It looks obvious

One of the few things I remember from the lectures in Military History 101 was the logic used by the Generals in WWI. Their claim for more Artillery was proven by the fact that the previous campaign failed. Since the theory and assumption that led these General was never questioned the only solution for the previous bloody defeat was to add more artillery in the next campaign.

Over a hundred years of legislation that moved USA from laissez faire policy into interventionist policies in almost any aspect of our life reminding me this type of logic. Every failure follows with more legislation and less freedom.

However the damage was not limited to the economical failure of one system. It isn’t limited to the failure of one or another social program. The new system brought new generations of entrepreneurs and corporation. When you are punished every time you create, when in the name of equality you are being held back - the incentive to create diminish. And the new corporations learn that in order to survive, in the political age, they shouldn’t invest in manufacturing or in R&D but in lobbying.

Jacob Hacker’s response essay “Down to Earth: Reply to Schmidtz” is a long list of assumptions and arguments which I do not agree with. But I chose to focus on this argument because, in a way, is a key to understand why are we failing to change the concept that egalitarian redistribution is wrong morally and practically.

For all I know, Schmidtz may not disagree with this assessment. Indeed, he suggests at one point that political inequality is the fault of those who foolishly try to reduce economic inequality. “When we insist on creating enough power to beat the best players in zero-sum games,” Schmidtz claims, “it is just a matter of time before the best players capture the very power we created in the hope of using it against them.”

The best (or at least the richest) players do seem to have captured power in American politics, but it is rather perverse to suggest that this is the fault of egalitarianism. Instead, what we have here is a classic story of cumulative advantages—people who have more are being heard more by political leaders, and what government does reflects this imbalance. The political scientists Larry Bartels and Martin Gilens have found, for example, that the votes of elected representatives and the direction of public policy are both greatly more responsive to the opinions of high-income citizens than they are to the opinions of Americans of more modest means.

I couldn’t agree more with the finding in the above paragraph but I cannot agree with the circular argument that the same policies that create the problem are the best cure; how can they?