Spending Other People's Money
Individualism can only thrive if we set conditions that enable individuals to succeed.
We can set conditions for Americans to thrive without spending other people’s money.
As a case study of spending other people’s money, let’s consider public lands management.
Public lands are a collective resource of the American people. Taxpayer dollars facilitate public access, manage local wildlife, and sustain other crucial components of public lands. A much-debated topic in western US wildlife habitat circles is sagebrush. Some people get fired up about the subject.
Bureau of Land Management (BLM) professionals claim to control sagebrush to enhance wildlife habitat. Methods BLM uses for sagebrush control include mowing, burning, and herbicide.
Others disagree with BLM’s method of sagebrush management. Dr. Jeff Beck at the University of Wyoming led a team to assess the value of their approach. Beck’s team summarizes BLM’s approach, “The theory is that clearing large sagebrush shrubs improves food sources in sage grouse nesting and brood-rearing habitats by allowing other, more nutritious vegetation to grow with less competition. This, in turn, should increase invertebrate populations, another food source for sage grouse.”
Beck’s team found BLM’s treatment of the sagebrush did not improve habitat and even resulted in sage grouse avoidance of the treated areas.
The above photo shows Wyoming sagebrush country from the fall of 2022. Note the mowed circular patterns on the flat base before the hill. The day I took the picture, a friend and I were hunting for mule deer. We stopped and made polite conversation with a rancher moving cattle in the area and asked him about the patterns in the sagebrush. He said BLM had been out mowing. We asked why they were mowing sagebrush.
His response? It’s the government spending other people’s money.
The sagebrush debate underscores the complexity surrounding the use of public funds and resources. The real dispute is not whether the government should manage assets; we need responsible stewardship of the American people’s assets. The debate concerns how government should manage collective assets and enable individual success.
We agree on some points and disagree on others. A couple of points on which we agree:
The “government” owns no assets. Those assets are the American people’s money.
Let’s establish that in and of itself, the government has no money. Dollars in use by representatives of the American people, either elected representatives or government workers, are assets of the American people.
The government represents the collective worker and executor for the American people, as “governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.”
People collectively pool resources to build infrastructure.
Let’s further establish that we need infrastructure to create and maintain individual activity in America. No single individual builds all the roads (other than two tracks), bridges, airports, ports, and vessels they need.
We collectively pool our resources because we cannot individually build all the infrastructure we need to support life activities. As noted, we elect representatives and pay workers to act on our behalf as the executor of our resources.
Infrastructure is not limited to just roads and bridges. Infrastructure further means capability. Capability to defend ourselves so another nation can’t seize our assets. Capability to train a high-performing workforce so businesses here in America can drive world markets. Capability to set conditions that enable individuals to achieve success.
Neither party disagrees that the American people own assets or that we collectively need infrastructure. But from this point forward, there is disagreement on the government approach. There are at least two divergent theories:
Laissez-faire individualism
There are those who believe government should have no, or very limited, role in the day to day activity of businesses and individuals. The free market should shape the world into what it naturally should be. Another name for this approach is laissez-faire, a French term meaning “let it be.”
In theory, laissez-faire is a valid approach. It supports business and individual innovation by rewarding risk-taking and enterprise. People free to pursue their self-interest will make choices that contribute to economic growth. This approach maximizes productivity and innovation as individuals and companies compete to be efficient and profitable.
This approach can open the door to higher taxes than necessary when individuals don’t earn a sustainable living. A laissez-faire approach to economics leads to income inequality and preferential treatment of the wealthy. When individuals fail to be able to work and earn a living for themselves and their families, collectivist social programs rise to combat the problem.
Laissez-faire individualism gives rise to spending other people’s money.
Collectivism
At the other end of the spectrum is a collectivist perspective, which holds that government should redistribute resources readily to help all who need help. In essence, these proponents believe in raising taxes and pooling resources to support everyone, including those who are less privileged or are facing hardships.
In theory, this is also a valid approach. It aims to create a society where everyone has access to basic services and opportunities regardless of their starting point.
In reality this approach shuts the door to individual motivation and innovation. The incentive to strive for greatness diminishes if the government guarantees a certain standard of living, regardless of the level of personal effort. Further, this approach requires higher taxes due to its nature.
Collectivism gives rise to spending other people’s money.
I would ask both groups some questions.
To the laissez-faire individualism group: What do you think is the outcome of your approach? Success for some—what about others? When Americans have no housing, food, and heat, do you think the nation will turn them away, or will social programs rise for those in need?
To the collectivist group: How do you think America will be the champion of individual liberty and freedom when Americans have no incentive to be great?
Where is the middle ground?
Individualism can only thrive if we set conditions that enable individuals to succeed.
When we make rules that do not enable all individuals to succeed from their work, we open the door for social programs. When we make rules that support all individuals equally, we open the door for social programs.
How about we set rules enabling individualism to succeed. These rules don’t need to be taxpayer-funded programs.
Setting conditions enabling individual first-time homebuyers to own a home isn’t a taxpayer-funded program. No taxpayer dollars are required to establish rules that, under strict conditions, banks will charge a qualifying first-time homebuyer 3% interest on their home.
Setting conditions enabling single working mothers to provide for their childcare isn’t a taxpayer-supported program. No taxpayer dollars are required to pay working Americans wages that support their individual childcare requirements.
Setting conditions enabling working Americans to heat their house and put food on the table isn’t a taxpayer-supported program. No taxpayer dollars are required to pay working Americans wages that allow them to provide for their basic necessities.
None of these initiatives propose spending other people’s money.
Individualism can only thrive if we set conditions that enable individuals to succeed.
We can set conditions for Americans to thrive without spending other people’s money.
Thanks for considering my perspective.
May God bless the United States of America.
