Ask Auntie Pinko
January 16, 2003

Dear Auntie Pinko,

This will be a two part question: what is your position on the death penalty? And what do you think about a national minimum living wage and a maximum wage, with the rest going to infrastructure and social programs?

Thanks,

Eric Savannah, GA

Dear Eric,

Two very different questions in one letter - what a challenge for Auntie Pinko! But I'll see if I can manage it.

On the death penalty, some of my views have already been aired. See Auntie's Archives, , for a brief discussion. To recap: I'm opposed to the death penalty for both practical and moral reasons. The practical reasons are that it's never been proven to actually deter any of the crimes it is usually applied to, and that in order to use it with appropriate judicial and Constitutional discretion, it's extremely expensive. Much more so than life in prison without possibility of parole, which is my preference.

The moral reasons are that I think our justice system is far too flawed and fallible to administer the death penalty with the high degree of confidence that should be required of an irreversible sanction, and that in my religious faith, vengeance is not the province of human creation. And the only reason I can think of for the death penalty to be applied at all is revenge. Life without parole fulfills society's need of removing a dangerous individual from where they may continue doing such dreadful harm to others.

But I also recognize that the death penalty is essentially an emotional issue, not a logical or fact-based issue. So I don't expect others to agree with me, and I try to keep my activism focused on where it can have some impact: contributing money to effective anti-death penalty organizations, making my opinion clear to legislators and public servants, writing the occasional letter to the editor, etc. I don't spend much time arguing about it with my friends or acquaintances who differ with my opinion.

And Auntie Pinko emphatically supports a national minimum wage that should be set at a level that will permit one earner to support a family of three or four in safe and decent conditions by working a forty-hour week. I think that simple commitment would go a very long way, indeed, to solving many of the nation's seemingly intractable social ills.

But a national “maximum” wage?

I think that introducing a disincentive to individual ambition, industry, and aspiration into American social policy will have disastrous long-term results, Eric. We're a nation of strivers, and the idea that someday we, too, can make it to a higher level of self-indulgence (in big-screen TVs, charity, extending family prosperity, etc.) keeps us resilient and adaptable to all kinds of economic and social changes.

In other words, Eric: Greed, up to a point, IS good. Without the belief that the metaphorical better mousetrap would make someone rich, we'd still be grubbing roots and berries with our bare hands to make a living. If you look at human history, the times of great progress are usually the period when there is the greatest possibility of getting rich for the broadest array of citizens. Just a possibility is enough.

That's partly why ancient Rome (repulsive though many of its social practices were,) achieved a general standard of living that was not equaled again in the West until the late 18th century. Public sanitation, national security, incredible feats of engineering, etc., were possible in a society that permitted even manumitted slaves to reach the upper echelons of wealth and power. But with the imposition of a social order that dictated how far you could rise based on who your parents were and what you did for a living, human progress languished at a snail's pace for a thousand years.

Now, Eric, please don't interpret this to mean that Auntie Pinko favors unchecked capitalist predation and social Darwinist dogfights. Nor am I holding up ancient Rome as a model society, heaven forbid.

What I am saying is that I believe the happy medium between the incentives to greed that fuel human progress and the disincentives that check human misery doesn't include a state-imposed maximum wage. Economies are complicated things, and Auntie certainly doesn't pretend to be an expert, but even I can see the disasters inherent there.

I do favor disincentives to greed for the purpose of reducing human misery, but I would probably apply them differently. For one thing, I'd use tax policy to encourage a more equal value to capital and labor. I'd set the disincentive bar higher, but make it stronger the higher it went, with a highly progressive tax system that would recoup society's investment in its members' wealth. A society that enables people to gain fabulous amounts of wealth should be able to get a good return on its investment in the infrastructure that made wealth accumulation possible.

There's a real difference, Eric, between saying to someone “This is all the money you'll ever be allowed to earn, no matter how smart you are or how hard you work,” and saying “Get as rich as you can/want to, but the richer you get, the more we'll expect back from you.” They are both disincentives, but the difference in degree and quality is crucial. Thanks for asking Auntie Pinko!

View Auntie's Archive

Do you have a question for Auntie Pinko?

Do political discusions discombobulate you? Are you a liberal at a loss for words when those darned dittoheads babble their talking points at you? Or a conservative, who just can't understand those pesky liberals and their silliness? Auntie Pinko has an answer for everything.

Just send e-mail to: mail@democraticunderground.com, and make sure it says "A question for Auntie Pinko" in the subject line. Please include your name and hometown.