No Free Lunch: Economics for a Fallen World: Third Edition, Revised

Chapter Fourteen: Decision-making in Democracy: Public Choice 339 to fish, and that user fee often helps support stocking of fish and other measures to make fishing more enjoyable. Those individuals who benefit from public fishing pay for it by the fishing license. If they don’t think they get enough benefit from the government service, they can vote with their wallet against the government provided service by not buying a license. Similarly, even if the government policy does not have the same person receiving the benefit as paying the cost, the incentives will tend to lead to an efficient result (let’s ignore the morality of separating the cost and benefit for a moment). If the costs to one group exceed the benefits that another group receives, those paying the concentrated costs will be highly motivated to pay to stop the policy. Those receiving the benefits will also be highly motivated, but their benefit will not match the cost of those paying; hence they will not engage quite as much in the political process as those opposing the policy, and the policy will not be enacted. If the benefits do exceed the costs, the situation will be reversed and the policy will be put in place. In either case, the difference in valuations may enable one side to compensate the other to enable their position to win. The final category would be dispersed costs and dispersed benefits. Since the gains and costs are relatively low to all participants, there is little motivation for politicians to push for policies that are economically inefficient on net. For example, we might have a public policy proposal to have the government give everyone a free turkey for Thanksgiving. If everyone has to pay an equal share of the cost of this program, it will likely only THOU SHALT NOT STEAL…EXCEPT BY MAJORITY VOTE? EXODUS 20:15 - “YOU SHALL NOT STEAL.” Let’s say you and I are walking down the street and come across a homeless man. What would you think if I pulled out a gun on you, and “suggested” that you give $20 to the homeless man? Would that be ethical? Would the Bible condone that? I hope most of us would say no. It is theft, whether or not I personally receive the money or give it to someone else. Now let’s imagine that there are three of us walking down the street (say Jeff, Bob, and Matt) and we come across the same homeless man. What if I said, “let’s vote on helping this homeless man—I nominate Bob to pay $20 to this man.” Then, Matt seconds my vote. There is a 2 to 1 vote in favor of Bob paying the man $20, and I pull out my gun and tell him to fork it over. Has anything changed on the ethical status of my action simply because the action is now supported by democratic vote? Most of us would still correctly say no—this is no more ethical than a gang coming up to someone on a sidewalk and “voting” that the person contribute to the gang. Now let’s say that the government (through a democratic process) makes a law that takes from one group to specifically give to another group through the tax system. Is that now ethical? What makes an action that is immoral for any citizen or group of citizens moral if the government does it? God does allow the state to do things that individuals can’t; in the state’s role as avenger of evil, the state can execute God’s vengeance through the death penalty while we are prohibited from individually killing someone. But can you find any scriptural support for the government taking from one group of citizens to give to another?