BY DAVID R. HENDERSONThe Lesson of Ebenezer Scrooge - PDF document

BY DAVID R. HENDERSONThe Lesson of Ebenezer Scrooge The Pursuit of Happiness n 2003 I co-led a successful fight against MeasureQ,which would have increased the Monterey 40 THE FREEMAN: Ideas on Liberty David Henderson (davidrhenderson1950@gmail.com) is a research fellow into a bitter,stingy old man.He also sees howunmourned he will be in death if he fails to be gener-ous,with himself and others,in life.When Scroogewakes up,he realizes that indeed he can change.In myfavorite scene in the movie,Scrooge dances around inhis nightshirt like a kid in a candy store,celebrating hispower to change.And what is the change? Does he say,ÒOh,boy,now IÕll support a politician who will taxme,as well as other people less rich than me,to helppoor people?ÓOf course not.An author or a movieproducer who tried to set up such a scene would haveproduced a much less compelling novel or movie.Scrooge is excited because now can change,now can get pleasure from helping others who are worseoff.In other words,the lesson of A Christmas Carolthe importance of being generous,not the importanceof supporting higher taxes on oneselfand others.Indeed,the modern Scrooge,instead of asking,ÒAre there no pris-ons?Ówould ask,ÒIs there no Medic-aid? Are there no food stamps?ÓThemodern Scrooges,in short,are thosewho advocate government programsfor the poor rather than charity forthe poor.But arenÕt government programsfor the poor a form of charity? That issue came up inthe sales-tax controversy.The short answer is no.Butthe longer answer is worth stating also.During thecampaign over the measure to increase the sales tax,myco-leader,Lawrence Samuels,and I were in a debatewith two doctors from Natividad Hospital,which wasto receive the large subsidy if the sales tax measurepassed.The 200-person audience was composed almostentirely of Natividad workers and their families andfriends.As you might expect,they were fairly hostile toLawrence and me.At one point Melissa Larsen,one ofthe doctors on the other side,said that increasing thetax and giving the money to the hospital was Òthecompassionate thing to do.ÓI ignored her gall in callingÒcompassionateÓa tax that would clearly have bene-fited her personally.Instead I responded,ÒNo,itÕs not.Ithas nothing to do with compassion.If you gave yourown money to the hospital,that would be compassion-ate.But taking other peopleÕs money without theirconsent is not compassion;itÕs coercion.ÓWhen I said that,there was a one- or two-secondsilence rather than the usual jeering.I think the silencehappened for two reasons.First,probably 90 percent ofthe audience thought the tax increase was compassion-ate,and I had given them something new to thinkabout.Second,probably 90 percent of the audiencethought their pro-tax side had the moral high groundand I had just cut it out from under them.My pointingout the distinction between compassion and coercion,in short,had a powerful effect.The failure to distinguish between compassion andcoercion is all around us.ItÕs a failure that people onmany parts of the political spectrum exhibit.Take,forexample,the recent controversy about the difficultysubprime mortgagors are having.One can certainly feel compassionfor them,especially for those whowere lied to or misled by mortgagebrokers.But what are we to make ofthe following? Andrew Samwick,aDartmouth University economicsprofessor and former chief economistof President BushÕs Council of Eco-nomic Advisers,said he felt morethan a Òpang of sympathyÓfor peoplewho were misled.Did he then go on to say that hewould send some of his own high income to helpthem? Not at all.Instead,Samwick supported a pro-posal to change the bankruptcy laws so that owners ofhouses who lost their homes could stay in the homesby paying a Òfair-marketÓrent.In other words,SamwickÕs Òpangs of sympathyÓled him to supportretroactive law-making to undercut the property rightsof the lendersÑeven if those lenders had not misledthe borrowers at all.What does this violation of prop-erty rights have to do with sympathy?So hereÕs my modest suggestion.Next time you hearsomeone advocating a coercively financed governmentprogram to help those in need,call him a ÒScrooge.ÓI guarantee that youÕll catch him off guard.Moreover,heÕll likely ask why you called him that.Then you cantell him the truth about Ebenezer Scrooge and Christmas Carol DECEMBER2007 The Lesson of Ebenezer Scrooge The failure todistinguish betweencoercion is all around us.