Berg’s Rule and Bergeron
UPDATE: Thanks for the links and thanks for stopping by to visit. Look around. Please help me oust the Board of Directors. And be sure to look me up on Facebook.
Covet. I never understood what it meant to “covet” something when I was a young child in a Catholic grade school.
“You mean that it’s wrong to want something?” I would ask. “No,” came the reply from the Sister, “wanting something isn’t necessarily bad.” “But what if I really want something?” Again, “No–unless you want it too much. Then it is wrong.”
Clear as mud, I went through childhood doing about as well as most young boys are able to do, trying not to violate the eight of the ten commandments I understood.
When I was a young teenager I was a big fan of classic rock. Sixties and early seventies stuff mostly. I knew all the words–and perhaps this should be a salve to parents concerned about explicit lyrics–the words themselves were more musical accompaniment than actual words with actual meanings. Again, just as with the ten commandments, it took a few more years before the lyrics I mindlessly mouthed along to the tunes began to make sense.
One popular song when I was young was from one of those one-hit-wonder bands who are all but forgotten except for one great tune. The band’s name was Ten Years After and the song was “I’d Love to Change the World.” One memorable line went like this:
Tax the rich, feed the poor
Till there are no rich no more
I can’t tell you how many hundreds of times I sang along to that song before it dawned on me: “Hey, that ain’t right! Shouldn’t it be: tax the rich, feed the poor, till there are no poor no more?”
I have no way of knowing whether or not Ten Years After advocated the abolition of wealth, or if the line was a tongue-in-cheek way of sniping at the simplicity of the argument that removing the wealthy made the poor better off. But what I did know then was that I finally understood the definition of covet. It was to want something so much that if I couldn’t have it, then I wanted to deny it to anyone else.
I bring this all up because of something I read in today’s Washington Post. It’s an op-ed by Joel Berg of the New York City Coalition Against Hunger. Mr. Berg cites a study that determined that donations would decline just 1.3% under President Obama’s proposal to cap the tax deduction on charitable giving. He argues for higher taxes as well as eliminating much of the tax deductibility on charitable contributions since,
Combined with other progressive Obama tax proposals, that change would not only start to redress the inequality gap that has engulfed America in recent decades . . .
To be fair, Mr. Berg goes on to describe the “good” that the government could do with the $4 billion in additional tax receipts (while he ignores the good that private charities would be unable to perform with that money). But the fact that he lists “redress the inequality gap” first indicates it is a foremost goal.
Tax the rich, feed the poor
Till there are no rich no more
I suppose that’s one way to redress the inequality gap.
When I finally understood the meaning of the word “covet,” it dawned on me how stupid an attitude it is. And childish too. As a parent, I see it all the time when my kids fight amongst themselves over toys, not to play with them, but to deny them to their siblings who want to play with them. How do the hungry, whom Mr. Berg purports to represent, gain at the demise of others? They don’t, although in some childish way maybe they gain smug satisfaction, much like my five-year old does when he hides his brother’s lego pieces so that he can’t find them. Smug satisfaction, however, is not usually edible, although it often precipitates a knuckle sandwich.
Those who are long followers of this website know that I am not one who uses religion to argue a political point. That being said, even if there is no God, I would think that successful societies would probably come up with some variation of the last nine of the ten commandments. Even not committing adultery, and taking a day off every so often, while not necessarily against the law, are pretty good rules for people to follow. So too is a prohibition against coveting, for it helps the impoverished not one bit for the rich to join their ranks.
Tax the rich, feed the poor
Till there are no rich no more
We could relabel it ”Berg’s Rule.”
Many of us are probably familiar with Kurt Vonnegut’s Harrison Bergeron about a dystopian society where equality is achieved as a result of forcibly shackling with great handicaps anyone of above average intelligence or strength. While Berg’s Rule removes Bergeron’s shackles, it also removes the extra benefits accrued as a result of using extraordinary gifts and “equitably” redistributes them based, presumably, according to some Bergian-approved model. It doesn’t take a Randian to conclude that a not insignificant number of wealthy might decide not to use their extraordinary gifts if they are only going to lose the fruits of their labors. The result is still a dystopian society where, even without the shackles, Bergeron is no less handicapped.
I’m afraid that what Mr. Berg proposes is no more than simple childish covetousness. And it’s unfortunate for the hungry of New York that he doesn’t advocate “feed the poor” so much as he apparently wants “no rich no more.”
March 28th, 2009 at 11:42 am
[...] Bob Krumm smacks him around for it. But these days, violating that commandment is a feature, not a bug, to more than half the [...]
March 29th, 2009 at 4:48 am
You reminded me of a wonderfully insightful article I read about 20 years ago in the Los Angeles Times (of all places!). It was in the early stages of Glastnost when a few reporters were allowed to spend weeks in the formerly closed society of the USSR. This reporter was having difficulty explaining how Russians think, so he resorted to a favorite Russian joke:
What is the definition of “envy”?
—To an American, envy means your neighbor has a bigger house.
—To a Frenchman, envy means your neighbor has a more beautiful mistress.
—To a Russian, envy means your neighbor has a cow and you do not. You wish your neighbor’s cow would die.
I think that would apply to “covet” as well.
March 29th, 2009 at 5:11 am
I’d love to change the world…but I don’t know what to do…so I’ll leave it up to you…
March 29th, 2009 at 5:12 am
[...] old Ten Years After standard should have been the Obama campaign’s theme song, since they told us that’s what would happen if we elected them: One popular song when I was [...]
March 29th, 2009 at 5:42 am
It’s childish stupidity. Cancel the tests, give all the kids an A. Wasn’t there a study that showed how well you do is proportional to how hard you work?
Happiness is wanting what you’ve got.
March 29th, 2009 at 5:55 am
Wow, Bob!
Catholic school educated? Check.
Not too sure on what the meaning of “covet” was for a long
time? Check
Mindlessly singing along with rock lyrics without (usually) regarding the meaning? Check
Put off by the lyric “Til there are no rich no more”? Check
Irritated to no end by wealth redistributionists who don’t seem to grasp the rather simplistic moral of the tale of the goose that laid the golden eggs? Checkmate!
March 29th, 2009 at 6:36 am
When I read Berg’s op ed, it occurred to me that he really wanted less individual charity and more government charity. His hope would be, then, that he could do better for his cause in the public charity lottery than he could in the private charity. The whole op ed seemed pretty self serving.
Rick
March 29th, 2009 at 7:33 am
Progressives aren’t really concerned with economics or the actual well-being of the “masses,” they are concerned with status. Mainly their own. Most of their egalitarian impulses are really directed at diminishing the perceived status of those that they believe are “above” them on the social ladder.
Consider a society in which everyone is more or less economically equal, but the standard of living is very low for all. Now consider a society in which there is a great deal of economic inequality but the bottom 5% still have a standard of living greater than the people living in the first one. Which one would the average person want to live in? And which one would the “progressives” want YOU to live in?
March 29th, 2009 at 7:45 am
Hey, Ten Years After had at least one more great song. The vesion of Going Home played at Woodstock is a guitar hero classic.
March 29th, 2009 at 7:47 am
Reminds me of a purportedly old Russian joke:
Ivan had a cow, a nice, productive cow. One day the cow dies. Upon discovering this Ivan drops to his knees, looks to the sky and cries out: “God! Why are you punishing me? I’ve lived my life like it says in your book and now this! Why?”
There’s a flash of light and that Archangel Gabriel appears. “Ivan,” says Gabriel, “We are not unknowing of your life so what could we do to make amends?”
Ivan thinks for just a second, and say: “My neighbor has a cow, a very nice cow. Every day it gives gallons of milk that makes the best cheese and butter in the village…”
Gabriel, being pretty quick on the draw jumps in: “And you’d like a cow just like your neighbor’s, right?”
“No, I want you to kill his cow, too.” {rimshot}
March 29th, 2009 at 8:04 am
You are right about the universality of the Ten Commandments. Indeed, some of the Sages wondered why it was necessary for God to appear in person and personally deliver such rather obvious and banal rules, without which one can hardly imagine any functioning society.
March 29th, 2009 at 8:17 am
Well, that attitude is real, and it’s pervasive. It has been said otherwise: “Line up all the millionaires against a wall and shoot them.” That was actually said to me by some envious moron on a train to Tunis 40 years ago. I later had the unusual pleasure of helping the Tunisian police bust him for credit-card fraud.
March 29th, 2009 at 8:33 am
Great post, just a nit to pick: Tens Years After was anything but a one-hit-wonder band. I’m Goin’ Home was a Woodstock anthem. Love Like a Man was also a big hit. But, yes, they were more of an album-oriented group (see, Cricklewood Green).
As an aside, singer/songwriter/guitarist Alvin Lee of TYA was good friends with George Harrison. They were next door neighbors. Could be he was influenced by Taxman. And that 90% tax rate in Great Britain.
March 29th, 2009 at 9:29 am
The Commands of God, which can be numbered from 9 to 11 depending upon how you divvy them up, are a top-down – or God’s-eye – view of the metaphorical Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil from the equally metaphorical Garden of Eden. The point being that the final fruit of all sin is godlessness and the root of all sin is covetousness. Covetousness is NOT wanting something too much, rather it is wanting something that God has blessed another with, hence no coveting your neighbor’s donkey, wife, or ANYTHING that God has given to your neighbor.
Progressive taxation is government-imposed and institutional covetousness, and it is therefore immoral: It is EXACTLY being covetous/envious/jealous – whichever synonym you prefer – of the wealth that God has blessed those better off than you with, so progressive taxation is the root of all societal sin. Higher up on the tree is socialism, and the final fruit of societal sin is communistic godlessness.
In order to live any kind of moral life, the very first thing you must do is to realize that it is none of your business what God blesses another with, and that any puny ideas of “fairness” that you have are irrelevant: “Deserve’s got nothing to do with it.” – William Munny
March 29th, 2009 at 9:38 am
It’s the same as “comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable”. It’s certainly a good idea to comfort the afflicted, but if someone has worked all their life to become comfortable, why harm them?
For all that some people preach about helping the poor, I suspect that they would be willing to let the poor suffer in order to get to their real goal: punishing the rich
March 29th, 2009 at 12:13 pm
There is a word in Yiddish, yenems, the other
guy’s. Socialists want it, because the other
guy doesn’t deserve it. I do because I am better equipped intellectually. I’m more virtuous and will know how to spend it.
I find it amusing that intellectuals and the middle class voted for a radical Socialist, since they are the first in line to be destroyed by any Socialist Marxist regime.
March 29th, 2009 at 12:32 pm
Charity at the point of a gun is not charity.
If you think it’s not done at the point of a gun try not paying your taxes and see who shows up at your door.
March 29th, 2009 at 1:04 pm
Re: Velociman, #13 – Actually, strictly speaking, TYA technically was a one-hit wonder – as in, “I’d Love To Change The World” was their only Top 40 hit single. (And even it barely qualified – it peaked right at #40 in November 1971.)
Re: yehiel, #16 – I refer you (and Mr. Krumm) to the song’s chorus:
I’d love to change the world
But I don’t know what to do
So I leave it up to you…
In more specific, less radio-friendly terms, this would translate to “I can’t be bothered with figuring out what kind of change the world (or at any rate, the country) really needs, much less putting in all the effort needed to bring that change about, so I will simply entrust it all to The Professionals (TM) who have a better grasp of such things than I, and be done with it.” To the degree that intellectuals and the middle class embraced Obama, this is undoubtedly the mindset that led them to do so.
April 25th, 2009 at 9:07 am
I always remembered as:
Tax the rich
Feed the poor
Tax the rich
‘Til there ain’t no more.