Should Freed Slaves Compensate Their Owners?

To see this analysis in it's original context, go and buy Fair Play, by the inimitable Steven Landsburg. 

Now that the left have come around to agree that the protection of domestic farming (in developed countries) is not only economically costly but morally repugnant, the debate has shifted from Should farm subsidies end? to Should we compensate farmers?

In other words, we now all agree on the end, but still disagree on the means. We're often told that since farmers have now become reliant on these subsidies, we have a responsibility to provide an easy passage to competitiveness - often through retraining. But if we all accept that agricultural protection is wrong, then these farmers have derived their incomes from ill-gotten (and socially costly) gains. Why must we assist someone who's losing an ill-gotten revenue stream?

Ordinarily if we agree that an action is wrong, the solution is to stop it. If anything, debate should be on how to punish the culprit - possibly through reparations to those who he's benefitted at the expense of. We argue about how a joy-rider is to compensate their victim, but no one suggests that we should just force them to drive fewer miles a day.

Regardless of you opinions on farm subsidies, I want to point out a logical inconsistency elucidated by  Steven Landsburg.  

There is no doubt that free trade is good for most Americans, and no doubt that is is bad for some Americans. So the party lines among economically literate liberals seems to go something like this: "The gains from free trade are too good to pass up, but at least the winners ought to share their good fortunes with the losers.

Here we have an American who has devoted his life to charging the rest of us $16 for something we ought to have been able to buy for $3. What fairness dictates is that he and others who have benefitted from protectionism should compensate the majority of thei countrymen who have borne the burden

When the Northern states abolished slavery in the late 1700s, it was generally assumed that in all fairness ex-slaves should compensate their former owners for the loss.

In polite society, it is acceptable to argue that whites - even those whites whose ancestors in no way benefitted from slavery - should transfer income to blacks whose ancestors suffered. But no reasonable person would suggest that modern blacks should transfer income to whites whose ancestors lost their slaves in 1863.

Landsburg (1997:73)

I can appreciate the charitable instincts of those who want to compensate people who's gravy train runs out. But doesn't the same logic imply that freed slaves should compensate their former owners? If you favour the former, but not the latter, are you being inconsistant?

Comments

[dearieme]

When Britain abolished slavery in the Empire, the owners were paid compensation. So much cheaper than, for instance, the American Civil War. As for farming, I assume that the subsidy ends up with the owners of the least elastic factor of production i.e. the landowners. So they should be compensated if anyone is, whether they farm their own land or let it to tenants. A hard sell politically?

[hornswaggled]

Fair play is a good little book. I enjoyed reading it. Good post and thanks for your blog. Another book by Stephen thas worth a read is The Armchair Economist. Fun stuff.