Two Aspects of the Enlightenment

In his book The Beginning of Infinity, David Deutsch notes a distinction in the Enlightenment as it developed on the European continent (continental) and in the British Isles.

"The Continental Enlightenment understood that problems are soluble but not that they are inevitable, while the British Enlightenment understood both equally." *

He goes on to say that this is not a geographic or national distinction.  A French thinker might hew toward the British version, or vice-versa.

This distinction helps explain some fundamental differences between the political institutions of Europe and America.  The U.S. was founded on the principle that imperfect people are the government. The Bill of Rights, the first Amendments to the Constitution, are largely proscriptive and concrete, specifying what the institutions of government can NOT do. 

The French Declaration of Rights ^ is largely prescriptive and conceptual, enumerating  the responsibilities of the law to the citizens and the citizens to the law.  The nation is a perfectible union of the people. There are few safeguards against government abuse enumerated in the French Constitution of 1793 #

Democratic governments are prone to several sins which undermine or suppress the rights of the citizens:  the tyranny of the group over the individual, the tyranny of the majority over the minority, and that this tension is inevitable and persistent so that structural safeguards must be in place to protect both the individual and minorities.


*************************

* Deutsch, David. The Beginning of Infinity: Explanations That Transform the World. New York: Viking, 2011. 66. Print.

^ http://www1.curriculum.edu.au/ddunits/downloads/pdf/dec_of_rights.pdf, retreived Jan. 18, 2015

# http://oll.libertyfund.org/pages/1793-french-republic-constitution-of-1793, retrieved Jan. 19, 2015

Child Care Benefits

As every parent knows, child care is expensive, whether parents have to pay someone else to take care of their child or one parent forgoes the income from working to assume care duties.  Under current tax law parents can take up to $3000 per child ($6000 max) for qualifying child care expenses. If one parent does not work or works only part time, that lost income does not qualify as a legitimate expense.

The current system is one of many income redistribution schemes that follow a complicated set of rules  that undermine a family's major life decisions in  return for government benefits.  I propose that these tax credits be turned into tax deferments for parents under a certain income threshold based on the median household income of their area.¹  Under this proposed system, parents could defer a certain amount of taxes while they were raising children.  The tax burden would not go away as it does under the current system but the parents would have full control of the amount of taxes they deferred up to the set annual limits.  The taxes would accrue interest free while the parents are taking on the financial burden of child care and could be paid back over a long time period like ten or twenty years.

1.  Note:  Median household incomes, and living expenses, in large metropolitan areas like New York City can be 10% higher than the national average. (Census Bureau)  Income thresholds should be set accordingly, not a one-size-fits-all dollar amount common in many benefit programs.

The Gift

"All our social insurance legislation, a piece of state socialism that has already been realized, is inspired by the following principle: the worker has given his life and his labour, on the one hand to the collectivity, and on the other hand, to his employers.  Although the worker has to contribute to his insurance, those have benefited from his services have not discharged their debt to him through the payment of wages (my emphasis).  The state itself, representing the community, owes him, as do his employers, together with some assistance from himself, a certain security in life, against employment, sickness, old age, and death." *

This is a particularly succinct rationale for socialism, or the kind of socialist leaning capitalism in the U.S.  As an employer I don't agree that the exchange of wages does not discharge the debt I owe an employee.  As an employee, I did not feel that my employer owed me anything more than the wages and benefits agreed to.  I don't think there is any persuasive argument capable of swaying a person's opinion on this topic.  A person's experience and attitude will lead them to concur with or refute the phrase I have highlighted above.

Millions of words have been written to denounce or defend socialism.  The armies of writers and speakers on either side of the issue wave their ideological flags, exhorting their compatriots to fight the opposing army.  Jonathan Haidt, author of The Righteous Mind, explains how people of opposing ideologies construct a moral code that has an internal integrity by placing emphases on different values.

Here  is a TED talk by Haidt.  Here is a discussion Jonathan had with economist Russ Roberts about the topic.

**************

Mauss, Marcel, and W. D. Halls. The Gift: The Form and Reason for Exchange in Archaic Societies. New York: W.W. Norton, 1990. 67. Print. (First published in 1950 as "Essai sur le Don.")