Kinsley High School
Kinsley, Kansas
Teacher: Dr. Galen Boehme

A Delicate Balance
By Joshua Spencer
12th Grade

In order to obtain a balance between individual liberty and the common good, everyone must accept personal responsibility, cooperate with others, and keep his government in check.

Defining key terms helps with understanding the problem. One key term, individual liberty, can be described as the rights possessed by the individual which allow him to exercise his freedoms. The “common good” simply means protected individual liberty. Personal responsibility is the duty of an individual to do what is right. The last key term, scarcity, is used to describe an inadequate supply of something.

Individual liberty is a fragile, yet powerful, asset. Dictators throughout history have determined that, with individual liberty, the masses are a threat. Though liberty is possessed in the individual, it is a uniting force. The dictator must make the citizens dependent on him, which means he must take away their dependence on each other. The dictator begins giving free handouts, such as food and money. He gains followers, and speaks about bringing peace and ending poverty, so his support continues to grow. Because of the free handouts, individuals no longer worry about a crucial element for unity in a society—scarcity. Scarcity prevents individuals from being self-sufficient, and forces them to interact, cooperate, and compete. But, with free handouts, nobody needs to worry about going without. People stop depending on each other, and begin relying on the provider of the handouts.

The dictator then takes control of all property, under the pretext of evenly distributing it to everyone. Without private property, individuals have little consequence for their actions, which destroys most feelings of responsibility. The dictator also changes the way in which individuals are paid for labor. Giving everyone equal incomes may sound like a noble idea, but it is actually quite destructive. When everyone earns the same amount of pay, no motivation exists to advance or excel. Anyone trying to stop these changes from happening is labeled a traitor. The dictator declares before the public that everything is for the “common good,” and all who do not support it should be severely punished.

So how does one prevent this from occurring? No one can stop it alone, but the cooperation of many accomplishes much. Everyone needs to accept personal responsibility. The first step toward obtaining this goal is to put more restrictions on welfare. Many individuals on welfare today do not need it, and are taking advantage of the system. Nobody spends somebody else’s money as carefully as he spends his own. With reform to the system, these problems can be reduced. For example, when individuals are making little income, the welfare benefits are large. But when the individual aided receives an increase in income, his benefits are cut. This may make sense, but with the decrease of aid the individual is not much better off than when he was making a smaller salary with more benefits. He is then forced to spread his own money further in order to compensate for the missing aid. A change needs to occur so that individuals receiving aid can receive an adequate amount until they are fully independent of the aid they are receiving. This should shorten the amount of time an individual will need to receive aid, and lessen the dependence of individuals on the government. 

Government spending also needs reformed. The government claims not to have enough money for important programs, yet spends money on unnecessary projects. The government should not spend tax dollars on public recreation; that should be the job of the community. If having a park is important to the community, it should take the responsibility to make one. If it wants a swimming pool, then it should see that one is built. The government could offer loans for areas that cannot afford to do this, but it should not have the authority to throw tax dollars at what the people can do on their own. Preventing this would increase responsibility on the part of the individual or community, and lessen dependence on the government. 

Another area in need of reform is the income tax system. The original purpose of income taxes was to help pay the expenses of World War II. But after the war was over, the government decided to keep this tax. The current system gives little incentive for individuals to work harder. People who make more are taxed more, while individuals who make less are taxed less. It sounds like this system should work, but it still reduces the desire of an individual to excel. Taxing everyone a flat fee also causes problems, because it hurts the poor and benefits the rich. But a change is necessary in which an incentive exists for individuals to work harder without fear of being taxed more.

The process of putting this plan into action is simple: Inform others to make change. It is as simple as telling friends about the changes that need to be made, and having them pass these ideas on. With increased public support for these actions, the next step will be natural: Contact senators and representatives regarding these issues. When bills are introduced into Congress, these individuals vote on them. Therefore they are essential for the plan’s success. But be sure to watch for government interventions, such as filibusters or rider bills. Filibustering is an action where a bill is literally talked to death, in order to prevent it from becoming law. Rider bills are unfavorable bills attached to other bills more likely to be passed into law. These can be very dangerous.  

After the plan is implemented, individuals should accept personal responsibility in everyday life, and depend less on the government. This protects individual liberty, which defends the common good. One possible drawback is that individuals still refuse to accept responsibility. But with less government support, these individuals would only be hurting themselves by their decision. When everyone accepts personal responsibility, the balance between individual liberty and the common good is discovered.

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 deliberately uses the word “steal” in order to cause the reader to realize that obtaining those “things we desire” without planning on paying for them is, indeed, wrong. This strong word is used in an ironical sense, since the action being criticized is widely accepted by today’s culture. When someone buys a “nice” house or a “nice” car, knowing he will avoid paying for it by declaring bankruptcy, that individual is stealing that property. Machan states this truth very bluntly. Only a morally twisted individual would consider stealing something to be encouraged, so Machan is appealing to the reader’s natural sense of right and wrong. By seeing the word “steal” the reader subconsciously relates it to the word “bad.” So, if the reader had not considered that taking something without paying for it is wrong, then the word “steal” might help him realize the truth of the matter. Machan is causing the reader to look at an issue in a different light.

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.

Machan’s point has merit because with every goal, a sense of personal responsibility is distributed to each person working to reach that goal. When only a few individuals are working toward the goal, the amount of personal responsibility is greater in each individual, since they know it is up to them alone to reach the goal. When many individuals are working toward a goal, each person still has a sense of personal responsibility, but it is spread thinner and unevenly. An example of this from my personal experience is the community play I am participating in. At the beginning, many individuals signed up, but only some took their roles seriously. Soon, many stopped showing up to rehearsal, and several dropped out of the play. These individuals simply did not think they held any responsibility for the quality and outcome of the presentation, so they quit. Another example from my personal experience is participating in group projects for assignments. When the group is large, it is unfocused, and only one or two people become stuck with doing all of the work. When the group is small, the workload is distributed fairly evenly, and the members are on task. The project tends to be completed more quickly when a smaller, more focused group is working to complete 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.

This point also has merit, and this point closely relates to the last question. As an objective example, a large group decides to perform a community service by picking up litter around the community. After a short while, the people who work hard eventually become frustrated at those who slack off. The hard workers think to themselves, “Shouldn’t they be doing the same amount of work? I should just let them do the rest.” Likewise, the “slackers” become irritated with the hard workers’ prodding. The slackers think, “I’m not getting paid for this, so why should I worry about it? Those over-achievers are just trying to look good. I’ll just let them do all the work.” Everybody expects everybody else to do everything, and, as a result, nothing is accomplished. By throwing responsibility to the other party, the situation becomes like a childish game of hot potato, with no one wanting to be responsible.

“Are We Going the Way of Rome?” (Lawrence Reed)
Q4- State Kershner’s First Law. Do you agree or disagree and why?

Kershner’s First Law states: “When a self-governing people confer upon their government the power to take from some and give to others, the process will no stop until the last bone of the last taxpayer is picked bare.” I agree with this statement. The government quickly becomes out of control when control is given up by the people. One can control and limit a ferocious lion by keeping it in a cage, but once that individual opens the cage and gives the lion control, the person will soon be “picked bare.” The same is true for government. The government is helpful as long as it is under control. When the government is allowed to “take from some and give to others,” everyone is eventually robbed. Also, someone must be in charge of a government. By giving government control of taking from some and giving to others, that person in power is actually the one getting this freedom. This is why the government needs to be kept in check, and strictly controlled on what it is allowed to do.

Q5- What industry was the first to be taken over by government in both ancient Rome and the USA?

Transportation was the first industry to be taken over by government in both ancient Rome and the USA. Control over this industry allowed the government to tax any goods transported, since the government is in charge of transporting the items. Controlling transportation also has many other benefits for the government. If the government controls transportation, it has complete reign over what goes where. If someone else controlled a portion of a transportation network, the government would need that individual’s permission and cooperation in order to use that portion. Of course, the government does not wish to be dependent on anybody, so it became a monopoly of sorts. In a monopoly, a company not only owns a business, but also the businesses of the makers of the products, etc. in order to have more control over costs. The government, by controlling transportation, is able to have control over taxing and other costs.

Q6- Is cheapened money the cause or the outcome of inflation?
Please explain.

Cheapened money is the cause of inflation. High costs for government programs and other spending has to be paid for somehow, and making cheaper money is a way of paying for the programs. But, with cheaper money, the consumer has to pay more in order to reach the same price. What could be bought with a small amount of money now requires a much larger amount, because of a declining quality of currency made. The Roman currency, the denarius, was once very valuable, being made of almost pure silver. Soon it was devalued and worth virtually nothing. The same has happened with our U.S. currency, the dollar. Our dimes, quarters and half dollars, which were once made of 90 percent silver, now contain none. Therefore, like in Rome, a vicious cycle will begin and worsen with time. If this led to the fall of Rome…then this will certainly contribute to our own fall, as well.

Q7- How did the Edict of 301 affect Rome’s economy?

The Edict of 301 absolutely devastated Rome’s economy. When the emperor Diocletian put this rule in place, the Romans wanted a strong leader because they were recovering from a recent economic disorder. But perhaps they should have been more careful what they wished for. Though Diocletian may have been a strong leader, he was also a ruthless dictator. The Edict of 301 put in place wage and price controls of all goods, enforced by a penalty of death. Even a very small violation of his edict resulted in the death of those involved. Needless to say, many were killed in a short amount of time. Many people stopped bringing goods to market because they were unable to get a reasonable price for their products. Instead, these individuals kept their produce, and tried to become self-sufficient. But the economy was almost completely destroyed and many were still being killed. This slaughter went on for a few years, and eventually the Edict of 301 was taken out.

“Liberty and Individual Responsibility” (Dwight R. Lee)
Q8- Lee claims that individuals could be “entirely independent of others” except for what? Explain.

According to Lee, individuals could be “entirely independent of others” if it weren’t for scarcity. Without scarcity, we would be able to be completely self-sufficient, with no need for contact with anyone else. We would have freedom while doing anything, without having to worry about affecting anybody else. But scarcity changes this situation. Scarcity forces us to interact, cooperate, and compete with each other. As we interact, the rules of social conduct shape how we act and react to situations. These rules bring restrictions on what exactly we say and do, and establish the distinction between liberty and license. While these rules and distinctions tend to limit us, without them, we would have an even worse set of restrictions due to scarcity. Scarcity also forces us to have responsibility. If an item or good is scarce, then individuals distributing that item would have to be responsible with its distribution. The scarce product would have to be rationed rationally and fairly. Without responsibility, the scarce item would be wasted and, eventually, completely depleted.

Q9- Describe the dilemma concerning rules as discussed by Lee.

The dilemma concerning rules is the delicate and fragile balance between the two dangerous extremes. One extreme is having no rules, or some form of an anarchy. Anarchy is technically impossible to have for any length of time with more than one individual. When pondered, anarchy is a system of government in which there exists no government or rules. Paradoxically, anarchy is a government that has no government, and it has no rules, except the rule that states there are no rules. In this system with more than one person, one individual soon becomes the leader. This is normally the strongest individual with the ability to physically control the other individuals. The others become followers, and basically the slaves to the former. Therefore, rules come out of having no rules. At the other end of the spectrum, too many rules can just as easily destroy a society. With too many rules, nobody is able to be aware of each technicality, let alone follow each of them. Everyone is soon thrown into jail for breaking a law he didn’t know exists. Therefore, too many rules can be just a bad as not enough. That delicate balance in the middle of the two extremes is necessary for a successful society.

Q10- Why is the concept of private property crucial to freedom?

The concept of private property is crucial to freedom because it gives the people of the society the sense of individual responsibility. Private property makes individuals responsible for their decisions. If an individual makes a bad choice and loses his property, then he is responsible for making that decision, and must suffer the consequences. When private property is taken away, a sense of individual responsibility no longer exists. Most people do not care about taking care of, or keeping, something that is not their own. But owning private property gives the individual the ability and freedom to use resources as he chooses. Owning private property is what helps individuals to respect other individuals’ freedom to own private property. For example, if someone owns some land, and built a nice house with a tidy yard on it, but sees someone else who uses his lot as a junkyard, the first individual can say, “I may not like it, but that’s his land, and he can do what he wants with it.” On the other hand, let us use an example where no concept of owning private property exists, and the first individual lives in a house and a yard he doesn’t own. This individual sees someone else using public property as a junkyard, and says, “I could’ve taken care of the land better than that. And if he’s allowed to throw his junk there, what’s stopping him from dumping his junk in my yard?” This is why private property is important.

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.

Reed may be advocating compassion and aid for the poor by saying, “Government has nothing to give anybody except what it first takes from somebody, and a government that’s big enough to give you everything you want is big enough to take away everything you’ve got.” With that view, everything we have has been taken from those who are less fortunate, and we could just as easily be in the same position as the poor people are. Reed may also not be advocating compassion for the poor by saying, “…people are free to be themselves, to be masters of their own destinies, to apply themselves…” This could mean Reed believes the poor are where they are because of a lack of effort and work ethic. If we are “masters of our own destinies,” then why are poor people poor? According to this thinking, poor people want to be poor, because they are “masters of their own destinies.”

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.

This comment sums up Reed’s first principle. People naturally work differently, and some people naturally do better at some tasks than others. So, naturally, people who are free will earn different incomes for different tasks. People who are not free will be stuck with the same pay, no matter how skilled they are at the task. Also, there would be no desire to become more skilled with everyone having equal incomes. The worst guy on the workforce makes the same amount of money as the best guy—why improve? The quality of work would also steadily decline. If one gets paid no matter how well he does, why try to do better? Why not slack off? This situation would quickly lead to serious problems.

Back