Western societies fight a number of problems that in one way or another all come down to one thing: The color of money. The poor want money to improve their lives, the rich want money to sustain their lifestyles, the student wants money to buy beer, the mother wants money to buy diapers, and the illegal immigrants want money to survive. The lack of money can result in bitterness because those who have money are envied. It can result in racism because the rich look at immigrants like they are beggars asking for hand-outs. The two genders, male and female, can become enemies if an individual of one gender suspects an individual of the other gender of receiving a higher pay for the "same" job (and there are plenty of groups out there that make that claim!). Lack of money creates many problems, and an obvious solution to them could then be to increase the amount of money available to everyone!
But what increases the amount of money available? Some claim that there's plenty of money to go around and suggest that it's distribution should simply be altered. This solves nothing because a system of money-distribution brings problems of justifications, regulations and administration. A system of money-distribution (the so-called welfare-state or socialist-state) cannot be operated without violating the rights of the individual. It cannot be supported with facts and experience either. "Groups" which are classified as "needy" and therefore have the "right" to receive social-support usually remain needy. This goes for families with children, immigrants, handicapped and all others considered needy by public officials. High taxes must be collected to fund the money-distribution, which again can lead to a system where it is hardly worth it to work harder or longer, seek promotions or take risks in hope of benefiting later. Money-distribution is clearly a bad solution to the lack-of-money-problem.
Another approach to the distribution-problem is to "ease" access to the jobs that pay the good wages. A familiar approach are all kinds of laws that say that "discrimination" is forbidden in a way that keeps employers from choosing the job-candidates they choose and instead forces them to hire and pay according to the will of some public officials. Minimum-wages are an example of that, and they have the familiar effect of reducing the amount of jobs available for those who are in the salary-scale around the minimum-wages amount. Another example are laws that tackle the "problem" of gender-discrimination. Those kind of laws have not only fueled a bitter relationship between opposite-sexed individuals competing for jobs, but also lead to the expansion of the State in the field of supervision and administration of the hire-and-fire processes on the market. A costly and bureaucratic development with no chance of being "successful". The problems stay as long as someone gets paid to solve them.
What does work?
But what is then to do to make sure as many have as much money as possible? How can we tackle discrimination, poverty, hate, anger and bitterness and other problems largely related to the lack of money for some people and not other? The answer is pretty straight forward: Make sure the society is as flexible as possible so individuals have as many possibilities as possible to seek their own fortune without stepping on the toes of others (by themselves or via the State). This means in practice that the State should hold itself back as much as possible and not be tempted by new and new offers to regulate this and that, give money to this and that or tax this and that.
The State discriminates with respect to gender, color, age and many other factors - that is, the State discriminates according to individual traits that cannot be changed. Companies discriminate with respect to skills, education, talents, grades, work-will etc. - that is, companies generally discriminate with respect to traits that individuals can in most cases improve or find use for somewhere on the market. The only color companies have interest in is the color of money. That is why a "helping" State is usually a lot less helpful than an absent State.
Societies that follow the path of regulation and taxation will stagnate at some point. The Soviet Union did it in relatively few years, the big countries of Western Europe stagnated a long time ago and perhaps the trend in the USA is also to regulate and tax more, eventually leading to the same result. The flexible societies have rich people and poor people, but the rich and poor individuals have a lot more opportunities to improve their lives in the absence of too much "help". And isn't that more important than statistics?
No comments:
Post a Comment