"The necessaries of life occasion the great expense of the poor. They find it difficult to get food, and the greater part of their little revenue is spent in getting it. The luxuries and vanities of life occasion the principal expense of the rich, and a magnificent house embellishes and sets off to the best advantage all the other luxuries and vanities which they possess. A tax upon house-rents, therefore, would in general fall heaviest upon the rich; and in this sort of inequality there would not, perhaps, be anything very unreasonable. It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion." -- Adam Smith, The Wealth of Nations
"Nor is there any reason why the state should not assist the individuals in providing for those common hazards of life against which, because of their uncertainty, few individuals can make adequate provision. Where, as in the case of sickness and accident, neither the desire to avoid such calamities nor the efforts to overcome their consequences are as a rule weakened by the provision of assistance - where, in short, we deal with genuinely insurable risks - the case for the state's helping to organize a comprehensive system of social insurance is very strong... Wherever communal action can mitigate disasters against which the individual can neither attempt to guard himself nor make the provision for the consequences, such communal action should undoubtedly be taken," - F.A. Hayek, The Road To Serfdom
"It can be argued that private charity is insufficient... I am distressed by the sight of poverty; I am benefited by its alleviation; but I am benefited equally by whether I or someone else pays for its alleviation... In small communities, public pressure can suffice to realize the proviso even with private charity. In the large impersonal communities that are increasingly coming to dominate our society, it is much more difficult for it to do so. Suppose one accepts, as I do, this line of reasoning as justifying governmental action to alleviate poverty; to set, as it were, a floor under the standard of life of every person in the community... First, if the objective is to alleviate poverty, we should have a program directed at helping the poor and so far as possible the program should, while operating through the market, not distort the market. The arrangement that recommends itself on purely mechanical grounds is a negative income tax [i.e. a subsidy]. In this way, it would be possible to set a floor below which no man's net income could fall... The precise floor set would depend on what the community could afford." - Milton Friedman, Capitalism and Freedom
1 comment:
I have been disappointed by your posts since your new resolve to return to something of the passion of your youth. who am i that my disappointment should matter? no one! but there is a quickening in the soul of a believer when another believer hears the call to intimacy. your post resolve posts seem to merely return to your regular attacks upon apologetics and the like...consider this: some years into our spiritual journey, after the waves of anticipation that mark the beginning of any pilgrimage have begun to ebb into life's middle years of service and busyness, a voice speaks to us in the midst of all we are doing. there is something in all this, it suggests. there is something more. was this you? what i just typed was the opening words of the sacred romance. you asked me to tell you about it. it's about that voice that you've been hearing. don't settle for right doctrine or ethics the gospel is intended to free us to love god with all our whole heart to discover that divine passion of intimacy with almighty! well these are my thoughts maybe more than you expected from an anonymous poster but it is what it is. peace!
Post a Comment