We Must Fight Inequality Using the State

Governments and the state itself exist due to their ability to marshal large forces of people to achieve a common goal. The modern state was inexorable in its ability to extend its influence around the globe, to the point that where there are humans, there are now states to govern them. The nation state has the capacity to care and protect or punish and persecute its citizens. It is the potential for government tyranny over its citizens that motivates opposition to the expansion of the state. The idea of what constitutes tyranny by the state is broad and can range from actual physical force being employed by the state against its citizens to the act of taxing a citizen’s wealth or income. However, this potential for tyranny allows states to provide many vital functions, such as the enforcement of the rule of law, the provision of a safety net for those citizens that are unfortunate in their circumstances, and the provision of vital public goods.

The degree to which you trust the state, therefore, depends on by how much you think that the state’s tyranny has the potential to provide benefit to you and yours, as well as how the application of the state’s tyranny aligns itself with your values. Nearly everyone acknowledges the potential of states to produce large changes within society, but there are questions over whether state intervention makes problems worse, as well as the extent to which it is the state, not other social forces, such as market economics, solve the problems instead. In my opinion, despite the capitulation of many politicians to market forces in the modern day, it is evident from the historical record of the power of the state to force social change. Just looking at the history of the UK, obvious examples of state driven social change come to mind- redistribution of clergy lands, provision of mass education, provision of a unified infrastructure, the development of an independent judiciary, as well as countless other small but significant developments that shaped the development of the UK we see today.

In terms of modern social change, the market economy is firmly in control, leading to the force that is increasingly driving political resentment and political re-evaluation: inequality. The difference between the wealth held by the richest and the poorest has sky-rocketed over the last 40 years. Despite the fact that the growth of the world economy has led to decreases in poverty in absolute terms (ish), the growth in wealth inequality is fundamentally dangerous to the continued functionality of the world’s political systems, particularly democracies. In oppressive political systems, populist movements can be repressed, as has occurred in many of the countries involved in the Arab Spring, as well as in Hong Kong.

However, in democratic countries, populism is a force that can be utilised for political gain. They can be seen gaining momentum everywhere against the status quo, whether it is Duterte in the Philippines, Erdogan in Turkey, or most significantly, Trump in the US. Populist politicians are dangerous by dint of their power base, as the mob is capricious and will support policies that may be viable in the short term but are unsustainable in the long term. An excellent example would be that Trump has simultaneously lowered taxes and increased spending. The rise of a populist party can be prevented by the implementation of sensible economic policies that distribute wealth fairly amongst its citizens. The fact that this has not happened is an example of the consequences when the elites in a society are capable of disproportionately influencing government economic policy.

The disproportionate influence of the elites was never more evident than at the time of the global financial crisis. Banks that collapsed were bailed out, with limited or no prosecution for those that had driven us to the crisis point in the first place, whilst austerity policies were enacted across many nations in order to balance the books. 10 years later, and the effects of austerity are still being felt by the most vulnerable in society, fuelling populist movements around the world.

In order to correct this imbalance in wealth, and therefore the respective powers of the masses and the elites, governments must become far less laissez faire. They must raise taxes to pre-1970s levels (~70% for the highest level of income) and regulate markets effectively in order to reduce corruption. They must stop the privatisation of areas vital to the public good, such as education and healthcare, under the illusion that it makes these services better and more efficient. The only consequence of privatising these industries is to make them more efficient at generating profit for the owners, as a perfect market for these services cannot develop.

Democratic governments should no longer be afraid to lead the way in redistributing wealth from the richest to the poorest. Instead of relying on charity, which is reliant on fickle human kindness at the best of times, we should choose to use existing political structures to shape our society to be more fair and just. We can no longer afford to do otherwise if we want out democratic institutions to continue into the future.