J.D. Tuccille’s post “52 Percent Of Americans Want Government To ‘Redistribute’ Wealth,” on Reason’s “Hit and Run” blog was a glaring example of “vulgar libertarianism” in action.
According to C4SS Senior Fellow Kevin Carson, “This school of libertarianism has inscribed on its banner the reactionary watchword: ‘Them pore ole bosses need all the help they can get‘.” Carson adds, “In every case, the good guys, the sacrificial victims of the Progressive State, are the rich and powerful. The bad guys are the consumer and the worker, acting to enrich themselves from the public treasury.”
Tuccille was alarmed at a recent Gallup poll showing that just 33 percent of respondents considered wealth distribution in the US to be “fair,” while 59 percent considered it “unfair.” 52 percent of those responding favored taxing the rich to redistribute wealth. Tuccille responded to the poll results with condescension, a common tactic of vulgar libertarians:
“That’s not fair,” is the plaintive cry of every toddler ever born, though my own son quickly memorized my constant response: “Not getting your way isn’t the same as ‘unfair.'” I may need five minutes alone with the American public, however, since many of my countrymen apparently think it’s “unfair” that other people have more money than them — and they want the government to give them some of what the other guy has.
One would assume from Tuccille’s sneering tone that we live in a “free market” meritocracy (we don’t) where government doesn’t pick winners (they do) and everyone has a shot at their little slice of “The American Dream” (a myth invented by the privileged). Did Tuccille consider that increased calls for redistribution might be a sign that more people are becoming aware that the state capitalist system is rigged?
Tuccille concludes his sermon to us unruly wage slaves with a threat straight out of Atlas Shrugged: “Then again, if the United States becomes a country that punishes success, and so drives the ambitious elsewhere, or underground, perhaps the resulting leveling downward will be perceived as more … fair.”
Damn J.D., you’re going to take your ball and run off to Galt’s Gulch because of a Gallup Poll? Who’s pouting now?
A heavy dose of conflation, also. Consider the following two juxtaposed data:
"Gallup poll showing that just 33 percent of respondents considered wealth distribution in the US to be “fair,” while 59 percent considered it “unfair.”"
"52 percent of those responding favored taxing the rich to redistribute wealth"
While the 52% of respondents who favor taxing the rich to redistribute wealth may be unfortunate, from a narrowly framed NAP perspective, the 59% who consider the status quo allocation unfair may or may not be the same people, and at any rate, while the call for redistribution through taxation may be illibertarian or worse, the mere attitude that it is unfair is surely a victimless "crime." Surely non-statists invoke the state neither to attack nor to defend holders of wealth.
"Did Tuccille consider that increased calls for redistribution might be a sign that more people are becoming aware that the state capitalist system is rigged?"
Maybe. Rightists, including "tea party" types as well as "libertarians," have adopted slogans along the lines of "It's really *corporatism* (as opposed to capitalism) that you (we) are against." What they haven't sold me, in particular, is the idea that somewhere there are these entrepreneurs without or with relatively few political connections who yearn to rescue capitalism from corporatism. From my perspective entrepreneurial capitalism is simply corporatism on a smaller scale. I'm guessing most of them, given the opportunity, would not turn down, say, a Defense Department contract, on principle. Probably the ethical obligation to be self interested (IMHO the root of the problem) would override the ethical obligation not to be a party to violence.
My recent post Quotebag #93
So why don't more people call on the government to withdraw its unjust intervention in favor of cronies instead of demanding more taxation of the rich? Could it be that many people especially on the Left do not care if a rich person got that way by being a government crony? If so, then could envy be the right motivation rather than outrage at injustice?
I think at least some of the libertarians saying "it's really corporatism" are arguing in good faith. I for one would call the Defense Department contract corporatism or perhaps crony-capitalism rather than "pure" capitalism.
The question of whether the entrepreneurs yearn to rescue capitalism from corporatism or not seems irrelevant. I don't care here about their intentions, ideology, propensity for rent-seeking, etc.. I care about whether there's a system in place for them to take advantage of or if their operating in a truly free market.
The difference looks largely semantic to me. Some say "It's really capitalism (as opposed to the freed market) we are against." Others say "It's really corporatism (as opposed to capitalism) we are against." But what both are actually getting at is functionally equivalent.
I agree and would argue that Freedom is often times less than free. It hard work. Jimhodgeallied.com