You Didn't Build That

(Not Quite Top Shelf)

I would like to start where I ended my GDP post, with Justice Hand, because I think something in here is the dividing line between liberal and conservative views of individuals and government.

Justice Learned Hand in 1934 when he was on the 2^nd Circuit

Anyone may arrange his affairs so that his taxes shall be as low as possible; he is not bound to choose that pattern which best pays the treasury. There is not even a patriotic duty to increase one's taxes. Over and over again the Courts have said that there is nothing sinister in so arranging affairs as to keep taxes as low as possible. Everyone does it, rich and poor alike and all do right, for nobody owes any public duty to pay more than the law demands.

 The courts ruled “over and over again” because over and over again, government reaches, believing that the money actually belongs to “society” and thus to it.  It treats tax avoidance as equivalent to tax evasion, as if money is being stolen from The People.  Liberals are absolutely on board with this idea, believing that there is indeed something sinister, something unpatriotic, about sending your money away from the tax bite, to Switzerland or the Caymans.  They simply don’t get that theirs is the unamerican idea.  The People is not Society is not The Government.  These are not interchangeable concepts, however blurry the lines between them are.  Red is not blue is not yellow just because green and orange exist.

***

But more foundationally, there are only a few roads that can lead one to a place where one thinks that it is sinister and unpatriotic.  You either have to believe that the money ultimately belongs to the government and/or you have to believe that the money was acquired by luck, help by others, or exploitation.  Those seem like extreme claims, I acknowledge.  But there aren’t any other paths there.  All other arguments eventually resolve themselves into one of those positions. If you disagree, try it.  Look for the excape hatches, most of which will start with a claim that these things are partially true but needn’t be carried to their end, and see if they don’t all have no stopping point which prevents this.

Obama says “You Didn’t Build That,” and he is expressing quite forcefully the idea that everyone who makes money had help, and therefore does not have an absolute claim.  Well of course.  As I said before, someone can always say that you couldn’t have grown the crop if they hadn’t sold you the seed, or scored 47 on the Lakers if they hadn’t turned on the arena lights.  Every action is most certainly in a context. But Obama’s comment is slyer.  He is saying “without laws, and markets, and enforcement – that is, without government – you couldn’t have made this money.  So we deserve some, and we’re taking it.”  But that is true in any country, under any government.  Afghanistan’s got a framework.  Denmark’s got a framework.  Somebody built the roads for delivery, somebody printed the currency, somebody posts a set of rules for buying and selling. Again, of course.

But such systems have a practical claim on us only insofar as they are themselves practical, and have a moral claim on us only insofar as they are themselves moral.  The questions are “How practical is this system you’re charging us for, Barack? And how moral is it?  And come to think of it, how did it get that way?” Ah but the mask is off then, isn’t it?  If we’re being charged rent for using the system because it’s a really good one for making money, what are its good features and who built them?  If there’s a fee charged for having justice, who’s responsible for that?  And what did Barack Obama have to do with it?  It is fair to turn and say “Barack, You Didn’t Build That.”

I’m quite grateful that I live under a system where it’s possible for me to make a living and have confidence that most people are treated decently.  But I am more grateful to those who came before me and built this place, plus my fellow-citizens who go about doing their jobs, than I am to Barack Obama, or even to government in the sense of everything it wants to do.  I am grateful for some parts of the government, not so grateful for others, and expect we will not all agree on those parts. Putting up with paying for government stuff I think is useless or even pernicious is an expected cost.  I don’t mind paying it.  But I don’t define that a good. It’s an unavoidable friction, to be minimised, not praised.

My uncle sent me a Paul Krugman essay about why we should tax the 1% more.  The claim was that we could get X trillions in revenue, as opposed to the woefully inadequate Y trillions in cuts proposed by Paul Ryan.  I’m not even fussing about his numbers at this point – it’s his assumptions that I’m taking issue with.  It was clear throughout the essay that Krugman has default positions based on sliding definitions:

Krugman assumption that society owns it.  That they can charge money for the
privilege of living here that is unrelated to the ability to make money. A society can physically do that - hell societies can require you to go to a particular church or wear certain clothes if they want.  They have the power to do that.  That doesn't make it moral. If you can make 10x in society A and 3x in society B, and A will charge you 70%, while B will charge you 20%, you still might go with A, just because your net is greater.  Even if A does stupid or immoral things you might go there.  It's power.  They make the rules.

But when A declares that the stupid things are actually morally superior,
and you are cheating the populace by trying to minimise the take, there is
no foundation for that.