The Ant and the Grasshopper

Printed below, for your entertainment, is Aesop's fable, "The Ant and the Grasshopper":

In a field one summer's day a Grasshopper was hopping about, chirping and singing to its heart's content. An Ant passed by, bearing along with great toil an ear of corn he was taking to the nest.

"Why not come and chat with me," said the Grasshopper, "instead of toiling and moiling in that way?"

"I am helping to lay up food for the winter," said the Ant, "and recommend you to do the same."

"Why bother about winter?" said the Grasshopper; we have got plenty of food at present." But the Ant went on its way and continued its toil. When the winter came the Grasshopper had no food and found itself dying of hunger, while it saw the ants distributing every day corn and grain from the stores they had collected in the summer. Then the Grasshopper knew: It is best to prepare for the days of necessity.

I like the moral of this story, but today it'd be a little different. The story wouldn't necessarily be about the Grasshopper laying in the bed he made - it would be about the greedy ants and how they should be made to share. Hell, we learn about sharing in kindergarten right? Time to teach those ants a lesson!

The poor Grasshopper. He was born without the foresight of the ants. It's not his fault he makes bad choices. No one ever told him to gather his own food. Oh, wait, the Ant did suggest it. But certainly his parents and his teachers neglected to tell him. He is clearly the victim of inadequate upbringing.

But should the ants be penalized for providing for themselves? Evidently the Grasshopper's suffering justifies making the ants suffer too. However, setting aside the emotional implications of allowing the Grasshopper to perish, what are the logical consequences of punishing those who produce in order to reward those who don't?

When dealing with rational beings, you get more of what you reward, and less of what you punish. That's why parents don't punish their kids for doing homework - they punish them for staying out past curfew or otherwise misbehaving. Why? Well, most parents would like less misbehaving and more homework-doing. Duh. It's an axiom so simple, so taken for granted that it seems silly to take up the space saying it.

Why then, why oh why do I still hear people squawking about taxing "the rich" more, or the evil corporations, in order to subsidize failing businesses or provide some public amenity to the needy? We resent the people that produce the most for our society, and we pity and reward those who produce the least.

I'm not saying that "the rich" should be the subject of charity, but I am saying that we are asking for trouble by punishing them merely for producing and making money. By forcing the redistribution of wealth from the industrious to the indolent, the government is like a parent saying, "less homework, more video games, got it?"

That message is not sent only to the rich, it is received by everyone. Suddenly it's not worth it to work harder, get educated, and improve one's lot in life. People who otherwise might work just enough to get by might decide it makes sense to apply for public benefits like welfare, or to pursue criminal activities instead of legitimate work. Think about it: if you keep less of your legal labor than illegal, crime starts to look more appealing. Plus, it's all those rich bastards' fault anyway. It's not fair they have so much - you're entitled to some of it, right?

Similarly, those who can afford to retire might decide to do so instead of working longer for a more comfortable retirement. So they leave the workforce in lieu of putting themselves in the class of citizens discriminated against by the government. In general, people work less than they would if they weren't going to be punished for it.

For advocates of shorter work weeks and more vacations (European style), this might seem like a positive boon. On the other hand, people are working and producing less. If you work less, you make less money and can buy fewer nice things. It's the same on the aggregate level - the general standard of living goes down. The number of people entering the public payroll is as disturbing as the number leaving the workforce that is expected to feed it.

It is ironic, then, that policies designed to redistribute wealth are enacted not only in the land of the 'free' but in the name of public welfare, of all things! I'm sure the bureaucrats feel better at having gotten something done. They look like a hero. And because people often can't see beyond the ends of their noses, they don't see the loss in productivity. How could they? The productivity they would have seen never came into existence. By this point, it's imaginary. Instead, they can see the public housing project, or whatever else the money was diverted to.

And there's never a shortage of other issues to complain about.