...most wealthy people have access to strategies to move a lot of their wealth (at considerable expense and hassle) out of their estates and into trusts long before they die.
If wealth could be created and accumulated in a vacuum I would have a different opinion from the one I do now (see below). If we were not a social species where the well-being of all is dependent on empathy, compassion and reciprocal altruism (or some means to give the disadvantaged resources to overcome that disadvantage) then I would have a different opinion. If people were truly born with equal opportunity then I would have a different opinion.
Penn Jillette (among others) makes the argument that the pragmatic argument (socialist) is paternalistic and presumptuous. That it gives the government the power to decide what is in the best interest of citizens rather than let each of them to decide for themselves. The govt, according to Jillette and others of like mindset, seeks to make
outcome equal by transferring the wealth of those who work hard to accumulate that wealth to those who don't.
I have lived most of my life as a conservative. For a time I was libertarian (hence RandFan). I find Jillette's argument coherent and compelling. I find Jellette to be one of the most ethical people I have ever known. He is rational and reasonable IMO.
Here is the problem as I see it. Penn Jillette's children will have advantages that poor children do not. Whether one is born advantaged or disadvantaged is the greatest predictor of success. If Jillette moved his children into a modest home and did not provide any advantages to them that wealth provides then I would find that he is consistent in his ethics as it relates to this point. Jillette is paternalistic when it comes to his children (as he should be). Why can't, in the very least, the govt can be somewhat paternalistic when it comes to the children of poor people?
Also, we have a scientific model that explains and predicts that socities that provide social services to poor people have healthier and wealthier societies. IOW: It's good for all people, rich and poor, to provide resources to the poor. Field research coupled with game theory bears that out for species that engage in reciprocal altruism are by far the more succesful species.
Also, we have data from human societies that supports the predictions made by the traits derived from evolutionary selected for social species, reciprocal altruism and game theory (the ability to help others with no expectation of reward and the willingness to forgive, to some degree, those who fail to meet their social contract).
Let me concede up front that correlation does not imply causation. However, a rigorous scientific model like reciprocal altruism coupled with a mathematical model for cooperation has to have the ability to be falsified. In order to falsify the model we would need to find, in methodologically compiled data, a negative correlation between government based altruistic behavior and some measure of success of human societies.
Here is where the concept of social services provided by government could be shown to fail. Some have argued that reciprocal altruism only works efficiently when individuals who have resources voluntarily help those who are disadvantaged. This is a compelling proposition for a number of reasons. Humans did not evolve to live in complex societies with governments redistributing wealth. Governments are bureaucratic and lacking the human element of giving. When my neighbor does something for me I feel a personal connection. I do not feel entitled to his or her help but instead I sense the sacrifice made by that person and I feel gratitude and have a sense of debt (game theory). Again, this is a very persuasive argument. One I made as a conservative and libertarian for the first 40 years of my life (minus my childhood when I was not capable of understanding human psychology and economics).
So, what does the data show?
The
Index Of Economic Freedom is funded by the WSJ and is compiled by The Heritage Foundation. The FAQ for the Index can be found
here. As you can see, there is a negative correlation between nations that provide generous social safety nets and low economic freedom. Nations that provide generous social safety nets are relatively high in economic freedom.
The
Human Development Index. Purportedly this Index measures overall well-being of citizens based on sub categories like contentment, literacy, psychosocial health, wealth, etc. Again, there is a negative correlation between nations that provide generous social safety nets and relatively low Human Development.
Nominal per capital GDP. We find the same thing.
Counter argument: Nations that have the means to provide social safety nets do so because they can and human societies are composed of people capable of compassion and empathy. IOW: My argument has the cart before the horse and wealthy nations provide services because of successful economic strategies and human good will.
Rebuttal to the counter argument. The counter argument raises an important question, is their more harm than good by providing govt social services? IOW: Conceding the argument that govt help is cold and bureaucratic, what is the net effect? Is there a rigorous scientific model with explanatory and predictive power and can be falsified?
Social Darwinism or a variant similar, is an attempt to do just that. However, like Intelligent Design, the hypothesis is not rigorous and not reflected in the data. As far as I can tell the hypothesis is not entirely incorrect but it fails to adequately explain what we do find in the data.
Summary, on a case by case basis, volunteer giving is best however, societies that do not provide govt social services are not able to provide sufficient resources to it's poor simply because not enough people give (assertion admittedly, this is getting long, feel free to ask for sources and argument). Societies that provide generous social services are negatively correlated to low economic freedom, low human development and low wealth.
A couple of points. I did not address the morality of govt taking from one person to give to another. Feel free to respond to that and I will follow up. Also, there are many indexes. Please feel free to post one that you find more to your liking and we will see if it falsifies the hypothesis that govt social services are the best way to increase overall health and well-being. Also, I did not address the fact that the wealthy are likely to work to keep govt from taking their wealth making my argument moot (which is the subject at hand. I apologize but I had to get this out of the way first). We can discuss that also.
