A recent news story informs me that the City of Lincoln, Nebraska has approved the spending of $475,000 of tax money to purchase an 80 acre tract of land as a habitat for the endangered Salt Creek tiger beetle. I suspect that backers of this project are throwing their shoulders out of joint patting themselves on the back for their “commitment” to nature. In such ways do men and women in our culture obtain undeserved recognition for their “social responsibility”: propose programs for which others will be forced to pay. Like the “climate change” zealots who fly around the world in their CO2-generating private jets to condemn us lesser beings for driving our cars; or the elitists who hire armed guards for protection as they demand that the rest of us forgo the ownership of guns for our defense; or the super-patriotic armchair warriors who self-righteously insist upon sending other people’s children to die in wars, this practice of socializing costs permeates all of politics.
I have no quarrel with those who would like to provide a home for this species of beetle, provided they are willing to commit their own resources to the project. At a conference I once attended, a speaker proposed spending some great amount of money on behalf of some end he sought. A friend of mine responded: “are you going to finance this yourself?,” to which the speaker answered “no.” “Oh,” my friend retorted, “I thought you were being serious.” The problem with the people-pushers of our world is not that they care so much for programs they want the government to finance: they don’t care enough. If the state was to give me one billion dollars to do what I wanted to improve society, I could do all kinds of wondrous things. But, would I be willing to commit any of my own money to such ends? This is the standard that is always ignored in political action, but is implicit in economic behavior: to what extent are you prepared to incur the costs for achieving your preferences?
As our social world continues to move from vertically-structured to horizontally-networked systems of cooperation, decentralized methods – facilitated by the Internet – for people accomplishing ends for which they are prepared to commit their own resources have appeared. Kickstarter.com is a site for helping people generate start-up money for projects is one example. So, too, have “flash mobs” been modified, by some, into “cash mobs,” with people showing up, unannounced, at a small business site where they purchase the wares of the proprietor. Another site, gofundme, provides the means for people to come to the assistance of another who might be experiencing unanticipated financial problems. One such site with which I am familiar is dedicated to raising money for a young man who was very badly injured – as a pedestrian – when a car smashed into him. When I last checked, over $68,000 had been raised, in just a few days, to help this man and his family with the medical and rehabilitation expenses he will incur.
Think of all the programs and projects that could be voluntarily funded by people committing their own resources to their achievement. When done without the looting of taxpayers, or the use of eminent domain, or any other practices that force the many to have to subsidize the preferences of the few, might the state-induced conflict between “individual liberty” and “social order” at last be put to rest? Might the fate of the Salt Creek tiger beetle be enhanced by the willingness of the many to ensure its survival through their willingness to contribute their resources to its survival?
12:57 pm on October 10, 2014
