This is a Fundamental Difference Between Us…
By: Rebecca Nicodemus
Everyone who listened to the Presidential debates probably recognizes this phrase. Several times, both Obama and McCain used it in reference to issues on which they disagreed. Once or twice when McCain spoke, I saw a little glimmer of clarity on the real fundamental difference between the parties. But neither of the candidates really spelled out the difference. It took me until recently to realize this, but the difference is really very straightforward. It is all about liberty versus equality*.
True conservatives value liberty over equality, while liberals value equality over liberty. It is as simple as that. Whenever I listen to debates between conservatives and liberals over the issues of health care, social security, education policy, or other domestic issues, I cannot help concluding that arguments over these particulars are rather futile. The policies follow naturally on the philosophies, but it seems that this very obvious fact has been obscured by the more emotionally appealing arguments about specific issues. It would be much more productive to debate the basis of their respective positions rather than the positions themselves.
Liberals believe that equality is of utmost importance. Poor people should not go without health insurance, subsidized higher education, or retirement security when rich people have those things merely because they are rich. Is this entirely fair? No, it is not “fair.” But what do we do about it? That is easy, a liberal would answer. Just take away some of the extra that the wealthy citizens have and use it to provide for citizens who are less well-off. That sounds like it might result in a more fair situation,. but at what cost does this fairness come? And… does it really work?
The next step in the scenario is for a vague ‘someone’ to decide how much the equally vague ‘we’ owe to the less fortunate. Then, that ‘someone’ has to decide who is going to take from the rich to give to the poor. In the unfortunate absence of Robin Hood, the government kindly offers to do this in the form of taxes. Taxes, in and of themselves, are necessary, but by definition they are a coercive collection of private property. Citizens must pay every tax, not just the ones they believe are necessary.
Obviously, a government needs to do certain things that would not be done otherwise, such as maintaining an army and negotiating relationships with other nations. Social contract theory tells us that this is the price of living in a civilized society, and it is the obligation we undertake for the privilege of having our rights protected. These services need to be paid for, and we all contribute through taxes. This infringement of our property is acceptable for services that a government body must provide to keep individual’s rights protected.
The problem comes when this ‘government’, merely a sampling of humanity with all its many faults, decides to provide services that go past protecting individual’s rights and move on to trying to help citizens live their daily lives.
In this case, we have an entirely different situation from that of national defense or foreign relations. In the case of ‘helping out’ the less fortunate, the infringement on liberty is less obviously excusable. It is at this point that individual liberty is infringed upon in order to help only a certain subset of the population.
Since liberty is so valuable, we must make sure of two things before we trade it for equality: first, that equality is really worth such a cost, and second, that there is no alternative way of paying for it. The answers to these questions show the clear divide between conservative thought and liberal thought.
So, is equality as precious as liberty? Conservatives say absolutely not. Liberty is far too critical to a functioning society and has been bought at too high a price of blood and sacrifice to be given up so nonchalantly. History tells us that things we take for granted today, like the ability to vote for our taxes (think Boston Tea Party), or the freedom to possess our own things and do with them as we please (think French and American Revolutions). These are privileges that were once hardly to be dreamed of and were purchased- not that long ago- at the price of thousands of lives. Most of these lives were of young people with aspirations, dreams, and a bright future. Can we let liberties this costly slip away, bit by bit, by letting the government decide when to take things and who to take them from? Shouldn’t we guard our freedom more jealously and carefully? Liberty has been lost by imperceptible amounts before and it can happen again. Equality, while not intrinsically valueless, is not that dear. Loss of liberty is far more of a danger than ‘unfairness’ will ever be.
Now, to address the second question, is it necessary that equality must be paid for with liberty? Again, conservatives say no. While people may have a moral obligation to help those less fortunate, it is not the government’s job to legislate and enforce this. Instead, a just society ought to rely on private initiatives to help out the poor.
To give you something to think about, Americans gave nearly 300 billion dollars to charity in 2006. Even if we knock off about 25% for administrative and fundraising costs (which is about right for an efficiently-run charity according to Charity Navigator’s widely-used rating system), each one of the 30 million people living ‘below the poverty line’ would get about $7,500 a year. That, by itself, would help a family buy health insurance or save for retirement.
Now, imagine what would happen to charitable giving if the government were not taking as much in taxes. Many working-class families would be able to save more and afford things beyond just food, bills, and housing. People who already have more would have a greater ability to provide charity or to invest in the economy. Also, citizens would be less tempted to be apathetic about the less fortunate, since the government would not be ‘taking care of it’.
There are numerous benefits to this system. Private companies are proven to be more efficient than government agencies. Lower taxes would benefit all individuals and corporations by providing incentives to succeed. Most importantly, individuals would learn to be responsible and not reliant. This is the quality on which America was founded, and we cannot forget that in the name of giving everyone everything that they need. A system like this one would remove the issue from politics so that policy makers can do what they are supposed to do: protect our rights.
Would such a system be perfect? No, absolutely not, but in order to protect the freedom and liberty of all of our citizens, we must move away from a welfare state. Would it be more efficient? Almost certainly. Would it come at a lower cost? Most definitely.
Health care, education reform, social security, and most other social issues are all subsumed under the fundamental philosophies of equality versus liberty. When determining your political philosophy, this is a question you must answer. Should the government strive to achieve an arbitrary view of equality at the cost of infringing upon citizens liberty? Or, should the government work to create a system where liberty is maximized, and equality is obtained and not just given? Which side you choose might just reveal the fundamental difference between us.
*the word ‘equality’ is used throughout to mean, not literal and actual equality, but a move toward helping the less-fortunate meet basic needs and some basic privileges. Literal equality where everyone has the same amount of everything is assumed to be complete socialism and not to be addressed here.
