A Philosopher's Blog

Philosophical Essays on Many Subjects

Ethics of Unpaid Federal Labor

by 1 Comment

As Trump’s shutdown (or Pelosi’s, if you prefer) continues, some federal workers have been ordered to work without pay. To illustrate, TSA and Coast Guard personnel are now protecting America while receiving no pay. This raises the moral question of whether it is ethical to compel federal workers to work without pay. It is important to note that the ethics are distinct from the legality of unpaid labor. That is a matter for the courts to sort out based on how they read the rules.

One sensible starting point is to consider that federal workers agreed to work without pay when they accepted their jobs—that this occurs is well known and is presumably even spelled out somewhere. Since the workers accepted the jobs, they consented to work without pay—thus making it ethical to force them to work without pay. This must, of course, assume that the workers signed the contracts without duress and with full knowledge that they would be required to work without pay under certain conditions. If the workers were not properly informed of this or the contracts were accepted under duress, then they would have no moral obligation to obey such a forced or fraudulent agreement. That said, there is still the concern about what people can ethically agree to.

Philosophers have, of course, considered whether there are limits to what people can agree to. For example, it has been argued that a person cannot freely agree to become the property of another—because it is unethical to own people, because the ownership of one’s self is nontransferable, or for a variety of other reasons. As such, it is worth considering whether a person can agree to work for free, even when doing so might harm them.

One way to approach this matter is to consider the fact that people do agree to work for free. A good example is volunteer work: this unpaid labor is extremely common and is not only acceptable, but often worthy of praise. As such, it would be absurd to claim that it is wrong for people to agree to work for free. But what if someone is compelled to work for free? That is, what if they cannot quit the job and are thus forced to work for free? This would seem to be something that a person cannot ethically agree to—they are, in effect, agreeing to a form of slavery in which they must work, are not paid and cannot quit. Even if they were paid, it would still be a form of slavery—after all, the key aspect of slavery is not working without compensation, it is the lack of freedom. Not being compensated simply makes it worse. As such, federal workers should be free to quit immediately and without any consequences—otherwise the state would be claiming a right to enslave citizens, which is morally wicked.

It might be argued that those who entered into long term agreements with the state, such as a term of service, are obligated to stay in the job and quitting because they are not getting paid would be wrong. While this has some appeal, this would require accepting that a person can, morally, be locked into working without compensation even when doing so would be extremely harmful to them. This would seem to expect far too much of people. Naturally, it could be countered that if they freely entered into a long-term agreement that included the possibility of working without pay, then they are obligated to stick to that agreement—even if they are harmed. After all, a contract is a contract.

While this does seem sensible, it also seems sensible to argue that such agreements should not include the no-pay possibility. That is, it is immoral for this to be included in agreements of this sort—even if people agree to accept the terms. As such, federal workers should always be paid for their work or allowed to terminate their agreements with no harmful consequences being imposed. After all, no one has the right to expect people to labor for free and to demand that would be immoral.

My Amazon Author Page

My Paizo Page

My DriveThru RPG Page

Follow Me on Twitter

Is the Shutdown an Ethical Tool?

by 8 Comments

As this is being written, parts of the federal government have been shut down. Some federal workers have been furloughed—sent home without pay and forbidden from doing work. Others, like TSA agents, are being compelled to work without pay. As would be suspected, the shutdown is hurting those who are not getting paid—there has not been a shutdown of bills and expenses. While some federal workers are well paid, most live from paycheck to paycheck (like most Americans) and have little in the way of financial reserves. Because of this, federal workers are turning to food banks and some are seeking unemployment benefits (which can be problematic, since the unpaid are still employed). In addition to the impact on the unpaid workers, there are the indirect impacts on those who provide goods and services to these workers. After all, people who are not getting paid will not be doing much spending.

In addition to the financial impacts, there are many other harms. One example is the harm being done to the national parks. There are also the harms suffered by those who need the federal services, including businesses that also employ people. There are also the long-term harms of the shutdown. While one could write almost endlessly of the harms of the shutdown, it suffices to say that it is extremely harmful and thus something that should be avoided.

In terms of why this shutdown is occurring, Trump has decided that after two years of Republican rule it is now time to play hardball for the wall: he has shut down the government until he either gets what he wants, or congress somehow forces him to re-open the government. Trump’s supporters will tend to take a different view of the matter: congress, specifically the Democrats, are to blame because they refuse to provide the funds he wants for his wall.

Debating about who is to blame is largely a fruitless endeavor: those who oppose Trump will blame him while his loyal supporters will blame the Democrats. Minds will generally not be changed by evidence or reasons. That said, it can honestly be claimed that the shutdown requires two to tango: if the Democrats give him what he wants, he would presumably end the shutdown and if Trump decided to end the shutdown, then it would end. As such, either side could end the shutdown now, if only they would give in to the other side. From a moral standpoint, they thus each have some blame. However, the blame need not be equal.

After all, to refuse to give in on something because someone else will hurt others need not be the wrong thing to do.  From a utilitarian standpoint, giving in would be wrong if it created more harm than refusing to give in. This utilitarian calculation can consider more than just the immediate factors—for example, it should also include that yielding to hostage taking tactics will encourage the use of that tactic in the future. As noted above, Trump’s supporters would tend to argue that the wall is worth the harm being done (and that the Democrats are to blame). In contrast, those who do not support Trump’s wall take the opposite view. As such, this matter is not worth arguing—no minds will be changed. Instead, I will focus on the general use of a shutdown as a tool, be it by Republicans or Democrats.

The ethics of the shutdown comes down to two basic moral concerns. The first is whether it is morally acceptable to hurt innocent people to get what you want. The second is whether it is morally acceptable to refuse to give someone what they want when they threaten to harm the innocent.

Looked at from a utilitarian standpoint, the matter is to be settled by weighing the negative value (harms) generated using a shutdown against the positive value (benefits). The positive value can include preventing harms. In general, using a shutdown would be morally acceptable if doing so prevented a greater harm—since shutdowns are always harmful. What must also be considered is whether there is an alternative to the shutdown. To use an analogy, if someone proposed using a risky surgery to treat an illness, to not consider alternatives would be morally irresponsible. In the case of the shutdown, there are clearly alternatives. One is, of course, to use the normal political process of negotiation and for each side to agree that they will not use the shutdown as a political tool because of the harm it would inflict.

One obvious practical problem is that the shutdown is perceived as a useful, albeit risky, political tool. The side pushing a shutdown to get what they want think that it will probably work for them; the other side thinks that they will prevent the other side from winning. Both sides also tend to think that they can score political points. In the current shutdown, Trump presumably hopes that the Democrats will be hurt, and the Democrats presumably hope to gain points to use in 2020. Using the shutdown as a tool seems to require ignoring or not caring about the harm being inflicted on the American people. After all, while politicians can lose political points or not get what they want, they are generally not harmed during the shutdown itself—they still get paid. This willingness to use people as pawns is morally problematic—after all, Locke argued that the purpose of the state is the good of the people.

That said, political, economic and military calculations always involve harming pawns—so the shutdown could thus be seen any other move in the political game. This can be countered by pointing out the method need not be used, and the harm inflicted is not necessary—there are so many other options to reaching a solution. As such, the shutdown would seem to be an unethical political tool. Unfortunately, just as it takes two to shutdown, it also takes two to avoid a shutdown: both parties would need to agree to not use this tool. While moral arguments presumably have little impact on professional politicians, if this shutdown proves to disappoint both sides, then it is less likely to be used in the future. But, if one side wins, then the lesson will be that it is a useful tool and Americans can expect more suffering in the future—unless they are willing to take action to prevent it.

My Amazon Author Page

My Paizo Page

My DriveThru RPG Page

Follow Me on Twitter

Trump’s Wall: Why Lie When There Are Real Problems?

by 1 Comment

Trump’s January 2019 prime-time speech was fact-checked before and after it was given. As was expected, the speech was filled of hyperbole and riddled with what can only be charitably called errors.

While it is a standard tactic in politics to exaggerate a problem, lying to exaggerate a problem seems irrational when there is an abundance of problems that are both serious and real. Ironically, Trump referenced some of these problems in his speech, such as drug addiction in the United States and the families seeking asylum. The problems are that Trump characterized the problems incorrectly and that his proposed solution, the wall, would not address these problems in any meaningful way.

Trump has claimed that the wall will reduce the flow of criminals into the United States. He has, of course, grossly exaggerated the number of criminals that enter via the southern border and relies heavily on the fallacies of anecdotal evidence and scare tactics. The wall would do little, if anything, to address whatever real problem exists in terms of criminal intrusions. There is, of course, always a crime problem—one that would be better addressed by using the resources that would be wasted on Trump’s wall to prevent or solve crimes in the United States.

Trump has also claimed that the wall is needed to stop the flow of terrorists across the border. Trump did not make this claim in his speech, presumably because Sarah Huckabee Sanders tried that line on Chris Wallace. Sanders, and many others, were shocked when Wallace did a live fact check on Sanders’ claim that “…nearly, 4,000 known or suspected terrorists come into our country illegally, and we know that our most vulnerable point of entry is southern border.” Wallace responded by pointing out that none of these suspects were captured crossing the southern border, but mostly at airports. Even Sanders’ number was  exaggerated and misleading—there were 2,554 encounters with suspected terrorists and only six people were actually detained. Based on the actual numbers, the problem is miniscule and the wall would do nothing to address it. As such, those who are focused on terrorism should accept that resources would be better used elsewhere.

Trump was correct to point out that there is a humanitarian problem on the border: people are fleeing Central America and seeking asylum in the United States. Given what the United States did to Central America, some would argue that we have an obligation to the people escaping a disaster we helped create. Laying that aside, the obvious problem with Trump’s wall is that those seeking asylum are not trying to sneak across the border, they seek out border agents so that they can start the process of requesting asylum. Given the backlog in the legal system and the problem with housing these seekers, Trump is right that money should be spent solving these problems. But the wall is not part of the solution.

Trump was also quite right that America is suffering from a drug epidemic. However, his wall would do nothing about this problem. First, drug smugglers use the legal points of entry (typically hiding the drugs in vehicles) rather than entrusting their product to people walking in on foot. Many drugs also come in to the country from China; our great wall would not stop these drugs.  It is true that marijuana is sometimes smuggled in this way, but the legalization of marijuana in many states is already solving this problem or at least transforming it. The wall will not stop the flow of the dangerous drugs.

Second, the drug dealers are not forcing drugs on Americans—if there was no demand for illegal drugs, there would be no drug smugglers. Trying to address the drug problem by stopping smugglers has been attempted for decades and has proven ineffective—if it worked, we would not have a drug problem. Building a wall will not reduce the demand for drugs. Addressing the root causes of drug use (which is often poverty and economic despair) would be a better use of resources that building a useless wall.

Trump also laid out various other problems, such as the old, false claim that migrants are stealing jobs and social services to the detriment of Americans. It is true that there are economic woes and problems with the social services, but these are not due to a lack of a wall.

Given the abundance of real problems that even Trump seems to be aware of, it might be wondered why Trump and his fellows persist in their lies and their obsession with the wall. One explanation is that the wall was made into the keystone of Trump’s campaign and that he is dedicated to keeping that promise. Since the facts will not justify the wall, Trump must lie to argue for it. Another explanation is that there are other reasons for wanting the wall, reasons that would not appeal to the public or even be appalling to most. As such, advancing lies is seen as preferable to giving the real reasons. Third, the wall seems to be a matter of pride and ego for Trump—he does not care about solving problems, he wants the wall that gets him cheers from his base. Since there are no good reasons for the wall, he must lie. Finally, lying might simply be the norm in the Trump Whitehouse—they lie simply because that is what they do.

My Amazon Author Page

My Paizo Page

My DriveThru RPG Page

Follow Me on Twitter

Inheritance, Monopoly & Zero Sum

by 4 Comments

In the previous essay I proposed a variation adding inheritance rules to the standard Monopoly game. The aim was to provide a context for discussing the tension between inheritance and fairness by using the simple context of the classic board game. Out of curiosity, I also posted my proposed rules on Facebook without the context of the blog. Not surprisingly, people got the point of the rules and there was some criticism of my analogy. As might be expected, one criticism was that while Monopoly is a zero-sum game, the actual economy is supposedly not. This does raise the question of the impact of making a non-zero-sum version of the game with the inheritance rules in play.

Image Credit

One response to the zero-sum criticism is to note that Monopoly does reflect the actual zero-sum aspects of the real economy. The classic game is about owning properties and major business (like railroads) and these are zero-sum matters in the actual world. If, for example, I own a vast tract of land, that means less land for other people. While we can make more usable land by draining swamps and building islands, there is obviously a finite (laying aside the sci-fi scenario of expanding outward into an infinite universe) amount of land. The same generally holds true of businesses—there is a finite limit and the success of my business in an area limits the success of others (which is why competitive business requires that the state restrict monopolies). As such, for the zero-sum parts of the economy, Monopoly is not a bad model.

The easy and obvious counter to this is to argue that there is no zero-sum economy or that there is a significant non-zero-sum part of the economy that negates the unfairness of the inheritance system. My Monopoly analogy, the criticism would go, fails because of this and inheritance is thus fair. But what if Monopoly could be made into a non-zero-sum game?

In the real economy, the idea is that the sum grows over time. The same can be applied to the game. A crude way to simulate this is to add in the Board Expansion rule variant to the inheritance rules (infinite money, houses, and hotels can also be added by printing them as needed). To play this variant, you will need several Monopoly boards.

Board Expansion Rules for Monopoly Inheritance!

Rule 1: Prior to the start of the next game, place another Monopoly board with its Go square adjacent to the Just Visiting square of the prior board. Repeat until the players decide to stop playing. Play begins in the Go square on the board from the first game.

Rule 2: Once a player’s piece has completed moving completely around a board (from Go to back to Go), they must exit the board and move to the next board. A board is exited via the Just Visiting square and entered via the Go square. Once a piece has completely moved around the final board, the piece must be moved back to the prior board and so on until the original board is reached. The process then begins anew and continues into the game ends. The board a piece is on is treated as the game board for that piece.

Alternative Rule: Instead of being forced to leave a board after moving completely around it (from Go to go), a player can elect to stay on a board if they wish. This rule allows player’s a chance to escape the original game’s board.

This variant allows for a non-zero-sum game, limited only by the number of Monopoly boards on hand. While I do agree that this allows the players who do not have the luck of inheritance a better chance, the player who gets the inheritance still has a significant advantage. While there will be a new board with property available to all players each game, the player who has inherited from the previous game will be in a far better position than the other players to acquire the new property. The main effect of the expanding game would seem to be that the heir player will have ever more property at the end of each game and thus the next heir will have an even greater advantage over the non-heirs. While the game is not zero-sum, those that lack the inheritance will probably still lose.

My Amazon Author Page

My Paizo Page

My DriveThru RPG Page

Follow Me on Twitter

Inheritance & Monopoly

by 10 Comments

The current “death tax” in the United States allows a person to gift or donate up to $11.18 million tax free. The catch is, of course, that they must die. The Republicans have long made it clear that the “death tax” is a hated foe, but they also like to present a narrative of a free market and almost all Americans love to praise fair competition and equality of opportunity. As such, Americans like inheritance and fair competition. As with many cherished beliefs in belief sets, these two are at odds with each other: allowing significant inheritance conflicts with fair competition and equality of opportunity. While it is easy enough to argue for this point, it makes more sense to make people feel the unfairness inherent to inheritance. This can be done by playing my special variant of Monopoly.

Image Credit

Almost everyone is familiar with Monopoly. For those who are not, the rules can be found here. The gist of the game is that you win by driving all the other players into bankruptcy by using the rules of the game. In normal play, the outcome of one game does not affect the next: the game is an equal opportunity ideal in that everyone starts with the same resources, in the same place and with a chance to win based on ability and luck. My proposed variation adds in inheritance rules. This variation requires playing multiple games.

Monopoly Inheritance!

Rule 1:  The first game in the series is played normally using the standard rules.

Rule 2: Upon the conclusion of a game in the series, the winning player records what they possess at the end—money, property, houses, and hotels.

Rule Three: At the start of the second and later games in the series, one player is randomly selected to receive the game possessions of the winning player from the previous game. The receiving player is the heir and the possessions make up their inheritance. The other players start normally. The game is otherwise played using the normal rules, with the exceptions noted in these rules. The series ends when no one wants to play it anymore.

Inheritance Variations

Players can experiment with these variations to make the game more “realistic” or “fairer.” The rules need to be set prior to play.

Fractional Inheritance: The heir receives a percentage of the possessions of the previous winner (75%, 50% or 25% are suggested). Property is selected by drawing the property cards randomly. Round up.

Multiple Heirs: Two players are randomly selected to be heirs, dividing the possessions of the winner of the between them. This can be a 50-50 split or a 75-25 split at the discretion of all the players.

While a player who is not the heir could win the game, the heir obviously has an incredible advantage. Anyone playing by these rules who is not the heir can easily see how unfair the game is. This should help people feel how inheritance of significant wealth is inconsistent with having a fair and competitive economic system.

From a philosophical standpoint, the first game could be considered a state-of-nature game (of the sort envisioned by Locke) in which everything is initially available to all and property has yet to be divided up.

The players in the second (and subsequent) game are obviously taking on the role of the next generation. Since birth is random and inheritance is not merited by effort, the heir is selected at random rather than being the previous winner.

As with any analogy that compares something simple to something vastly more complicated, this analogy will break down quickly. To illustrate, the real-world features multiple heirs, there is no equal start for everyone else, there is not just one game with one winner and so through all the differences. My point is, of course, not that this game variant is a perfect model of inheritance in the United States. Rather, my goal is to get people who are fine with the inheritance system as it stands to play this variant and see if they still feel that this is a fair ruleset for the game. And then to think about whether it is a fair ruleset for the real economy. The question that I want to pose is this: would you play Monopoly by these rules? Why or why not?

As always, I am open to arguments against my view—perhaps allowing and encouraging massive disparities in inheritance is fair and makes for competitive economic system that improves the general welfare.

My Amazon Author Page

My Paizo Page

My DriveThru RPG Page

Follow Me on Twitter

Inheritance & Welfare

by 6 Comments

Republicans have long raged against what they call the “death tax” and while they have not eliminated it, they have changed it. In 2017 the estate tax applied only to individuals with total assets exceeding $5.49 million (doubled for a married couple). After the Republican tax bill passed, the number was increases to $11.8 million (doubled for a married couple).  As should be guessed, this change impacts the taxes of very few people, but it provides a significant benefit for those who are already very well off.

Image Credit

The main reason advanced by Trump for this change was his claim that it is unfair that people pay taxes twice: once when they earn the money, again when their assets are inherited. This ignores the fact that those inheriting assets did not pay taxes on it when it was acquired, so it would only be a double tax if the tax was imposed on the dead person(s) who was taxed when they earned the assets. That said, the no double-tax principle is intriguing and could be taken as entailing that most taxes should be eliminated; but this is a matter beyond the scope of this essay. Instead, I will be looking at inheritance.

While inheritance is taken to be an ancient tradition and a basic right, there are rational arguments against allowing it at all. Also, as with any tradition and common practice, it would be an error of logic to infer that its traditional nature and common practice justify it in anyway. After all, people commonly do bad or stupid things for a long time.

One standard way to argue against inherited wealth is to contend that it has negative consequences. Mary Wollstonecraft contends that hereditary wealth was morally wrong because it produces idleness and impedes people from developing their virtues. While complicated to sort out, this does present an empirical claim: one could do a statistical analysis of the impact of hereditary wealth on idleness and virtue (although one must define the virtues for this analysis).

Interestingly, while Republicans and conservatives tend to aggressively oppose estate and inheritance taxes, they advance an argument that would seem to support eliminating inheritance.

One stock Republican argument against welfare echoes Wollstonecraft’s argument against hereditary wealth: it makes people idle and prevents them from developing virtues, therefore it should be restricted (or eliminated). Rod Blum, a Republican representative from Iowa, said “Sometimes we need to force people to go to work. There will be no excuses for anyone who can work to sit at home and not work.” Donald Trump, whose fortune was built on inheritance, has said that “The person who is not working at all and has no intention of working at all is making more money and doing better than the person that’s working his and her ass off.” While this might sound like description of Trump, it is apparently his criticism of welfare.

If the Republican criticism of welfare is correct, then it would also seem to apply to inheritance. After all, people do not earn their inheritance—they simply receive it. As such, if the Republicans are sincere in their arguments against welfare, then they must apply the same reasoning to inheritance and oppose it for the same reasons they oppose welfare. Obviously enough, they do not take this position—they advance one set of arguments against welfare, give another set in favor of protecting inheritance and see to it that the two do not meet.

While it is tempting to simply present this yet another example of inconsistency, it could be argued that there are relevant differences between inheritance and welfare that breaks the analogy between them.

One argument can be built on the fact that inheritance is passed on voluntarily from the possessor of the wealth to the recipient, while welfare involves taking tax money from some people who do not want some other people to get that money. A similar argument can be made by pointing out that inheritance usually goes to relatives while state welfare does not. While these are differences, they would not seem to be relevant to the argument that welfare is bad because it makes people lazy—after all, it is getting money that one has not earned that is the problem, not whether it was giving willingly or not or who it comes from. Unless one wants to make the implausible argument that money given by relatives is special and will not make people lazy.

Another argument can be made arguing that inherited wealth is earned in some manner while welfare is not. While this does have some appeal, it falls apart quickly. First, some people do earn some of their welfare (broadly construed) by paying for it when they are working. For example, if Sally works for ten years paying taxes and gets fired when her company moves overseas, then she is getting back money from a system that she contributed to. Second, if a person did work for their inheritance, it is not actually an inheritance, but something earned. If, for example, someone worked in the family business for pay, then they have earned their pay. But merely working there does not, obviously, entitle a person to own the business after the death of the current owner. So, this sort of argument fails.

In light of these considerations, if the Republicans are right that welfare is bad because it makes people idle and impedes their virtue, then the same would apply even more to inheritance. As such, if they are opposed to the harms of welfare and must combat them, then they must also oppose the harms of inheritance with an equal or greater intensity. If they don’t, one might think that they simply dislike poor people and like the rich.

It might be pointed out that if someone opposes inheritance, then they must oppose welfare. One reply is to accept this—if welfare does make people idle and inflicts moral harm. A second reply is to argue that welfare helps people in need and is analogous to family helping family in times of trouble rather than being analogous to inheritance, in which one simply receives regardless of need or merit.

Lest anyone start mass-producing straw men, my concern here is with large inheritances; I obviously have no objection to the sort of inheritance most of us will receive and I certainly have no issue with, for example, someone inheriting some of grandad’s Hummel collection or a few weapons from grandma’s collection of assault rifles.

My Amazon Author Page

My Paizo Page

My DriveThru RPG Page

Follow Me on Twitter

%d bloggers like this: