-
Website
http://willwilkinson.net/flybottle -
Original page
http://www.willwilkinson.net/flybottle/2005/05/06/aint-nothin-like-the-real-thing-baby/ -
Subscribe
All Comments -
Community
-
-
Top Commenters
-
Popular Threads
- A Little Mystic Nationalism
- Scott Winship on Income Inequality
- Now Let Us Praise Results-Facilitating Virtue!
- Why Are There So few Women in Philosophy?
- Hey, I Can’t Actually Quite Imagine a World in Which Things Are Exactly as Different as the Need to Be to Give Me What I Want, but It Would Be Neat if I Could!!
I wonder about your ontology.
What is the distinction between "illusory" property in which everyone believes and which they respect in their actions and "real" property? I am genuinely having trouble with the distinction.
If the real concern is that future Congresses will cut Social Security benefits, there are lots of ways the security of those benefits could be dramatically increased. George Bush could barnstorm around the country saying that any future President or Congress that tries to cut Social Security benefits from the amount retirees are entitled to under current law (or default on the "Trust Fund") is un-American and deserves to be voted out of office. He could write a "Contract with America" to that effect and demand that all Republican lawmakers sign it. He could use his influence to put that principle at the front of the Republican Party platform.
He could even write a new "Social Security Civil Rights Act" giving Americans a property right in their benefits (at the amount they are entitled to under current law) and the right to sue to receive them if cut or taxed above a certain level. As for the trust fund, he could insist that future surplus tax revenues from the so-called "Social Security tax" be invested in securities under the auspices of an independent agency designed along the lines of the Federal Reserve (with directors with long enough tenure to insulate them from political pressure).
Cutting benefits under that scenario would be pretty darn hard. Marginally easier than confiscating retirees' "personal" retirement accounts? Maybe. Easier than jacking up the tax rate on capital gains realized through "personal" retirement accounts" (which has the same practical effect as partial confiscation)? Definitely not.
If you're still worried that Congress would abolish Americans' property rights in Social Security and cut their benefits even under those conditions, the President could even be pushing for a Constitutional amendment to protect them (with a special provision for repeal under conditions of national emergency with the consent of some kind of Congressional supermajority).
The problem here is that you libertarians (and the Republicans) aren't interested in strengthening Social Security - you want to destroy it. That's fine, but don't try to change the subject - make the honest argument that "personal" accounts are the feasible second-best to abolition.
For the record, my dream would be to abolish the payroll tax, increase the income tax, and turn Social Security payments into a means-tested welfare program. But the stigma attached to "welfare" would make it too easy for y'all to cut benefits, so defending what we have now is the feasible second-best to that. And I'll say it loud and proud.
Will assumes everyone is honest and bad things do not happen. He describes a utopian vision of the world.
There are better ways, than the present system, to help people enjoy retirement, but they are not any of the ways Will describes.
His ideas are a simple parroting of Wall Street. Leave Wall Street out of it.
I used this example before, but a British citizen cannot sue for relief if Parliament takes away her house without compensation. But British citizens have "real" property rights in their homes because it is (at least for now and in the foreseeable future) politically unthinkable for any Parliamentary majority to do that.
(Note: I'm not arguing against justiciable property rights in constitutions. I'm just saying that even if they don't exist, property rights still may. And, conversely, a justiciable right in the constitution, as the People's Republic of China now has, will not do any good if the judicial system will not reliably enforce it.)
Since property rights exist only when it is politically unthinkable to interfere with them, Will and Cato's statements that they aren't property rights can't be evaluated as a neutral description of reality, but as an attempt to change that reality.
And as I've argued before, the Fifth Amendment means that if Americans had a genuine property right in Social Security, their payments would be more secure than they are today. There's a major difference between "Congress could cut or eliminate your benefits by changing one number in a statute" and "Congress could cut or eliminate your benefits by passing a law abolishing a property right, fighting things out with the Supreme Court, and then, if they win, changing a number in a statute."
Of course, if the government is sufficiently confiscation-happy or judicial or executive authorities refuse to enforce property rights against violators, property rights don't really exist, but that's not the situation under consideration.
What is true is that you can't sue Congress for changing the level of benefits. So the analogy with the UK Parliament's theoretical power to expropriate your house without compensation is a good one.
If it is unthinkable for Congress to repudiate the obligations of the general account to the trust fund, then that is all the property rights anyone can ever have. And if the social security debate goes the way it looks like it's going, then it will indeed be unthinkable to the same degree as it is unthinkable for Congress not to respect the governmetn bonds in the portfolio of the private insurance company.
In any case Congress would never have to repudiate the government's obligations to the trust fund by defaulting; it would only have to cut benefits payable. If it did that, the "trust fund" could keep getting bigger and bigger even as benefits got smaller and smaller (and because they were getting smaller and smaller).
I believe this sentence would be more rhetorically forcible if you relocated the interrupting clause to the beginning. Check it out:
What do you think?
There are two related points you're missing here, it seems to me. One is that Congressional reduction of SS benefits is *not* as unthinkable as, say, mass uncompensated expropriation of people's houses, or even of their 401(k)s. It may be very unlikely, but it is less unlikely.
The other is: the reason *why* it's less unthinkable is that real property is a natural, moral right that exists prior to the State, not a grant at the State's whim, and at least some of the population, some of the time, still dimly and half-consciously remembers that. Thus a positive government entitlement, however long-established and generally popular, is not going to have quite the same moral force behind it in the popular mind as the negative right not to be expropriated. Almost the same, maybe, but not quite.
1. SS is a "Rube Goldberg" contraption designed to hide its true purpose.
Nope, its probably the most straight-forward program the government runs.
2. SS isn't really insurance at all!
It is, 31% percent of SS payment went to survivors and the disabled. And for one third of retirement benefit recipients, their SS check is their sole source of income.
3. And now we get: Future congresses can't be trusted!
So, we should all get private accounts! Can we afford to start private accounts? Nope, the U.S. government already owes over $7 trillion.
Where will we get the money to fund private accounts? By selling $3 trillion of worthless promises to some unsuspecting rubes!
At what point did LINOs like Will go from simple lies to fraud? This week...
I'm not saying that property exists at the whim of the State. On the contrary, I'm saying that secure property rights exist only when it is politically unthinkable for a goverment to take them away.
But I would say that property rights are necessarily socially constructed. An individual might be mistaken about what property he holds, but only because his subjective view conflicts with the social view. A society can't be mistaken about the property rights that exist within it, anymore than I can be mistaken about whether I have a headache.
As a matter of degree, I would accept that taking away people's houses without compensation is even more unthinkable in American society than not paying Social Security benefits. But the point is that Cato and Will are simultaneously saying the problem with Social Security benefits is that they aren't secure property rights, while trying to bring about the situation it is complaining of.
I think you mean "a clear majority of people in society can't be mistaken...", and if you mean that then you're mistaken. :-) If a vast majority of people think, for example, that a certain subclass of persons should have no property rights to their own bodies and thus can legitimately be enslaved, they're just wrong, no matter how much they outnumber the unfortunate slaves.
And there's nothing wrong with the simultaneous political positions you describe, because part of the point is that SS benefits *shouldn't* be property rights; that even if you believe in the legitimacy of government benefits in general, there's a good reason why no Congress can bind future Congresses; that the electorate of today should not be able to make a promise to retain a certain level of benefits that is binding, morally or legally, on future electorates. Whereas the moral obligation to respect real property rights is binding on all electorates, now and in the future.
I agree that property rights are social facts. But it is very easy for a society to be mistaken about social facts. Some facts depend on other social facts. If someone who does not have legal authority to marry you and your partner, but does it anyway, and everyone without exception believes it, it is still not true that you are legally married. The social fact of marriage piggybacks on the social fact of legal authority to marry, which piggybacks on the social fact of a body of laws, etc., etc.
I don't think a clear majority of society can't be mistaken about anything. A clear majority of society can be mistaken about the cause of the extinction of the dinosaurs, or how many moons Pluto has. But there are a class of things about which a society can't be mistaken because if a clear majority believe it to be true, it is true.
An example is that treason (defined as opposition to the effective state authority) can never prosper becuase if it prosper, it isn't treason (because the previous state authority turned out not to be effective).
So, Americans could not, coherently, be mistaken that the dollar is legal tender. An individual could be mistaken (or deluded) that the piece of paper he had in his pocket was legal tender, but a clear majority could not.
It isn't incoherent to bemoan the fact that Americans view Social Security benefits as property rights. It is incoherent to say that the problem with Social Security benefits is that they aren't property rights, even though everyone (or almost everyone) thinks they are. That's like saying that the problem with fiat money is that it doesn't work as a medium of exchange, even when everything thinks it does (and acts on this belief). That's what I took Will to be arguing.
In your example, we all believe two things:
(1) No one is lawfully married unless the marriage is presided over by a person with the authority to do it.
(2) Bob is lawfully married to Alice.
But it turns out (contrary to our belief):
(3) The person who presided over Bob and Alice's wedding did not have the authority to do it.
First off, Bob might not legally be entitled to an anullment from Alice, even if (3) turns out to be the case, particularly if (3) is found out after Alice and Bob have had three kids, a mortgage and so on. So, your counter-example isn't necessarily one, even on the more specific level.
But, anyway, a belief that Social Security benefits are property is more like (1) than (2). I can, of course, be mistaken about my Social Security entitlement. The Social Security Administration can be mistaken about it. But the whole society can't be mistaken as to whether Social Security is an entitlement at all.
And I know when I'm having a headache.
The report on Social Security harps on the difference between government “promises” to pay Social Security benefits and the “property rights” retirees have in corporate (and government) stocks and bonds. The biggest sales pitch seems to be that, while Congress could theoretically break its promise on Social Security benefits at any time – even to workers paying in their whole lives – stocks and bonds are a secure form of property that “cannot be held hostage, whittled down, or bargained away by future Congresses.”
Let’s start with bonds. “Bond” is just a fancy name for a debt that a corporation (or government) owes its creditors, the bond holders. But a debt is just a promise now to pay later. Through bankruptcy, the federal government offers both corporations and real people a chance to break these promises with relatively few consequences (although the government is trying its darndest to take back the offer when it comes to real people). Just ask Enron’s employees, whose pensions full of Enron bonds disappeared in bankruptcy without even a puff of smoke, about bonds never being “whittled down.”
But what about stocks? Stocks are a stake in the company – a chance to actually own a part of Google or Citibank. That’s gotta count for something, right?
Not so fast. Corporations that offer stocks can liquidate or reorganize under the bankruptcy code too. When that happens, stockholders have it even worse than bondholders. The downside of owning something is, if you’re in debt, your creditors can foreclose on what you own. So when a corporation has debts it can’t pay, the owners (that is, the stockholders) can’t keep what they “own” until their debtors are all paid off. This fact of life shows up in section 1129 of the corporate bankruptcy code (specifically, part (b)(2)(B)(ii)). When asbestos maker Johns-Manville filed for Chapter 11 to deal with lawsuits by workers it injured and killed, for instance, all its stockholders suddenly found themselves sitting on a worthless pile of certificates. So much for stocks and bonds as “property.”
Of course, Wilkinson is technically correct. Stocks and bonds cannot be “bargained away” by future Congresses without at least some Constitutional wrangling. But considering the alternative – depending entirely on promises from corporations, when stock and bond holders lost billions of dollars worth of “their” property in over a million bankrupt companies over the past 10 years – promises by a publicly accountable Congress seem like a pretty safe bet.
On reflection, that ethics/politics distinction may be what I haven't made clear enough yet. You're saying that one has *politically enforced* rights if and only if the clear majority thinks so. That's true, but my point is that it's incomplete, because rights (or at least some rights) are more than political enforcement; they're also ethical quantities. And ethics comes before politics and is not subject to majority vote.
However, ethics is not totally without effect on politics. Property rights that are ethical obligations as well as political grants are in the long term more secure than those which are political grants alone, because people do sometimes recognize what is right by other means than looking to the verdict of the majority, and act accordingly. Your right not to have your house expropriated is an ethical one; it's wrong to violate it even if the majority thinks otherwise. Your "right" to continue receiving SS benefits is a political grant only.
1. There is no proof it was T.J that fathered Sally's children, he is only one "suspect."
2. If you want to know how he felt about slavery, read his original draft of the Declaration of Independence or his plans to educate freed slaves at the University of Virginia.
3. Unlike today's politicians who are getting rich extorting companies or buying land in Iraq and Afghanistan, Jefferson died sick and penniless...
Please return to shilling for Wall Street
The point is that one of the good things about non-abhorrent systems of property rights is they provide a zone of security beyond the whims of the political process. Social democrats think these good things can come with SS benefits, if we there is a sufficiently resounding against the would-be expropriating-without-compensation Bolshevists at the Cato Institute. Why are we wrong?
If I lend money at high interest to a corporate vehicle for a high interest rate, then I still expect the company to try to pay me back, but it is a bit different.
Anyway, if you don't think there is any moral difference or difference in status as "property right" between Social Security and owning bonds, then my work here is done.
There is also a practical difference in degree, thus a difference in "status as 'property right'". SS benefit reduction, default on government debt, and outright expropriation of people's houses are, we agree, all unlikely events. But I think it's clear that they are of three different degrees of unlikelihood, and go from most to least likely in the order stated.
As to the morality of default: defaulting on debt is immoral if the expectation of payback is itself legitimate and moral. When the debtor is a private actor who is paying the debt out of his/her own assets, this is the case. But the expectation that future generations will be taxed to pay government bondholders back, whether they want to be or not, is not a legitimate one. Certainly it is essentially fraudulent for the government to create such an expectation. But foisting the cost of the fraud on an innocent and unwilling third party only compounds the crime.
Your argumentation is circular, in the sense that it can only convince an already-committed libertarian. For you, promises backed by taxes are always wrong. If I accepted that, then, of course, I would be committed to getting rid of Social Security (although I don't see why Bush or Cato's scheme would be an improvement).
But, of course, I don't think that. Promises backed by taxes can be good, depending on the consequences.
Social Security is similar in principle to, but better than, ownership of government bonds (or, if you are that purist, a federally insured bank deposit). A promise to pay $X 30 years from now is nice, but a promise to pay 60% of your pre-retirement income up to a maximum is better, because it spreads various risks that the first promise doesn't.
This program is widely popular. If the Democrats kick Bush's butt on this, then it will, in effect, be a property right.
On the question of posterity's obligation to pay public debt, I think you need to distinguish between the morality of accumulating the debt in the first place and the morality of paying it back. Accumulating the debt in the first place will be immoral unless it is invested in ways that leave posterity with assets worth more than the inherited liabilities. However, even if the debt should not have been accumulated, to repudiate it is just an unjustified transfer from bondholders to taxpayers generally. Not to mention that the transfer will make everyone worse off.
The argument against long-term peacetime government debt does not require that one be against all taxation. You've heard of "taxation without representation", right? If somebody buys a 30-year bond from the government, many of the people responsible for paying it back will not even be *born* at the time the bond is issued, and so had no vote on whether it was going to be issued. How is it legitimate to bind those people, individually or collectively, to a debt obligation which they did not in any sense choose?
And the "unjustified transfer" bit holds no water at all. Suppose A robs B and sells the stolen goods to C, who thinks they aren't stolen, and then B demands that C give him back his stuff. C cannot rightly refuse on the ground that he bought the stuff innocently and the transfer from him to B is unjustified. Likewise, if bondholders buy illegitimate debt instruments-- debt that should not have been accumulated-- they have no business complaining when the taxpayers of tomorrow refuse to pay back debt that was immorally accumulated without their consent.
If I understand your argument, it is that a bondholder is culpable in lending money to the government in the first place, since her security comes from future taxpayers who don't get to vote (and who didn't ask to be born!). So they deserve it if we just default, whether we have to or not.
In your world, pretty much every American must be culpable and deserving of punishment. Those bastards who have federally insured bank deposits for instance. Bonny and Clyde had the right idea! Those damn kids in public school. Don't ge me started about those seniors.
Basically, you are saying that anyone who does not abide by your sectarian libertarian morality (which few Americans would even understand, let alone consider binding) has no rights.
I'm saying that if you lend to the government money that can only be paid back by taxing future taxpayers, you don't have a moral right to expect that those taxpayers will actually pay you back. It is probably unwise for them to refuse, but it's not immoral. This is because they never-- not individually and not collectively/democratically-- had any choice in whether to contract the debt obligation, and taxation without representation is wrong *even if* taxation in general is OK.
It is thus not necessary to be a "sectarian libertarian" to accept this argument. The notion that taxation without representation is wrong is not a fringe one, and indeed is taught as part of every high school US history class-- though perhaps not many think through its implications.
There's no "deserving of punishment" here, nor do any of your other silly pseudo-implications actually follow. And BTW, I don't claim to speak for the Entire Libertarian Movement (tm) in saying this. I have no idea how prevalent my view on this is.
Even though generations don't neatly end and begin in defined chunks, ideally, each new generation could vote whether they accept both the assets and the debts the preceeding generation has left them. I they didn't, the assets would be sold to pay off the debt.
Personally, I use the freeways, powerplants, airports, etc. that were built before I was born.
Moreover, the debt being accumulated today is mostly not being used to produce assets that will be of use to future generations, but rather for the current welfare state. If the government were limited to building assets like freeways and airports, it'd have no need for deficits, and I'd be a lot happier.