain. She told him how she studied all of the time, never had time to go out and party like other people she knew. She didn't even have time for a boyfriend and didn't really have very many college friends because of spending all of her time studying. She also reminded him that she was taking a more difficult curriculum than most.
Her father listened and then asked, "How is your good friend Mary doing?"She replied, "Mary is barely getting by."
She continued, "She barely has a 2.0 GPA," adding, "and all she takes are easy classes and she never studies. But Mary is so very popular on campus, college for her is a blast, she goes to all the parties all the time and very often doesn't even show up for classes because she is too hung over."
Her father then asked his daughter, "Why don't you go to the Dean's office and ask him to deduct a 1.0 off your 4.0 GPA and give it to your friend who only has a 2.0." He continued, "That way you will both have a 3.0 GPA and certainly that would be a fair and equal distribution of GPA."
The daughter visibly shocked by her father's suggestion angrily fired back, "That wouldn't be fair! I worked really hard for mine, I did without and Mary has done little or nothing, she played while I worked really hard!"
The father slowly smiled, winked and said, "Welcome to the Republican Party."
This is a pleasant analogy but I'm sure as you know doesn't really prove anything. For instance, we could apply this analogy to a mother and a baby, and it no longer fits. If a mother doesn't share, the baby dies. So context is all-important.
The idea of government services is to increase quality of life for all, not just wealth, as narrowly defined, for one. Because wealth is not = happiness. You want to get rid of interstate highways, police, and Medicare, then keep all your money. If you don't want to help improve the inner cities, don't blame anyone when you get robbed or shot by an angry kid from the ghetto. The point of government is make society better. Civilization is complicated. We can't keep all our money, because our money is in a big pool, and each dollar helps the other dollar. If you have $5 billion in a total vacuum, you might as well have zero, because it's useless.
What many seem to have trouble with is that laissez-faire is only theoretical, and there are certain government services, and certain government regulations and bodies, etc. that increase wealth and lubricate the wheels of capitalism. And spending money sometimes means saving money. For instance, spening money on health insurance means that when you have an emergency, you're covered. When social programs work properly, they save money in the future by investing wisely in the present. Keeping someone in a prison for 20 years, for instance, costs a lot more than teaching him a trade.
So it's all about looking at the broader goals, and the longer-term horizon.
Balance is the key.