The Stakeholder Society

I recently read Charles Murray's "In Our Hands." A reviewer of it suggested "The Stakeholder Society" as an alternative drastic change. I recommend both books to anyone that considers reading either. At the risk of oversimplifying, here are the proposals. "The Stakeholder Society" recommends a one time cash payment of $80,000 as citizens turn 21, financed by a wealth tax. "In Our Hands" recommends an annual cash payment to all adult citizens financed by the elimination of all other transfer payments. Both books have lots of detail to explain how and why to implement their proposal. Both admit that some details will have to be worked out based on experience, and both identify some potential weaknesses of their proposal. The biggest problem with "The Stakeholder Society" is the observation that leads to the proposal. Since there is an unequal distribution of wealth, there must be an unequal opportunity to accumulate wealth. If the stake increases the disparity in wealth, the same arguments can be used to increase the stake and the corresponding wealth tax. If the stake decreases the disparity, but does not eliminate it, the same arguments can be used to increase the stake and the corresponding wealth tax. Those that favor equal outcomes will favor "The Stakeholder Society." Those that think there is a large degree of opportunity for most will favor "In Our Hands." Both books are worth considering carefully, but not worth worrying about. The authors of both admit there is no chance of either scheme being implemented any time soon. Most ratings of books with political implications are based on agreement or disagreement with the conclusion. This one is based on the presentation of the arguments.

Bruce Ackerman and Anne Alstott have written a great book on how to realize the American Dream. "The Stakeholder Society" tells us how we can practically achieve true equality, so that America will have many that will have many more productive citizens, while ensuring that women have a true equal footing with men. It is a complex idea, but written simply enough so most of the Stakeholder plan could be understood by the average American. This book ought to be read by all politicans, and then maybe we'd have true economic prosperity.

In an outstanding new book called the Stake holder society, Bruce Ackerman and Anne Alstott propose having the government give every American $80,000 in their early twenties. This would be funded by a two percent tax on wealth above $80,000. They also suggest a privilege tax on those who have had financially privileged childhoods. These proposals are carefully thought out and well motivated by the idea of giving some substance to our common empty talk of "equality of opportunity." Ackerman and Alstott dismiss a number of other approaches, such as funding education better or raising minimum wages as too small and/or actually harmful and/or politically difficult. Unhappily, I'm inclined to think that their proposals are just as politically difficult. And I have a quibble with the digs scattered through this book against "utilitarians," who are never named. As in all American ethical arguments, the example used is that of Nazi Germany, where Jews were one percent of the population. "[I]s it so clear," the authors ask, "that the average Jew suffered NINETY-NINE times as much as the average Aryan gained from his feelings of racial superiority?" One response to this is that feelings like those often involve hatred, which, being unpleasant, is not a gain at all. But, even accepting that there was a gain for many racists, the trade-off is not necessary. The racists could have felt superior without killing anyone, an action which, if completed, would have deprived them of the allegedly beneficial presence of people they perceived as inferiors. More importantly, these numbers (one and ninety-nine units of pleasure or suffering) do not mean anything. We could give a vivid description of the concentration camps and then ask "Isn't it abundantly clear that the average Jew suffered at least ninety-nine times as much as the average Aryan gained from his feelings of racial superiority?" The case for this "calculation" is exactly as good as for its opposite. The value of utilitarianism lies not in calculations (calculations which Ackerman and Alstott accept while trying to dismiss) but in placing the well-being of people above adherence to any rule. Utilitarianism ought to be an ally of anyone who recognizes the harm done by devotion to certain rights and freedoms, such as the freedom to engage in unfair and cruel labor practices, the "right to work", and the faith that people have what they "deserve." And don't get me started on the way readers of Foucault tend to characterize Bentham... I've encountered two arguments against the Stake holder society. The first, which is well addressed in the book, is that some people would waste their $80,000. I agree with the authors that relatively few would waste their money, and that many would be much better off than they are now. I find that people who make this criticism are not themselves suggesting an alternative remedy to the drastic disparity in wealth in America, and are not even aware of it. In many

The idea at first sounds crazy, but trying to figure out why will force you to examine many of your own opinions--and perhaps ultimately to reach a different conclusion than your first.

The concept of a stakeholder society is a very reasonable and very important idea. Alstott and Ackerman present a lucid, easy to read, argument for it. Their argument of the need for a citizen's pension in place of the present system of social security (which excludes people who have not 'worked', such as housewives), is also very convincing. I hope that their ideas don't get simply dismissed as "too radical" by the media. These ideas aren't radical at all. They're down to earth and sensible.