RYAN SAWTELLE
Contributor
During this year’s election season, you are certain to hear that “the rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer,” closely followed by the orator’s opinion on what government needs to do to solve such a “moral dilemma.” This, of course, presupposes that the gap between the rich and the poor is a moral bad.
Such presupposition is found greatly in Democratic campaign gimmicks that we have been hearing over the past several months (and, which, is a staple of John Edwards’ campaign). Their goal, based on the aforementioned conception, is to suggest that government, in all its superior inherent morality, is righteous in intervening to “remedy” what is regarded as unfair (whenever a politician uses any word involving “fairness” – be afraid and grab your wallets).
The ridiculous premise on which these liberal (and sometimes conservative) politicians base their argument is to say that the reason the poor are poor is simply because the rich have “taken” all of the available wealth – as if there is a set amount of wealth available in our economic system. This class of thinking is altogether juvenile. All wealth is created through productivity – the more productive you are in a field, the more potential you have for generating greater wealth.
Conversely, if one is not productive in a certain field, he is free to move into a different field, become more educated to do so, or apply himself any way he sees legally fit to increase his overall value.
Since wealth is created, there can be no finite amount. Your neighbor’s wealth does not stop you from creating your own and does not take away any money that could have been in your pocket.
Unfortunately, many politicians and naive voters do not fully realize this. They end up basing most of their morality on a foundation built on emotion as opposed to reason. This leaves them to believe that government should not only become involved in our market economy, but that it is their moral right to do so. Because of this, politicians, fueled by their misguided morality, feel the need to create public policies that actually end up hurting those they are intending to help.
Rent controls, for instance, create large shortages in housing because suppliers choose to supply less due to stunted profit and consumers will demand more because of the artificially low prices. Eventually this will lead to the deterioration of the buildings because landlords are not compelled to keep up with the property to attract tenants under housing shortages. Even if the property owners wanted to properly maintain their buildings they may find it impossible to collect the proper amount of rent the market demands in order to pay for the costs of renovation. Yet, government imposes such sanctions because they believe that it is moral (read: right and just) to lower the price of housing to enable those with lower income to afford housing in urban markets. But is it moral to force a landlord, by the police powers of the government, to sell their product at a price that is not determined by the owner and the current market? Is it moral for government to intervene on a private housing deal and start dictating the financial terms of the transaction? Of course not.
Furthermore, is it moral for government to plunder the pockets of wealthy individuals (through taxation) and give it to those less wealthy (through welfare)? Some politicians even go as far as changing the language of welfare — calling welfare checks “entitlements” to suggest that those receiving the checks are morally entitled to someone else’s money.
It is scary when people of this nation find it morally feasible for government to abuse its power in an attempt to cushion people from the consequences of their own irresponsible choices. It will only encourage more of those irresponsible choices. The real moral obligation of government, then, is not to constantly intervene and legislate their morality based on their emotions, but to embrace the morality of reason and not legislate at all.
Ryan Sawtelle is President of the Pepperdine College Republicans.
01-31-2008