Kinsley High School
Kinsley, Kansas
Teacher: Dr. Galen Boehme
By Marcus Adams
12th Grade
In a society that devalues individual liberty we need standards promoting public awareness and personal involvement to reverse the trend.
Before we discuss the problem at hand, a few key terms and reasons for concern must be presented. America has become what it is today via healthy and sometimes vicious competition and growth due to something we call individual liberty. Individual liberty is the freedom of a person to partake in any number of activities and the obligation to take part in the constructive matters of a society. Public awareness is the vital tool to reversing the sort of problem at hand. Public awareness provides that all individuals understand the problem and have considered a way to personally contribute to a cure. The personal involvement is having individuals in a society take action independently rather than expecting government handouts. The “trend” mentioned is a situation that has been forming for some good part of the last century. The responsibilities of society such as individual aid and public facilities are being shifted from society and individuals to the government and, in turn, reducing the value of individual liberty.
It concerns me that when the government provides aid to one it must take from another. "When a self-governing people confer upon their government the power to take from some and give to others, the process will not stop until the last bone of the last taxpayer is picked bare." This is Kershner’s First Law and definitely has merit. Taking from the fortunate and giving to the destitute reduces the drive for productivity in the fortunate. A strong correlation exists between the paths of Ancient Rome and America. The Romans started as a simple people of agriculture and plain commerce. The society grew to a great industrial power and eventually fell from internal collapse. The people relied too heavily on the government for social purposes. This is exactly the route that America has been on for the last century. We are currently at a crossroads. We have become a great industrial power and are relying heavily on the government individually and socially. “You cannot pull a man up by pulling another man down.” Abraham Lincoln spoke these wise words and so many years later they identify the very problem causing much disturbance in society. This reliance on a take-and-give machine must be severed to save us from the fate of Rome. A third concern is the possibility of individual liberty becoming non-existent if the government continues to work for the “common good.” If the government is responsible for providing so many services to the people, is it possible that individual or social responsibility could disappear entirely? I believe so. Without the responsibilities of individuality, what need exists for individual liberty? Last, the subject at hand concerning private property. Will the value of individual owned property and healthy competition plummet due to government involvement? Government intervention will ruin motivation for competition providing private property.
Such a widespread problem will require the help of the entire American people. An organization committed to the awareness of this problem and its correction must be formed to aid the cause. The organization should promote individuals owning personal property, employment, entrepreneurship, and other self-reliant activities. This scenario provides the opportunity for powers to be put back into the hands of individuals to promote productivity and individual liberty. For a plan of this magnitude to become effective, an equal magnitude of people must be made aware of its existence. Without huge numbers of people involved the plan is sure to fail. Advertising the existence of this organization through a number of media such as television and radio will notify the numbers of the doomsday path our beloved country is on. Such a proposal requires everybody involved to coexist in harmony, differences aside, within an organization dedicated to a higher calling, the continuation of the American legacy. Equally important as awareness is the education of America in the value of such a plan. The reason for its existence must be planted deeply into the minds of the younger generations and learned faithfully by the current adults. The organization must die-hardily recruit members. The current self-deteriorating course of America must be laid out and explained so everybody is concerned about the well-being of themselves and their loved ones in future years. After America as a whole has been informed of such a plan and exercised in its necessity, the plan must be executed faithfully by each and every person involved.
After a period of time, hopefully a short number of years, this organization should achieve an increased value of individual liberty and private property. Public facilities such as swimming pools, currently funded by the government, should be owned by individuals and not supported by the tax dollars of society as a whole. The government should focus on creating jobs and running the country. Volunteer and charity organizations should be formed to help the destitute get “back on their feet” with these jobs. This situation will draw less money. A possible drawback of such a system is the results for those individuals with a complete absence of motivation. These individuals will be left destitute.
Each individual taking the personal responsibility to provide for himself rather than expecting a government handout brings our country closer to identifying the delicate balance of individual liberty and the common good.
Answers To Questions Triggered by the Required Reading
“Welfare State on the Street Where You Live” (Tibor Machan)
Q1 - Why does Machan use “steal” in his statement: “Private property solves this problem, but was abandoned a long time ago when taxes reached the point where we can steal our way to being provided with all sorts of things we desire, never mind thinking about paying for them or long-range budgeting.”?
Machan uses the term “steal” to emphasize the harmful nature of the current government public benefit system. Too often we find ourselves expecting government aid for any number of goods. Food, shelter, and income are a few basic criteria the government invests tax dollars in to take care of select citizens. Perhaps Machan sees the problem as an issue of possession. The public goods and benefits spoken of belong to the public as a whole. Individuals attempt to steal, or “pad their pockets,” with these benefits when these individuals should be providing for themselves with their own efforts.
Q2 - Machan said: “For that which is common to the greatest number has the least care bestowed upon it.” Give two examples of this from your personal experience.
Public swimming pools illustrate this comment well. Citizens take such establishments for granted as they believe the government is responsible for supplying such forms of recreation. The government first made the mistake of becoming “personally” involved in society. The government’s role should be to mediate between individuals rather than provide for those in certain situations. Having public swimming pools is so common to citizens in most towns nobody slows down to consider the effects of the pool. What would the impact be if local or county government stopped funding the swimming pool? The pool would close, of course. This is one privilege commonly misinterpreted as a right.
Plumbing and sewage receive little attention in the public arena of issues. Plumbing and sewage, however, are two very vital instruments in the society for which the government pays. Where would society be if government did not set up a central sewage system? Citizens take this for granted. The sewage is common to every person and little care is “bestowed upon it.”
Q3 - Do you agree with Machan that “. . . everybody is more inclined to neglect the duty which he expects another to fulfill; as in families many attendants are often less useful than a few.”? Give an objective example of this.
Machan’s view on this thought has merit for it is human nature to manipulate for a personal benefit. As infants, children manipulate parents or grandparents to secure what they as children want. In high school, students manipulate teachers on assignments or parents for a later curfew. One good example of this is a household with two or three able-bodied individuals that could wash the dishes. Procrastination, however, comes into play since each person hopes one of the others will do the dishes. Each person expects each other person to do the job so nobody ends up doing the dishes until an agreement is made.
“Are We Going the Way of Rome?” (Lawrence Reed)
Q4 - State Kershner’s First Law. Do you agree or disagree and why?
"When a self-governing people confer upon their government the power to take from some and give to others, the process will not stop until the last bone of the last taxpayer is picked bare." This theory has merit in that there will always be needy individuals in a free enterprise economy. When individual motivation is the determining factor of an individual’s success in life, those less motivated will need assistance. On the contrary, the extremely to moderately motivated, thus more successful individuals, will be capable of paying the taxes to help support those needy individuals via government assistance. Being forced to help support those needy individuals deducts motivation to be productive from those more fortunate citizens. Government assistance programs are created with the idea of making everybody happy. The very idea of our form of economy is against this idea. Government assistance goes against the “survival of the fittest” nature of America.
Q5 - What industry was the first to be taken over by government in both ancient Rome and the USA?
Transportation was the first industry in both ancient Rome and the USA to experience complete government control. In Rome’s case, the control was specifically shipping. In the USA’s case, railroads were the main reason. In both cases a demand existed for an interstate transportation basis. A natural gain of momentum in the competitive market of both blossoming societies led to the necessity of a more centralized method of transporting goods. As more social rules were put into effect and more direct forms of channeling competition gave way to more efficient and speedy transactions on the market, people became spoiled. Individuals in both societies gained an easygoing sense of life and demanded faster, more unified service. The government-dominated railroad provided a centralized method of transportation from coast to coast for both coach and goods.
Q6 - Is cheapened money the cause or the outcome of inflation? Explain.
It seems, in this article, that cheapened money is the cause of inflation. In ancient Rome the denarius was at one time pure silver. However, emperor after emperor put less and less silver in the denarius and lessened its value. By 268 A.D., the denarius contained less than .02 percent silver. In the USA, as recently as 1964 many American coins contained up to 90 percent silver and currently contain none. The government decided to create more money so the quality of the money was, in affect, reduced. This ridiculous idea to cure the economy actually ends up causing inflation.
Q7 - How did the Edict of 301 affect Rome’s economy?
The Edict of 301 was a disaster. This Edict was set to control the prices of all “vendible” items. The edict established a system of comprehensive wage and price controls, to be enforced by a death penalty. Private parties fought over very trivial goods and many people experienced the grand penalty from the government. Finally, many vendors quit bringing goods to the market because they could not receive a fair price. After many deaths the law was finally set aside. Liberty and Individual Responsibility
“Liberty and Individual Responsibility” (Dwight R. Lee)
Q8 - Lee Claims that individuals could be “entirely independent of others” except for what? Explain.
Lee feels individuals could be entirely independent of everybody else if not for scarcity. Scarcity is the limited resources that our planet offers. If there were plenty of money, metal, wood, gold, diamonds, or any other resource for everybody, no competition would exist. All individuals in a society could soothe their possessive natures easily and without interaction or conflict with the interests of others. All social rules and structures exist due to the existence of scarcity. These social rules, as Lee claims, depict the limits on actions and their impacts balancing between individual rights and social interests. With no scarcity, society as we know it could not exist.
Q9 - Describe the dilemma concerning rules and discussed by Lee.
Lee states that competition may be either destructive or productive depending mostly on the rules imposed. Rules restrict the playing grounds for competition but are nonetheless necessary. With no rules, all individuals would be free to partake in any number of activities and take whatever they wished. Those strong enough to force their will on others would dominate and control the weak. No real prosperity could be gained without the presence of rules because one would immediately become a target for plundering once wealth began to accumulate. Actually, little free will would exist in such a society because all would be under the limits of those people stronger-willed than themselves and the close inspection of the peer eye watching for any nugget symbolizing a greater wealth than their own.
Q10 - Why is the concept of private property crucial to freedom?
Lee explains that without the assurance that the product of his effort will not be taken from him without his consent, little motivation stirs one into productivity. The rule of private property guarantees that each may reap the benefits of his own work without fear of others imposing themselves on what is not theirs. This promise of income provides the motivation for productivity in a competitive market. All transactions of property must be willing to both parties. Through property transactions market prices surface and provide a standard of supply and demand. The rule of private property also allows society to make fewer rules and regulations. A society without a private property rules is constantly rattled with demands for individual restrictions and permissions. The rule of private property defines at large the greater part of our society’s social structure and provides a medium for willing and productive competition.
“Lawrence Reed’s testimony before the U.S. Senate Budget Committee.”
Q11 - Argue both pro and con that in his testimony Lawrence Reed was advocating compassion and aid for the poor.
Compassion, in this case, means mercy. Compassion refers to showing pity and taking action to aid. This aid could be money, services, or intangibles to help the poor. Poor, however, is obviously a relative term. Here, “poor” is a destitute individual worse off than the general public.
Reed may be advocating compassion for the poor through principle number two which states individuals will always care more for what is theirs than that which belongs to another. If poor people are given aid they may appreciate it and react favorably. However, the government should exercise limited compassion, or “tough love.” Giving the poor too much aid may cause them to become lazy and expectant of handouts. Reed advocates compassion for the poor with principle three in which he states the effects on all people over a long period of time should be considered rather than a short period of time on a few people. This shows he believes all individuals should be cared for when considering courses of action, including the poor.
Reed may not be advocating compassion for the poor with principle one. Stating that a free people can never be economically equal and any civilization economically equal must not be free is saying that no matter the efforts some people will be left less fortunate and successful than others. This seems to form a continuous cycle. Reed could also be arguing against compassion for the poor with principle two because showing compassion may never help the poor in fending for themselves. Principle number four which states that encouraging gets more implies that perhaps government aid is simply encouraging people to rely on aid and handouts. The government should not support mediocrity.
Overall Reed apparently believes a “tough compassion” approach is necessary. He believes the poor should not simply be left behind altogether but should be guided towards self-reliance with as little aid as possible.
Q12 - “If people are free, they will not earn equal incomes; conversely, show me a people who have equal incomes and I will show you a people who are not free.” Explain in your own words Mr. Reed’s meaning.
Some people are simply more skillful, motivated, and focused than others. Members of such a society will invariably experience different levels of monetary return for their efforts. Being free guarantees that nobody will be coerced to attempt success or work harder. The odds of complete economic equality in such a free-lance environment are relative to correctly guessing a number between one and one million, maybe worse. To support his theory, Reed states that if one could find a people that receive equal incomes he could easily show that the people are not free. No individual in a group of people contain within the exact amounts of motivation, skills, and potential as the rest of the group. Every person has a different background and frame of mind to base his or her actions on.