rej (02/22/83)
Instead of asking "should wealth be concentrated among a few people?",
"do people have a right to share in the natural wealth of their country?",
"how can the profit motive possibly be considered ethical?", I have another
set of leading questions.
Doesn't a person deserve what he worked for more than anybody else?
How can something be considered mine if I can't give it to whom I want?
Doesn't a person who works hard deserve more than one who doesn't?
The obvious answer to these leading questions implies that if I work hard
and am successful, I can leave millions to my children, who can make even
more money or go into politics. Thus, there is nothing wrong with a society
that produces the Rockefellers.
Now, my leading questions have begged the question. I only looked at the
problem from the point of view of the successful person. I left out the
person who, through no fault of his own, is in poverty. What happens
to the working people when there are no jobs, or to retired people when
inflation wipes out their savings? Economics is very complicated and
simplistic answers are usually wrong.
I am in general accord with the arguments in favor of a mixed economy.
Capitalism seems to be a very good way to produce wealth, though the
weaker members of society often are neglected. Government enforces the
rules and protects those parts of society that have not fared well in
the competition. Government also performs those roles that require
monopoly and the power to tax, such as military protection.
Clearly, there are problems with our society, both economic and political.
Although I believe in a strong military, I think the U.S. spends too
much on the military and often in the wrong places. Our government rules
hamper exports. Our tax system encourages cheating and rewards us for
being dishonest. However, I am generally satisfied with our way of
governing ourselves, and the burden of proof is on those who want to
radically change our economy and government.
Ralph Johnson