As the old gag goes, there are two types of people in the world: Those who divide people into two types and those who don’t. Modern identity politics will tell you that there are dozens upon dozens of types of people in the world, including at least sixty-three different sexual identities, but really, there are only two types: Those who think of government as a force for good, and those who don’t.

This brings us to today’s discussion: the role of government in the socioeconomic advancement of its citizens.

It is a fact that people are born with varying traits, with varying natural abilities, and into varying circumstances. Black, white, brown, yellow, tall, short, male, female, endomorphic, mesomorphic, ectomorphic, on and on. Some have greater natural intelligence than others, some have greater physical attributes than others, some have better motor skills than others, some have better aptitude for languages, or mathematics, or abstractions, or science, or human insight than others. Some are born to wealthy parents, some are born to poor parents, some are born to single parents, some are born orphans, some are born to a parent or parents who care, some are born to a parent or parents who don’t care, on and on.

Some people are born with the proverbial silver spoon in their mouths, and make nothing of themselves. Some are born with nothing and achieve great success. Some “win the lottery,” i.e. they’re born with good genetics to well-to-do parents who love and care and raise them well. Some are born into the worst possible circumstances and without genetic traits that work in their favor.

This is all fact, found in a combination of genetic variance and accident of birth, and stands apart from tabula rasa and nature-nurture debates. The question at hand is what, if anything, should government do to address these disparities? Government, specifically, as opposed to “society” i.e. you, me and our fellows. Many individuals in society recognize that some children are born into poor circumstances, and donate their time, money and/or resources to helping them. Private charities abound, and Americans are by and large very generous and philanthropic people. That is not the question today, though, because how someone else expends his efforts and resources is not our business.

What is our business is how and whether government intervenes on behalf of those that have been born into less fortunate circumstances and/or with a less advantageous genetic blueprint. People have crafted all sorts of metaphors in conjunction with this idea of government beneficence, with variations on walls with ladders and step stools among the more common. Metaphors, however, aren’t self-actualizing, nor are they always accurate.

Consider this (probably apocryphal) story about a college class (one I shared previously). A professor put a wastebasket on a table at the front of the class. He then instructed each class member to crumple a piece of paper and toss it into the waste basket. The kids in the front succeeded more often than the ones in the back. The professor declared “that’s what privilege feels like.” Implications abound, especially if we set aside factors other than proximity to the basket (a back-rower might be a gifted athlete, a front-rower might be hopelessly uncoordinated, someone might choose to simply stand up and walk to the basket, etc). Chief among them is the injustice of random proximity, and where there is injustice, good-minded people would presume that a justice-creating counterbalance should be applied.

Therein lies the essence of socialism/communism: that those who are better off contribute to the improvement of those that are worse off, via mechanisms imposed by The State. That’s the essential “helping hand” or “step stool.” That’s the dream.

Consider, though, the ubiquitous reality. Nations with socialist bents are poorer than nations with capitalist bents. Nations with socialist systems have had lower standards of living than nations with capitalist systems. Nations that prioritize economic fairness/equality make everyone poorer in their uniformity. Everyone, that is, except for an elite few, which is odd, considering that the extreme wealth of an elite few is one of the biggest complaints about capitalism.

Furthermore, nations with socialist bents infringe on the liberties of their citizens far more. Nations with socialist bents restrict speech more, muck with religion more, restrict gun rights more, offer fewer protections to the accused, and are often less safe to live in than nations with capitalist bents.

How to jibe this reality with the “step stool” metaphor. Is socialism and wealth redistribution really a step stool? Or is it in practice a smothering blanket, that stifles prosperity, that weighs against upward mobility, that traps people rather than helping them, and that does more harm than good? The lessons of history clearly support the latter conclusion.

• About the Author

About Peter Venetoklis

I am twice-retired, a former rocket engineer and a former small business owner. At the very least, it makes for interesting party conversation. I'm also a life-long libertarian, I engage in an expanse of entertainments, and I squabble for sport.

Nowadays, I spend a good bit of my time arguing politics and editing this website.

If you'd like to help keep the site ad-free, please support us on Patreon.