Читать книгу Fearful Symmetry - the Fall and Rise of Canada's Founding Values - Brian Lee Crowley - Страница 15

The more I think about the evolution of the New Canada over the last fifty years, the clearer it becomes that the traditional values on which Canada was founded were correct in their view of the corrupting effects of too-powerful government on human character. The difference between then and now is that we have fifty years of evidence about the relative decline of the Canadian economy (both compared to its historic growth pattern and compared to the United States) and of the changing behaviour of Canadians. We also have a burgeoning intellectual tradition that enjoys a lot of success in explaining how our poor economic performance, the growth of government, and certain changes in the behaviour of individuals (things like a declining work ethic and the weakening of the institution of the family) are closely related.

One of the lessons of the growth of the modern state is that, as it achieves a certain size and regulatory power and reach, no one can ignore it; indeed, everyone is brought within its orbit whether they wish to be or not. This happens for three chief reasons.

First, a rapidly growing and well-financed state represents spoils that must be captured and divided. This is the “free money” incentive. Whether you think the state should have this money or not, the fact of the matter is that the state does have it; it is there for the taking. If you don’t get your share, others will get it instead. And since it costs you nothing (once it is in the hands of the state, it is too late; the tax burden you bear is just a sunk cost you cannot change), government money appears to be “free,” like manna from heaven. Who would leave money lying on the ground?

Second, failing to “get your share” puts you at a competitive disadvantage. Even if you prefer to mind your own business and just do your own thing, you cannot. If trade unions are going to lobby the state for special powers (such as laws forbidding replacement workers), companies need to be there to make sure their interests are protected. If your competitors are going to lobby for special tax breaks or subsidies or trade barriers or tariffs or regulations, you need to get “your share” by being at the table or your taxes will be financing your competitor’s advantages. If others are going to get state-financed welfare benefits or social services, if you don’t get the ones you want, you will foot the bill but get little in return. Everyone is drawn to the state in unproductive activity that is essentially defensive.

Three, human beings have a visceral reaction against what they perceive as unfairness. Most of us are morally outraged if we see someone getting ahead through unfair means, by cheating on a test, or sleeping with the boss, or sycophancy or lying or bribery or exploiting family connections. Human nature being what it is, a surprising number of people, seeing such things going on, feel themselves to be morally entitled to act improperly, and the more widespread the illicit behaviour, the more people will feel that they are chumps if they do not abandon their principles and grab what they can while the going is good. Put another way, the cost of being good is low when the vast majority are good but rises rapidly as larger and larger shares of the population defect from this standard. Once some tipping point is reached, playing by the rules is simply allowing yourself to be taken advantage of, because decisions about who gets what are being taken arbitrarily and on the basis of relative power rather than merit or justice.

On the other hand, unless our character and judgments are disfigured by corrosive and unworthy emotions like envy, we have little quarrel with people getting ahead in economic terms on the basis of merit, which is the application of the principle that people should get out of the economy something closely related to what they contribute. Similarly, on a narrower range of goods (especially those provided by the state and therefore supported by compulsory taxation), generally speaking we don’t quibble too much about everybody getting the same share of desired things (which is just the application of an equality rule). But when the patronage powers of the state become too large and the largesse is distributed according to the preferences of those in power, rather than by merit or the equality rule, we react very differently.

Why does all this matter in trying to understand how the growth of the Canadian state (at both the federal and provincial levels) became self-perpetuating, even though people thought that dependence on the state was a bad idea in principle? Because of the way rewards are distributed in the marketplace versus the way they are distributed by the state. Markets reward and encourage people for producing valued goods and services for each other. The state rewards and encourages people to organize politically to use the state to get the things they want based on their relative political power.

You may think that your employer determines, in his or her sole discretion, what you will be paid, but nothing is further from the truth. Your boss is constrained by the market. If he pays too little, other employers will bid away valuable employees by offering them more money. If he pays too much, his product will be overpriced in the marketplace or his return on investment will be too low and he’ll go out of business. One of the critical pieces of information that employers are always chasing is what the market is paying today for the kind of employees they have and wish to keep. And ultimately the value you have to your boss is determined by the value you give, measured by your productivity. If you are more productive than the average employee in your field, you’ll command a premium wage. If you give less than average value, you probably won’t last long in your job.

That means that most real jobs in the real economy offer an opportunity for someone who wants to get more than they get today, and the way that they avail themselves of that opportunity is to work harder. They can then either get better pay or, if their boss doesn’t want to reward superior productivity, they can find an employer who will. It is just the same with people offering services, lending money or selling widgets. In most circumstances you get ahead by providing superior value.44 And here is the crucial point: the other party to these transactions has to agree that they are getting the value they are looking for, because transactions in the market are not compulsory, but voluntary. I don’t have to hire you; you don’t have to buy from me. We engage in these kinds of exchanges only when both parties see the value in doing so.

So we get ahead by creating more value (or by “making”), and we are not subject to the arbitrary will of others in our business or employment relationships because, except in very exceptional circumstances, we have choices about what we buy and sell, when and to whom. No party to the vast majority of economic transactions sets the terms of those transactions unilaterally.

This is the exact opposite of transactions with the state. The state takes its resources compulsorily from taxpayers, not as a result of a negotiation of value to which each party must agree. It then distributes them in accordance with the will of those who hold political power, whether directly or indirectly. And while people will generally acquiesce in the distribution of income and so forth by the market because that distribution is not the imposition of someone’s will or preferences, they quickly grow to resent the arbitrary awarding of benefits and advantages to those close to government.