NIEMAN MARXISTS
Advocating, Not Making a Difference
The Story
A beach-dweller noticed one day that thousands of starfish had become stranded on the beach where he liked to walk. He wondered at the strange circumstances that had caused this to happen. But though he thought it very sad, realizing that most would die unless the tide swept them away, he walked on by. “Someone should do something,” he thought.
A few steps farther on, he noticed a young boy rushing frantically to lift each starfish and take it back to the ocean. The task was impossible. They would die before day’s end. What did the boy hope would happen? “Young man, what you are doing is pointless. You can’t make a difference.”
The child smiled at him and said, “I can make a difference to this one.”
A Parallel
This story came to my mind as I read a recent issue of Reason Magazine. Jason Brennan and Christopher Freiman wrote about the disconnect between what rich socialists say and what they do. They accurately define an income inequality problem, but then abdicate on a solution. Instead, the Bernie Sanders/Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez solution is “tax the rich.” A frequent talking point is how “the rich” are unjustly holding property that rightly belongs to those less fortunate. But no one is stopping them from giving it away.
However, when this is suggested, the response is always, “No matter what I do, it won’t make a dent in the problem.” These are the same people who suggest you and I freeze in winter, or suffer in the summer heat, but fly private jets and have three or four houses, expending more energy than 20 typical families. It’s so easy to advocate rather than be a part of the solution. Instead, they say “tax the rich.”
Brennan and Freiman logically point out that it is always better for each of us to take voluntary action based on our beliefs than to be compelled to do it. A personal example would be the time my husband and I found a wallet lying on the sidewalk where we were walking. By socialist terms that the government should simply “do something,” we would have walked on by, leaving this valuable property behind. Or perhaps, called the police to get it. Instead, using my phone, I was able to locate the husband whose wife’s wallet we had in hand and arranged to meet him farther up the road. He could call her and let her know that everything was okay, a call I would have wanted to hear if it were me. And here’s the thing—I felt good the rest of the day. I made a difference to that family.
Taxation as an Answer
There may be a few people in America who enjoy paying taxes. When I was out there handing out Tootsie Roll pops on Tax Day, asking “Do you feel like a sucker tonight,” with my Libertarian friends, we noticed the grim faces on so many of the drivers. We had signs up saying “Honk if you Like Taxes. Vote Libertarian if you don’t.” A tiny number honked, but… I’m not sure they could read the signs.
Charity, giving your time, your money or your goods, gives an immediate reward. Plus, it gives you a chance to honor your values and provide help to groups that you deem important. Taxation doesn’t do that. You’re not allowed to deduct taxes to minimize funding of things like war. (Many friends of mine during the Viet Nam war deplored that you couldn’t protest in this way. But you can decide how to donate.
At one job, I learned that some of the most generous were the most poorly paid people, which led me to step up my contributions. (I also felt they should have to fully fund their 401-Ks to avoid becoming destitute on retirement, before offering alms, but it reminded me that we each have an obligation to share.) Isn’t that a better way to make a difference?
Structural Change – An Excuse
Many of these socialists say that simply funding charities is the wrong approach as inequality is a structural problem. The need for charity means systemic failure, which has to be addressed by all of us, not the Nieman Marxists. But that’s abdicating your role. Instead, what if you create a business, as Robert Nozick suggests, that is worker-controlled according to democratic socialist principles. Why not be part of the solution, if you believe the system is to blame?
For Thee, Not for Me
Rich people have always had a lot of ways to reduce their taxable income; poorer people do not. When Walton talked about inequality in the tax system, as suggested by his example that his secretary paid more in taxes relative to her income than he did, doesn’t that point out that “the rich are different?” So, when you call for “taxing the rich,” what you’re really saying is tax the middle class.
Some opponents of charity, such as philosopher, Thomas Nagel, talk about fairness. Unless everyone is donating, why should they donate? But that’s just an excuse. If you only have the means to help one person or one family, and you wish to be part of the solution, why not offer that help? Why does everyone have to be helped before you stand up for your values? Why does every starfish need to be rescued before a single one can get help?
Excuses, Not Answers
Nagel also mentioned that filing taxes is easier than figuring out how to donate. Really? Does that even make sense? With the internet and many sites offering help, it’s a few clicks to make a donation to something that makes you feel like you’ve made a difference. Giving money is far easier than donating time, but even if you can’t pick a charity, there are those who will help you with this problem, like Donor’s Trust.
I wouldn’t presume to tell people what to do with their money. But then, I also wouldn’t demand that taxes be raised to support the causes I care about but deny donating my own help to charities. It’s time to call advocacy what it is—an excuse to not do anything.
