fundamental political principles (and fulfilling a rant request)

[cellio]

A few weeks ago sekhmets_song posted a poll asking "What do you see as the most fundamental political issue?", with options like "education", "religion", "gender identity", and others. profane_stencil posted the same poll. In both cases the most popular answer was "class".

I, on the other hand, feel that the most significant political issue, the foundation on which many others are built, is property -- not who has it (this isn't "class" in disguise) but rather what we believe about property rights. At least for domestic policy; this doesn't work as well for international issues. I've been meaning to write more about this since then, but I've been busy. But hey, I'll take a stab at it now.

I think one's view of property informs many other beliefs -- everything from taxes to abortion to the judicial system. A generic western capitalist probably wants to keep taxes low (keep more of my money), thinks medical decisions belong to the individual (my body belongs to me), favors some level of civil torts (compensate me for damages done to my property), and so on. A lot of the thinking can reduce to "it's my property and I get to decide how to use it".

This view is probably pretty foreign to the generic socialist. (Disclaimer: I must rely more on observation than direct experience in this analysis.) Property really doesn't belong to you, so you don't get to control it -- it's perfectly ok to take from you to help someone else, because helping everyone is the goal and it's all public resources anyway. If socialists thought about their high taxes in terms of "the money they're taking from me", they might not support those high taxes. But since property belongs to everyone, it's not really "my" money, at least not mostly. Sure, we can all benefit individually from our labor, but only with what's left over after meeting everyone else's needs.

(Yes, of course this is an over-simplification. But if you think I've completely missed the mark please speak up.)

In trying to put this in words I realized that the foundation does seem stronger for the first position than for the second. This might just be that it's easier to support positives than negatives. It's not that the socialist is explicit about his view of property rights, but I still think the view comes through by implication.

Many issues depend on this. Education? One view is that you should have access to whatever you can afford (including by being good enough to win sponsorship); the opposing view is that education should be provided to all for no cost for the public good. Health care? Really, it's the same argument. Labor policies? One view is that I should be able to sell my services for whatever price I can get (even a very low one, if that's all I can get); the opposing view is that people have an inherent right to a certain level of financial support and that it's ok to compel employers and forbid low-bidding workers.

While some in the US today seem to think that religion is the fundamental issue (at least in its fundamentalist-Christian flavor), I think that the issues actually being argued under that guise often boil down to property. The right-to-die issue , for example, isn't about religious values at its core; it's about control over the individual. If I believe that I own myself, it would be unthinkable for me to intervene in your decisions even if it's a decision I myself would never make; if I think that the community owns me, then of course it has the right to intervene.

It's not evil to believe in property rights, nor is it inconsistent with supporting those around you. I, personally, believe very strongly in the legal right to the fruits of my labors, the obligation to cover my own expenses (and not take from others), the expectation that I use some of my resources to provide for myself in the future, and the moral obligation to support those who cannot do so. That moral obligation comes from a combination of religion, upbringing, and enlightened self-interest, but the key is that I give, not that someone else takes.

So to me this means taxes for necessary infrastructure and private charity for support, not taxes to be redistributed (at high overhead) by a government that tries to serve everyone from a distance. And yes, I realize that this approach breaks down in large groups; smaller communities take care of themselves better than large nations do. I don't know what is practical to implement in the US today, but a lot of what we're doing now runs counter to property rights, so I find myself getting bugged by it from time to time. For example, I've known for years that I am part of the generation that's going to pay for retirement twice -- once for those retiring before me and once for myself because those who come after me won't be able to support my peer group. From a property-rights view this is fundamentally unfair, even if -- absent the taking of that money from my paycheck -- I would turn around and spend that amount to support others anyway.

Comments

[cellio]

I do think that your view of property rights is very much influenced by your class background, though.

Influenced, sure. A person's life is full of inter-dependant connections. That said, though, I don't grant an automatic linkage between class and views of property, because I have met counter-examples of both sorts. More rich socialists than poor capitalists, but some of those too.

(Just for the record, I grew up in a solidly-middle-class home. Dad was white-collar; Mom stayed at home with the kids. We never wanted for food but we had modest habits. My parents saved for college but I also sought scholarships, saved, worked, and took out all available loans. I am in a better economic position now than my parents were then, in part due to not having kids to support.)

I don't think the value of labor is as simple as you make it out to be. There is no absolute scale that says "Joe is worth $5/hour, Bob is worth $500/hour, Sue is worth $10/hour, and Mary is worthless". Certain jobs are worth certain amounts; those values are set by the market or by outside forces depending on one's approach. And not everyone chooses job pursuits based on maximum earning potential; people choose based on a mix of their own skills, their own desires, and their evaluation of their economic needs. So sure, some jobs are unavailable to some people, and sometimes it's even because some people can't acquire the skills to do those jobs, but not everyone works to his maximum (theoretical) earning potential.

Sometimes this is due to obstacles beyond a person's control, like a severe handicap. Sometimes it's due to obstacles that could be addressed -- the bootstrapping problem of supporting oneself while getting training for a better job, for instance. This latter is what welfare is supposed to enable, but it seems to not work very well.

I don't believe that everyone stuck with a McJob has the best job he's capable of doing -- but it might be the best job he's capable of doing with his current level of training. This is a problem, but it's a problem no matter what economic philosophy you follow.

It is easy to say that those who are making more money are shouldering a bigger burden through the (theoretically) higher taxes they pay,

Theoretically? No matter how you count it -- percentage of income or raw dollars -- it sure looks to me from a perusal of the tax tables that it's far from theoretical.

In other words, if I cannot afford health insurance that covers reproductive medicine (other than pregnancy), and I cannot spare the money from my personal budget to cover a procedure, such as an abortion, I don't get one.

While it is obviously better to have health insurance than not, organizations like Planned Parenthood exist in part to help people who can't get these services through other means.

Oddly, many HMOs will pay for prenatal care, but won't even cover the costs of birth conrol pills.

Not odd at all when you consider the increasing role of the far right in governance. While the government doesn't (yet) control HMOs, I don't believe for a minute that there isn't influence. Of course, the more of your life the government administers, the more you are at the mercy of people whose beliefs don't match your own. If we had socialized medicine in the US today, for example, it would not be possible to get an abortion without leaving the country. They wouldn't have to outlaw it; they'd just decline to provide the service.

[sekhmets-song.livejournal.com]

I don't grant an automatic linkage between class and views of property, because I have met counter-examples of both sorts.
Class is much more than the amount of money you have. Perhaps this is where most of our disagreement on the primary issue is taking place: If you define class strictly by financial terms, yeah, one's take on property rights is probably more fundamental. Most leftist thinkers, though, will define class much more broadly than that, to include social factors in with the economic. In other words, your feelings on property rights will be one of the signifiers of class.
Don't mean to suggest that the cost of labor under capitalism is "simple." In fact, I mean something quite the opposite. My biggest issues with the valuation of work in this country is that the capitalist class is the the ones assigning the valuation; in other words, they choose to value their white collar jobs more than blue collar jobs. I have some very large issues with this. Yes, there are jobs that require different skills. Again, I take issue with placing a higher value on the jobs that require the set of skills the capitalist class has simply decreed more valuable (again, I point out the valuation, as defined by pay, of the work done by the CEO vs. the laborers of a power company. We can, in fact, all get through the day without the work that the CEO does, while it would radically affect us all if the power were to stop flowing as the laborers of the company no longer did their jobs). I don't particularly agree with this system of valuation and believe that there are better, more equitable ways, of doing so.
Planned Parenthood is a great organization, and they do what they can, but there is a world of difference in the services, quality and quantity, that they can provide versus a more traditional practice (many Planned Parenthoods, in fact, don't perform abortions any longer) and, while nearly every community has a general practitioner, many, many don't have clinics like PP.
It seems to me that you have a fairly cynical view of government. I won't suggest that you are wrong in having it. I just prefer to think in terms of what we can achieve and not limit us to what we have now. I do think it is possible to have a government that can serve the whole of a society much better than the one we have now. I also think that you can have a more communal-minded system of government as well as have the checks and balances in place to make sure that a majority is not a tyrannical majority. I am a firm believer in the rule of law. Our Constitution is a pretty nifty thing. I think it can be used to lay a foundation for a society that both provides for the material needs of all its citizens as well as allowing them the freedom to pursue their own bliss.
In other words, I think that we can have a socialistic government with rule of law, which provides that the changing tides of public opinion cannot violate the things that we have consistently agreed on, such as the right to determine what happens to our own body. Even within our current system there are limits to your right to your body that we have all agreed to enforce: You aren't allowed illicit drugs; you aren't allowed to use your body in a way that will harm another body; heck, officially, you aren't even allowed to commit suicide. Now, you and I may agree or disagree with some, none, or all of those things. But our society has agreed upon those limitations, and it will take much more than a brief switch in the public zeitgeist to change any of those things. This sort of system of law isn't limited to our current republic; it can apply to a government of any economic situation.

[goljerp]

It is easy to say that those who are making more money are shouldering a bigger burden through the (theoretically) higher taxes they pay,

Theoretically? No matter how you count it -- percentage of income or raw dollars -- it sure looks to me from a perusal of the tax tables that it's far from theoretical

I think the point is that although looking at percentage of income, rich people ought to be shouldering a bigger burden... rich people are also more likely to be in a position to afford tax shelters, or be paid in ways that don't lead to high taxes (Steve Jobs got paid $1 in salary from Apple every year for the past several years. He was also given a bunch of Apple stock, which will get taxed at the lower capital gains rate when he sells it. Oh, and he was given a jet a few years ago, but I think Apple paid the taxes on the Jet when they gave it to him.)

Or, another example. The IRS knows exactly how much a wage earner makes, because their company independently reports their income to the IRS. Thus, if I were to decide to under-report my income, they'd catch me pretty easily. Richie Rich owns RichCorp, a privately owned company. The IRS has no way of knowing what RichCorp's real income is, because there's no independent reporting. So it's easier for Richie Rich to cheat on his taxes, and harder for the IRS to find out (especially since the current administration has not made this a priority.) (There was an article in the NYT within the past few weeks about this -- they caught a large tax cheat, but only because there were several whistle blowers, and even then it took several years to track the guy down.)