We Aren't the First to Worry about Growing Inequality

For the tool chest, from blogger Mark Kleiman (http://www.samefacts.com) via Brad DeLong (http://www.j-bradford-delong.net/movable_type/ via occasional commenter to Scatablog David Ollier Weber, here is a good quotation on the insidious consequences of excessive income and wealth disparities from 18th century Scottish philosopher David Hume. According to Professor DeLong, Hume was a buddy of Adam Smith, and was generally considered a Tory:

A too great disproportion among the citizens weakens any state. Every person, if possible, ought to enjoy the fruits of his labour in a full possession of all the necessaries, and many of the conveniencies of life. No one can doubt, but such an equality is most suitable to human nature, and diminishes much less from the happiness of the rich than it adds to that of the poor. It also augments the power of the state, and makes any extraordinary taxes or impositions be paid with more chearfulness. Where the riches are engrossed by a few, these must contribute very largely to the supplying of the public necessities. But when the riches are dispersed among multitudes, the burthen feels light on every shoulder, and the taxes make not a very sensible difference on any one's way of living.

Add to this, that, where the riches are in few hands, these must enjoy all the power, and will readily conspire to lay the whole burthen on the poor, and oppress them still farther, to the discouragement of all industry.

Notice how this matches the liberal view of what I would call “the American social contract.” The philosophical right-wing conservative sees that social contract as every man for himself – and yes, that’s probably correct, every man – with only the invisible hand of the market sorting out the consequences. The Calvinist right-wing conservative sees it as every man for himself – yes, that again – but with the consequences already sorted out by God in advance anyway based on the purity of the soul. The left-wing radical wants virtually complete equality -- from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs.

But David Hume, and most American liberals (or if you will because you are too afraid of that word, progressives), counsels only against “too great a disproportion.” And how do we make that judgment? Hume has a simple answer: whatever it takes, first, to guarantee that the fruits of one’s labor will achieve “all of the necessaries and many of the conveniences of life.” After that, Bill Gates and Steve Jobs, go for it! Britney, if you want gold-plated toilet seats or whatever, more power to ya. (Whatever floats your boat, although some believe that's already been accomplished in other ways.) But first, business must be taken care of. It is the conceptual reconciliation of guaranteeing fairness with free market capitalism that FDR needed to save capitalism from itself. Most liberals today, certainly that majority who work in or with Corporate America, have made the same compromise.

So David Hume was a Tory? I’ve contended that today’s liberals are the true conservatives who want to conserve what we have (e.g., the land, air and water) and what we’ve built (e.g., universal public education, Social Security, Medicare, a rudimentary safety net), and to build organically on top of that (universal health insurance, revised minimum wage). Only radicals would want to tear it all up and start over.