| A bit of anecdotal evidence from a Norwegian citizen to counter your "doctor vs janitor" argument: I'm more than well aquainted with a doctor and she is more than happy to pay her taxes, in order to benefit the rest of society. You should also know that even though the tax system in Norway works to even the footing of different posed people financially, it does not wipe out the class difference between a janitor and a doctor. Their net income will still differ by quite a bit (up to 400% at least). The benefit here is that someone who is considered poor, and would perhaps be forced to live in the street, and only serve to increase the crime rate, will instead recieve help. And the doctor can sleep peacefully at night knowing that the police is out protecting. The hospital emergency staff is ready to recieve the next cardiac arrest patient, the road will be cleared from that heavy snow fall during the night, the list goes on. In my view the philosophy of the Norwegian tax models is less worries == more happiness, and that is exactly what this model offers for everyone included. On the other hand its very easy to paint a rosy picture of Norway in a case like this. Mostly becasue US is so easy to outcompete on many of the issues directly involved. Crime rates, mortality rates, helthcare and so on. Norway does of course, like any country, suffer from several political problems. Spending, immigration and government control is perhaps the most fleeting issues right now. But they diminish substantially compared to the issues the US has to face the next decade. And perhaps even worse is it, that the political environment in the US seems allmost hopeless. With the country polarized into two extremes. In Norway the debate is still very much alive around all of these issues. In the US you can quickly get yourself into a place you dont want to be by just shifting your perspective slightly. Ok now i gotta stop. Let the bashing commence. :P |
It appears that your acquaintance agrees with having her government take away part of her income and give it to the janitor. She accepts the janitor's claim to part of her property as the janitor's right - i.e. the janitor does not owe her any gratitude, and her act is not a voluntary act of benevolence - she is simply giving him what is already his due.
So where does this right come from? The janitor's need. The question here is whether need can give rise to a legitimate right.
You say that your acquaintance thinks that her giving away part of her wealth helps prevent poorer people from becoming criminals. And that this danger gives them the right to claim part of her wealth. But if you extrapolate this thinking further, you'd get people keeping others hostage by means of a threat - i.e. if you refuse to share with me what you earned but I didn't, I'll turn into a criminal and hurt you. This way of thinking about rights is very dangerous.
My view of happiness is simply the achievement of your values, which you have defined consciously and rationally and which do not infringe on the rights of others. The questions for your acquaintance are "Is she feeling happy because she can buy a protection from criminals", or "Is she feeling happy because she truly loves all her fellow citizens (known and unknown, good and bad, lazy and hard-working)?". Regardless of the answer, the more important question is: "Why does she prefer a situation where she is given no choice, no right to refuse to give away, to a situation where she could give away voluntarily, as an act of kindness?"