I hear this all the time: “It’s wrong to force people to be charitable. Charity is something that should be done on an individual level, by individuals, for individuals. It’s not something government should be involved in.”
I used to think this. I was wrong.
My first mistake was not realizing that equality of opportunity is a public good. It is as critical as clean air to a healthy society. And without vigilance, it can be lost. Right now, the U.S. ranks near the bottom of industrialized nations in social mobility. We like to think of the U.S. as a unique place of opportunity where anyone can make if they’re willing to work hard. Unfortunately, comparative data suggests this is no longer the case. Today, kids in the U.S. with poor parents are more likely to grow up to be poor (and kids with rich parents are more likely to be rich) than kids in most European countries. As one individual humorously observed (or not so humorously, if you care about these things), the American dream is alive in well. . . in Finland.
Why is equality of opportunity a public good? Watch this TED talk. Do a few Google searches (here is a good start). Read this book.
My next mistake was not understanding the incentives involved in the provision of public goods. In social science research, the challenges created by these incentives are referred to as public good dilemmas. The basic problem is that once public goods have been produced, everyone benefits from them. This creates an incentive for individuals to wait until others bear the expense of providing them.
My third mistake was not understanding that a complex economy is characterized by specialization, and that in the case of public goods, this specialization often requires centrally coordinated action.
In the case of national defense, for example, most folks seem to understand this. We decide, as a society, how we want to provide for our collective defense. Once we’ve decided–through democratic processes–what we want to do, then everyone is obligated to contribute, and contributions are pooled and managed by institutions set up for that purpose.
Imagine two neighhoods each contemplating building a public park. In the first neighborhood, they hold a town meeting, the majority vote to build a park, they collect the required funds by levying a neighborhood home owner’s fee, and they build the park. The cost of the park represents a wise investment, given that the cost of the park is significantly less than the collective value derived from it.
In the second neighborhood, in which a park is equally favored, it is decided that it’s wrong to “force” everyone to contribute to the park. They hold a town meeting, the majority vote to build a park, and a call goes out for donations. Because each resident reasons that the best course of action is to wait for others to bear the costs of the park, relatively few contribute. Although the park would represent a wise investment for the neighborhood, it is never built.
The point is that public goods have to be provided in a certain way. One of the most effective ways to ensure that a public good is NOT produced is to prohibit groups from obligating members to contribute to its provision. If you want to lower defense spending by 90%, make contributions voluntary. . .
Leaving the provision of a public good up to individuals is asking too much. It asks individuals to act against their own immediate self interest (i.e. to not free-ride), and that’s a hurdle that groups rarely overcome, even if an overwhelming majority of the group support a proposed activity.
Imagine if the same constraints imposed on efforts to reduce income inequality by some on the religious right were applied to other types of collective action:
1) All those in favor of building a new sports stadium, please bring $100 cash and come down this Saturday and Sunday to help pour concrete. . .
2) All those in favor of building public roads, please contribute $100 a month to the road maintenance fund and be sure to mark the fifth Saturday of every month to come out and fill potholes. . .
3) All those in favor of invading Iraq, please send in $3000 and notify your employer you may need to take 6 months off work. . . (assuming you successfuly complete basic training).
What does it say about our country if it’s okay to “force” everyone to contribute to public roads, the military, the court system, various regulatory bodies, veterans affairs, sports stadiums, etc., but when it comes to guaranteeing equal opportunity for the next generation, we balk?
This quote seems apt:
“If this is going to be a Christian nation that doesn’t help the poor, either we have to pretend that Jesus was just as selfish as we are, or we’ve got acknowledge that He commanded us to love the poor and serve the needy without condition and then admit that we just don’t want to do it.” –Stephen Colbert
An even better question is why an overwhelming majority of the members of the LDS church seem to latch on to any excuse–no matter how transparent or contrived–to justify policies that not only fail to address the problem, but would actually–in the name of “incentives” and “efficient” markets–make things worse.
For Mormons who take their religion seriously, King Benjamin’s sermon should be as relevant in the voting booth as it is in Sunday school.
[Last Post: 33 Loving Those Who Choose the Other Road]
I posted that Colbert quote on my FB wall a while back, thinking it wouldn’t be too objectionable (I try to stay away from posting inflammatory things) but holy cow, my wall exploded! I’m not liberal in SPITE of being mormon, I’m liberal because of the things Mormonism has taught me.
Excellent, Brent. Well put.
That’s funny, Jenn, because during a Sunday School lesson last year that mentioned charity, people started talking about the excuses here, and “we don’t want to support drug addicts” and that sort of thing, and I brought up King Benjamin’s sermon with similar results. It says right there that we can’t make an excuse for ourselves by saying that the poor have brought their situation on themselves. D&C says, “it is not given that one man possess that which is above another. Wherefore, the world lieth in sin.” People didn’t want to hear that either. The scriptures tell us to give automatically and unconditionally. But saying so makes you a scary Liberal, a Socialist even, and therefore an apostate. Which makes absolutely no sense!
When are we going to hear a General Conference address that tells us morality is more than sex outside of marriage–or that modesty is more than sleeves?
Title intrigued me, Brett, so I popped in for a read. There is more scriptural support of a social contract for mutual support than there is of so-called rugged individualism. Shoot, the Book of Mormon even goes so far in talking about Korihor to say that he is anti-Christ because he wants to teach that “…every man fared in this life according to the management of the creature; therefore every man prospered according to his genius, and that every man conquered according to his strength… .” “I’ve got mine” is pretty much always Satan’s plan in the scriptures, and “make a decision to help everybody out” is pretty much Zion. We’re not supposed to avoid debt so we can have a McMansion in the canyons of the Wasatch, but so that we can help folks out, no? Why is job creation by buying a big screen TV good and Christian, but job creation by building affordable housing Satanic? If creating “dependent slackers” is your deal, then why do you feed your kids? Shoot, it will take me 18 years to ween these rug rats off of MY labor… why are we so impatient with transitioning others out of poverty campaigns. Besides, if they REALLY believe President Benson when he says the gospel will take the slums out of people, why don’t they serve a dozen missions instead of buying 70,000 dollar jumping horses or owning half a dozen homes and a fleet of Cadillac cars. I guess that last part might have been too “certain rich Mormon” specific.
Preach it, Brother Jason! I grew up my whole life with my parents as staunch Democrats–fully supporting social programs to help those in need. It wasn’t until I graduated from high school and went to BYU that I encountered the other side of the fence. Initially, it was totally puzzling to have people ask how you could ever vote for a Democrat or align yourself with Democratic ideals/platforms and still be Mormon . . . I was still trying my best to figure out how someone could ever vote for a Republican candidate and still be Mormon. Seemed like such a huge contradiction to me.
I realize it’s more complicated than this. Not black or white. But still . . . I agree that there’s PLENTY of scriptural and theological support for community/government-sponsored assistance. Plenty.
Living in Australia I feel like I live in a society closer to Zion, because of the Universal healthcare, Deserted wifes pension, child care allowances, and social safety net.
I am amazed though, how many members here who equate political conservatism with membership in the church. We are having a shift to the conservative here which is scary. A number of State Govs have changed to a more conservative brand and the polls show the Federal gov could go that way too.
The potential Trasures has given a speech recently given a speech titled “the age of entitlement is over” where he expresses his belief that government should get out of education, healthcare, transport and become more like Korea and Hong Kong. He doesn’t say it but to compete we would have to reduce our wages too.
I am unable to understand how this will make us a more hristlike society but most members will vote for him.
Nicely put, Brent!