Making Economic Sense
Making
Economic Sense
by Murray Rothbard
(Contents
by Publication Date)
Chapter 16
The Homeless And The Hungry
Winter is here, and for the last few years this
seasonal event has meant the sudden
discovery of a brand-new category of the pitiable: the "homeless."
A vast propaganda effort has discovered the
homeless and adjured us to do something
about it--inevitably to pour millions of tax-dollars into the problem.
There is now even a union
of homeless lobbying for federal aid. Not so long ago there was
another, apparently entirely
different category: the "hungry," for whom rock stars were making
records and we were all
clasping hands across America. And what has now happened to the Hungry?
Have they all
become well fed, and so rest content, while the Homeless are held up
for our titillation? Or have
they too organized a union of the Hungry?
And what of next year? Are we to be confronted with
a new category, the "unclothed," or
perhaps the "ill-shod"? And how about the "thirsty"? Or the
candy-deprived? How many more
millions are standing in line, waiting to be trotted out for
consideration?
Do the Establishment liberals engaged in this
operation really believe, by the way, that
these are all ironclad separate categories? Do they envision, for
example, a mass of hungry living
in plush houses, or a legion of the homeless who are living it up every
night at Lutece?
Surely not; surely there are not a half-dozen or so
different sets of the ill- served. Doesn't
the Establishment realize that all these seemingly
unconnected problems: housing, food,
clothing, transportation, etc. are all wrapped up in One Big Problem:
lack of money? If this were
recognized, the problem would be simplified, the causal connections
would be far clearer, and
the number of afflicted millions greatly reduced: to poverty, period.
Why aren't these connections recognized, as even
Franklin Roosevelt did in the famous
passage of his second inaugural where he saw "one-third of a nation
ill-housed, ill-clad, and
ill-nourished?" Presumably, FDR saw considerable overlap between these
three deprivations. I
think the Establishment treats these problems separately for several
reasons, none of them
admirable. For one reason, it magnifies the hardship, making it appear
like many sets of people
suffering from grave economic ailments. Which means that more taxpayer
money is supposed to
be funneled into a far greater number of liberal social workers.
But there is more. By stressing particular,
specific problems, the inference comes that the
taxpayer must quickly provide each of a number of goodies: food,
housing, clothing, counseling,
et al. in turn. And this means far greater subsidies to different sets
of bureaucrats and special
economic interests: e.g. construction companies, building trade unions,
farmers, food
distributors, clothing firms, etc. Food stamps, housing vouchers,
public housing follow with
seemingly crystal-clear logic.
It is also far easier to sentimentalize the issues
and get the public's juices worked up by
sobbing about the homeless, the foodless, etc. and calling for specific
provision of these wants
far easier than talking about the "moneyless" and calling upon the
public merely to supply
do-re-mi to the poor. Money does not have nearly the sentimental value
of home and hearth and
Christmas dinner.
Not only that: but focusing on money is likely to
lead the public to begin asking
embarrassing questions. Such as: WHY are these people without money?
And isn't there a
danger that taxing A to supply B with money will greatly reduce the
incentive for both A and B
to continue working hard in order to acquire it? Doesn't parasitism
gravely weaken the incentives
to work among both the producer and the parasite class?
Further, if the poor are without money because they
don't feel like working, won't
automatic taxpayer provision of a permanent
supply of funds weaken their willingness to
work all the more, and create an ever greater supply of the idle
looking for handouts? Or, if the
poor are without money because they are disabled, won't a permanent
dole reduce their incentive
to invest in their own vocational rehabilitation and training, so that
they will once again be
productive members of society? And, in general, isn't it far better for
all concerned (except, of
course, the social workers) to have limited private funds for charity
instead of imposing an
unlimited burden on the hapless taxpayer?
Focusing on money, instead of searching for an
ever-greater variety of people to be pitied
and cosseted, would itself tend to clear the air and the mind and go a
long way toward a solution
of the problem.
Previous Page * Next Page