Needless to say, I do not agree with Tee or Mr. Steingart.
Mr. Steingart has written a fine, pro-welfare state piece. But as I read it, I kept thinking he is complaining about globalization and all these people in all these other countries doing work without a government run social safety net, and yet he seems to be missing the fact that that all those people in all those other countries are better off now than they used to be because globalization has led to the creation of job opportunities that simply did not exist before.
He also seems to be suffering from the impression that only a government can run a social safety net. He neglects to consider that the welfare state being a cartel might be a bad thing. That he recognizes the welfare state as a cartel is interesting because he simply assumes that as a benefit. Once again we see government getting excused for doing what we would condemn businesses or even organized crime bosses for doing.
Obviously the main problem with Mr. Steingart's arguments is that he starts from the premise the the welfare state is beneficial to society, and so therefore anything that threatens the welfare state is detrimental. Of course, he is also talking about the German welfare state, which is more comprehensive than that of the United States.
Mr. Steingart also makes a false assertion when he says, "One can simply ignore the welfare state by ordering goods from countries in Asia that have no social safety net. But that choice is tantamount to a plea for lower salaries and against the protections our welfare state provide us." Poppycock. Choosing lower priced good from countries without a welfare state is not tantamount to wanting lower salaries or a plea against the protections supposedly provided by the welfare state. It is merely desiring to acquire something for a lesser price, which is actually a good thing. Possibly, however, Mr. Steingart's objection to buying lower priced goods from countries with no welfare state is tantamount to a desire to see people in those countries left with considerably fewer employment opportunities.
Mr. Steingart is partly correct that buying goods from countries without welfare states does help to defeat the welfare states that do exist. But that is as it should be. While he acknowledges that the welfare state increases the cost of labor, he laments people buying cheaper goods as destroying domestic production. I was tempted to accuse Mr. Steingart of not seeing the connection, but I think he in fact does. He believes that the welfare state is of such value that people should support it even if it means a higher personal financial cost to the individual. Mr. Steingart is either ignoring that the higher financial cost to the individual is going to make the individual more dependent on the welfare state, or that is ultimately what he wants to see happen. Either way, I am left questioning his intentions. I am sure he thinks they are good, but making people more dependent on the welfare state is not something that I consider a goal beneficial to people. It is beneficial to the state, and in that is the cartel comparison is particularly apt, but not to the "consumer".
Ultimately, what Mr. Steingart (and clearly Michael Tee as well) argues is that liberty is detrimental to what he wants the state to accomplish. Letting people buy products at discount stores is, by Mr. Steingart's accounting, tantamount to the gradual destruction of the social safety net. Which should raise a giant red flag regarding Mr. Steingart's intentions. I am not saying Mr. Steingart (or even Michael Tee) is looking to enslave people to the state. That is obviously not how he views the matter. Obviously he believes something should be done to stop people from acting in a manner that destroys what he considers to be a benefit to society. His motives, at least at an emotional level, are good, and I do not fault him for that. I am not questioning his motives, but his intentions. Does he intend that people should be made to support the welfare state regardless of their personal financial situation or personal opinion about the matter? His argument carries with it the implication that such should be done. Which leads me to see his argument as paternalistic if not condescending. He seemingly wants to decide for others what they should do because he has decided that he knows what is in their best interest even if they do not.
Michael Tee takes the whole thing a step further, suggesting not only protectionism (a burden to any economy) but also heavily taxing "the rich" and state ownership of the means of production. Apparently the cartel of a welfare state is not enough for Tee. He wants the government to establish a complete monopoly, which, again, would be condemned if suggested for any other entity. Obviously, I do not agree with Michael Tee's solutions.
Society does not need more government control. Society needs less. The more strict the government controls, the more oppressed society becomes. Because while Mr. Steingart and Michael Tee may not be arguing for the enslavement of people to the state, that is the result of the polices they apparently advocate. Yes, I know, they argue that people have a responsibility to society. I do not entirely disagree with that. The problem comes not from wanting people to be more responsible toward their fellow humans, but from trying to coerce everyone into obeying what one or a few or some people decide is the responsibility of the individual toward society. You might as well have a theocracy at that point, with priests deciding what morals society must follow or face the punishment because what you will have is a moralistic government with politicians deciding what morals society must follow or face the punishment.
Yes, I know, places like Germany that have extensive welfare systems in place still have a mostly free society. But, that is exactly what Mr. Steingart is lamenting. The freedom in German society of people to choose cheaper goods is resulting in, as the article and even the title of his book World War for Prosperity clearly implies, traitorous behavior. Of consumers who choose cheaper products made in non-welfare state countries, Mr. Steingart says, "In the world war for wealth, they are the most important combat troops for the aggressor states. Though they carry no weapons, they still destroy domestic production with their cold-hearted purchasing decisions." Obviously Mr. Steingart sees this as a war with a need for the government to enforce loyalty to the state.
The problem I have with that is that Mr. Steingart's argument is much more of an "Us vs. Them" argument than any pro-free market argument could ever be. Mr. Steingart's position, despite his apparently good motives, is ultimately a callous one that says "protect our own and screw those who are not like us." I cannot support such a position.
As someone who believes in things like the responsibility of the individual to help others, I simply cannot in good conscience advocate for the welfare state or the protectionist/nationalist attitude that clearly comes with the welfare state. I find I am opposed to it. What I support is open trade and the vast interconnectedness of humanity that comes with it. I support people building their lives with the help of people they do not know, not at the coerced expense of people they do not know. I support being a true Good Samaritan, because my neighbor (you know, the one I am supposed to love as I love myself) is not just the man next to me, or the person who believes as I do, or even just my fellow countryman. The wonder of globalization is that the person working in Taiwan who makes the egg slicer I buy, and the person in Japan who makes the calculator I buy, and the person in Malaysia who makes the remote for the DVD player I buy, and the guy down the street who bakes the bread I buy, and me, all of us are neighbors. All of us are contributing to each other, and benefiting from the exchange. No, all conditions around the world are not ideal. But they are improving. (No, globalization and free trade are not panaceas, so let's not bother with that useless tangent.) The point is that I believe in a responsibility to help others, and I believe that responsibility is not met by protectionism or government run welfare. I believe the growing interconnectedness of the world through globalization is a long-term benefit to humanity.
You know the old saying, "no man is an island". I think it behooves us to consider that we should not try to make little welfare state islands (and that is almost inevitable with a welfare state) that need protection from other people whose main crime is to be trying to make a living. To separate ourselves so is a lessening of our humanity. That is ultimately why I do not and cannot agree with Mr. Steingart or Michael Tee.
