In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

  • A More Coherent Mishmash
  • Ingrid Bjerke (bio)

Individuals often fall prey to the logical fallacy that if two ideas belong equally to a group, both must be either true or untrue. In his article, aptly titled "Contemporary Economic Conservatism: An Incoherent Mishmash," John Williamson highlights one of these instances. He outlines two premises of current economic conservative thought: opposition to government involvement in the market and opposition to income redistribution. He proceeds to agree with the first notion, subject to certain caveats. However, he is a staunch opponent of the second, and claims that opposition to income redistribution reflects only greed, rather than any philosophically defensible position. Whilst economic conservatives would presumably nod their approval of the first, the second may incite both indignant outrage as well as sensible arguments that question Williamson's bold claim.

Williamson states that opposition to redistribution cannot be supported by any coherent ideology. However, reasonable arguments against redistribution have been made. In particular, two arguments stand out—the first practical, the second ethical. The practical argument follows the logic that by redistributing income, you remove the incentive for individuals to engage in productive, lucrative behavior. This reduces income, which in turn reduces consumption, production, and investment, eventually pushing economic activity below what it otherwise would have been. On ethical grounds, the second argument asserts that stealing from the rich and giving to the poor is simply that—stealing. In addition to its negative effects on the economy, it is simply not "right" or "fair."

These arguments do not render the case for redistribution invalid, but they are legitimate points that merit further investigation. It is true that, following the principle of self-interest, an individual may rationally choose not to work if they can live comfortably on welfare. However, it is equally true that an individual too poor, or too sick, to work, is also an unproductive member of society. By providing some government services, such as unemployment benefits or health care, the individual may become a more productive member of society. Unemployment benefits can facilitate the transition to future gainful employment, for example, by allowing the unemployed to keep the cars that they need to get to their next job interview. Likewise, healthcare can reduce the number of people who become ill, or the [End Page 9] duration of their illness, and thus allow them to begin, or return, to work. This in turn creates positive externalities such as reduced crime, a better consumer environment, and, by ensuring that people receive the care they need early, reduced stress on the health care system.

Regardless of the economic figures, there is also the question of ethics. Most people recognize that there are few things in life that are fair. Conservatives would be hard pressed to argue that it is fair to be born poor. As Williamson points out, attempting to avoid a value judgment about income nonetheless makes a value judgment. Accepting the laissez faire approach to income implies that a dollar is worth the same if gained by pauper as by a millionaire. This is counterintuitive to liberals and conservatives alike.

Is there some form of redistribution that may be more fair, but does not rob productive members of society of their incentives? What kind of transfers, from whom, to whom, and for what purpose might be appropriate? Taxes should be arranged to minimize any reduction in productivity, for example, using higher, more progressive personal income taxes and lower corporate taxes. Steeply progressive income taxes target only those very rich, while low corporate taxes encourage greater re-investment into business and research and development. Programs should be designed to maximize productivity and minimize cheating such as through prioritizing more preventive health care rather than more unemployment benefits. Preventive health care is difficult to overuse, increases personal productivity, and reduces stress on the health care system in the long run. There will still be instances where people take advantage of income redistribution. That is inevitable. But it is not ethical, nor logical, to sacrifice those in genuine need to spite the few that may abuse the system. [End Page 10]

Ingrid Bjerke

Ingrid Bjerke is an MA candidate at the Johns Hopkins, School of...

pdf

Share