“A Message to Garcia”
Elbert Hubbard
In all this Cuban business there is one man stands out on the horizon of my memory like Mars at perihelion. When war broke out between Spain and the United States, it was very necessary to communicate quickly with the leader of the Insurgents. Garcia was somewhere in the mountain fastnesses of Cuba—no one knew where. No mail or telegraph could reach him. The President must secure his co-operation, and quickly. What to do!
Someone said to the President, “There’s a fellow by the name of Rowan will find Garcia for you, if anybody can.” Rowan was sent for and given a letter to be delivered to Garcia. How “the fellow by name of Rowan” took the letter, sealed it up in an oil-skin pouch, strapped it over his heart, in four days
landed by night off the coast of Cuba from an open boat, disappeared into the jungle, and in three weeks came out on the other side of the island, having traversed a hostile country on foot delivered his letter to Garcia—are things I have no special desire now to tell in detail.
The point I wish to make is this: McKinley gave Rowan a letter to be delivered to Garcia; Rowan took the letter and did not ask, “Where is he at?” By the Eternal! There is a man whose form should be cast in deathless bronze and the statue placed in every college in the land. It is not book-learning young men need, nor instruction about this or that, but a stiffening of the vertebrae which will cause them to be loyal to a trust, to act promptly, concentrate their energies; do the thing — “Carry a message to Garcia.” General Garcia is dead now, but there are other Garcias.
No man, who has endeavored to carry out an enterprise where many hands were needed, but has been well-nigh appalled at times by the imbecility of the average man – the inability or unwillingness to concentrate on a tying and do it. Slipshod assistance, foolish inattention, dowdy indifference, and half-hearted work seem the rule; and no man succeeds, unless by hook or crook, or threat, he forces or bribes other men to assist him; or mayhap, God in His goodness performs a miracle, and sends him an Angel of Light for an assistant.
You, reader, put this matter to a test: You are sitting now in your office—six clerks are within your call. Summon any one and make this request: “Please look in the encyclopedia and make a brief memorandum for me concerning the life of Correggio.” Will the clerk quietly say, “Yes, sir,” and go do the task?” On your life, he will not. He will look at you out of a fishy eye,and ask one or more of the following questions: Who was he? Which encyclopedia? Where is the encyclopedia? Was I hired for that? Don’t you mean Bismarck? What’s the matter with Charlie doing it? Is he dead? Is there any hurry? Shan’t I bring you the book and let you look it up yourself? What do you want to know for? And I will lay you ten to one that after you have answered the questions, and explained how to find the information, and why you want it, the clerk will go off and get one of the other clerks to help him find Garcia – and then come back and tell you there is no such man. Of course I may lose my bet, but according to the Law of Average, I will not. Now if you are wise you will not bother to explain to your “assistant” that Correggio is indexed under the C’s, not in the K’s, but you will smile sweetly and say, “Never mind,” and go look it up yourself.
And this incapacity for independent action, this moral stupidity, this infirmity of the will, this nwillingness to cheerfully catch hold and lift, are the things that put pure socialism so far into the future. If men will not act for themselves, what will they do when the benefit of their effort is for all? A first mate with knotted club seems necessary; and the dread of getting “the bounce” Saturday night holds many a worker in his place.
Advertise for a stenographer, and nine times out of ten who apply can neither spell nor punctuate—and do not think it necessary to. Can such a one write a letter to Garcia?
“You see that bookkeeper” said the foreman to me in a large factory.”Yes, what about him?” “Well, he’s a fine accountant, but if I’d send him to town on an errand, he might accomplish the errand all right, and, on the other hand, might stop at four saloons on the way, and when he got to Main Street, would forget what he had been sent for.” Can such a man be entrusted to carry a message to Garcia?
We have recently been hearing much maudlin sympathy expressed for the “down-trodden denizen of the sweat shop” and the “homeless wanderer searching for honest employment,” and with it all often go many hard words for the men in power. Nothing is said about the employer who grows old before his time in a vain attempt to get frowsy ne’er-do-wells to do intelligent work; and his long patient striving with “help” that does nothing but loaf when his back is turned. In every store and factory there is a constant we “help” that have shown their incapacity to further the interests of the business, and others are being taken on. No matter how good times are, this sorting continues, only if times are hard and work is scarce, this sorting is done finer – but out and forever out, the incompetent and unworthy go. It is the survival of the fittest. Self-interest prompts every employer to keep the best—those who can carry a message to Garcia.
I know one man of really brilliant parts who has not the ability to manage a business of his own, and yet who is absolutely worthless to anyone else, because he carries with him constantly the insane suspicion that his employer is oppressing, or intending to oppress, him. He can not give orders, and he will not receive them. Should a message be given him to take to Garcia, his answer would probably be, “Take it yourself.” Tonight this man walks the streets looking for work, the wind whistling through his threadbare coat. No one who knows him dare employ him, for he is a regular firebrand of discontent. He is impervious to reason, and the only thing that can impress him is the toe of a thick-soled No. 9 boot.
Of course I know that one so morally deformed is no less to be pitied than a physical cripple; but in your pitying, let us drop a tear, too, for the men who are striving to carry on a great enterprise, whose working hours are not limited by the whistle, and whose hair is fast turning white through the struggle to hold the line in dowdy indifference, slipshod imbecility, and the heartless ingratitude which, but for their enterprise, would be both hungry and homeless.
Have I put the matter too strongly? Possibly I have; but when all the world has gone a-slumming I wish to speak a word of sympathy for the man who succeeds – the man who, against great odds, has directed the efforts of others, and, having succeeded, finds there’s nothing in it: nothing but bare board and clothes.
I have carried a dinner-pail and worked for a day’s wages, and I have also been an employer of labor, and I know there is something to be said on both sides. There is no excellence, per se, in poverty; rags are no recommendation; and all employers are not rapacious and high-handed, any more than all poor men are virtuous.
My heart goes out to the man who does his work when the “boss” is away, as well as when he is home. And the man who, when given a letter for Garcia, quietly takes the missive, without asking any idiotic questions, and with no lurking intention of chucking it into the nearest sewer, or of doing aught else but deliver it, never gets “laid off,” nor has to go on strike for higher wages. Civilization is one long anxious search for just such individuals. Anything such a man asks will be granted; his kind is so rare that no employer can afford to let him go. He is wanted in every city, town, and village—in every office, shop, store and factory. The world cries out for such; he is needed, and needed badly — the man who can “Carry a Message to Garcia.”

In fact, if you want everybody to be taxed equally, we should all have to pay THE SAME AMOUNT. Why not? It’s just as arbitrary as any other system.

Sign me up! :)

You raise a good point: the current tax code is the result of decades of squabbling and back-room deals and has left any semblance of objectivity far behind. But that is one reason I advocate for some sort of flat tax system — I’m hoping that if we junk the old system, and start anew, it’ll take a year or two for the politicians to really screw it up. (But then I always was a bit naive.)

You are correct; these are not the same. The elimination of private property is a far cry from (and far worse than, IMHO) the progressive tax system we have now.

However, I was trying to illustrate that there is one underlying principal common to both systems: that private property rights should be compromised (or eliminated) for the “good of society”. A corollary, in both systems, is that the most capable producers will relinquish more earned wealth, and that the least capable producers will receive more unearned wealth, than the average in that society.

The differences between communism and progressive taxation, though vast, seem to me to be a question of degree. Both systems arrogate the (moral) right to redistribute my wealth, and I am objecting to that principle in both systems.

Yeah, pretty much. We make up law as we go along, based on what we think is right and wrong. There is no guarantee that this will remain stable or even not be reversed; take for example the case of copyright (or is it patents? I can never remember) which started out in the US with a lifetime of, simply, seven years, and now have a lifetime of the life of the original owner plus seventy years. This is a vast difference. Or consider recreational drugs: largely once legal, now the law looks at them with apparent random occasional disinterest interspersed with the heaviest of penalties.

I agree that the question you raise is by far the more important, of getting the government to stop spending us into massive debt. The situation could be likened to me arguing about which of several third jobs I should take while my wife goes out and maxes the credit cards buying fancy shoes: the real problem isn’t mine, it’s hers.

As to your fair share, though, how do you defend yourself? You can hire lawyers and accountants, but not if you make thirty-five grand a year. You could set up a shell corporation in the Cayman Islands, but not on a schoolteacher’s salary. There’s not much other defense against the IRS. Write your congressman.

I wrack my brain trying to find a solution to this problem, but the only one that presents itself is to keep voting — except there’s no one to vote for.

So is your main point here that fairness is in the eye of the beholder?

If so, I can agree with that. Of course, to me it looks pretty damn unfair when I look at how much of my paycheck goes off to get squandered by the federal government. In fact, I’d love to find a way to stop them from squandering $2.5 Trillion a year, so that I might keep more of it.

The question of “fairness” in the tax code only comes up when the left claims that the rich aren’t paying “their fair share”. It also comes up with those who believe that they are the arbiter of what other people need. Consider the quote from commenter Adam above: “I think instead of focusing on the top 1% I think taxes should be focused on those whose income exceeds what is spendable.” Who decides what is spendable? These people think it’s unfair that rich people have more than they do, because they don’t “need” it.

You may think the issue of fairness is pointless to discuss. I agree, to the point where we should focus our efforts discussing how to get the government to spend less overall, to ensure that we all get the feds out of our pockets. But when someone tells me that the level they take out of my paycheck is too small and I’m not paying my “fair share”, I’m going to defend myself against that fairness claim by any means I can.

Why you think people don’t understand this is beyond _me_. We get it. Fiscal conservatives don’t have a monopoly on ninth-grade economics. It’s not that complicated, for crying out loud. People see a lower return on investment, they’re less likely to invest, given the same risk. That’s reasonable.

Except that ALL money is invested. It doesn’t matter if it’s in the bank, under your mattress, or in a high-risk hedge fund. It’s invested in something. So what would happen? Everything gets a slightly lower return on investment, equally, across the board. If all investments go up in risk incrementally, what’s the overall effect? Very little. Businessmen will still do business. Bakers will bake, carmakers will still make cars. The world will go on. We’re not talking about taxing everything over a certain amount; just some. Which we do now.

If the income tax goes up over a certain level, it will have an effect. But so what? It’s having an effect already. By this logic, why tax anybody at all? Hey, let’s stimulate that economy. Cut my taxes, I’ll spend more, and I’m nowhere _near_ the upper one percent. Hey, why not eliminate everybody’s taxes completely? The economy would be ROARING!

“‘We’re talking about rich people, and the bottom line is that in general rich people will do what they have to do to stay rich. That’s why they’re still rich.’
Do I detect a bit of bitterness toward said class of people? This always seems to be the underlying, unsaid, motivation for the scheming that takes place to remove them from their ‘richness’.”

No. No bitterness. This is just a discussion about the distribution along the tax curve. I, for one, realize that the only way to eliminate the rich is for everybody to be exactly equal, like in Harrison Bergeron. Otherwise there’s always going to be a distribution of some kind, even if the rich make ten bucks an hour and the poor only make nine fifty. And frankly that’s just stupid, anyway. For one thing, even if it did happen, and I’m not saying it should, some other currency would rise to replace monetary wealth as a badge of rank in society. In communist societies, this is usually something like “party influence” or “loyalty”.

“Read “Atlas Shrugged” by Ayn Rand, a bit long winded, but she understands.”

I have read Atlas Shrugged. It’s a good book. I’d recommend most people read it at least once. It’s also extremist, and I think that kind of extremism is dangerous — like religious extremism. Read it yourself and come to your own conclusions.

” Zafner: 2007-03-13 11:32
Progressive taxation is not communism.
Hmmm. I’m sorry, but I think that is the very essence of communism:”

Well I’m sorry, but you’re just wrong. Try again.

Here’s a question. If you want a fair tax, why pick percentages at all? If I pay 10% of my income and so do the richest people in the world, yes, we’re paying the same proportion of our income. But it’s certainly not equal. In fact, if you want everybody to be taxed equally, we should all have to pay THE SAME AMOUNT. Why not? It’s just as arbitrary as any other system. Why even bother to use percentages or ratios?

My point is that the tax system is, by and large, just whatever we make up. We choose what it is. You can call it fair or unfair. If you think it’s unfair, write your congressman. What baffles me is that people vote for candidates who don’t represent them, who are in favor of taxing them heavily but taxing others less. 99% of Congress should be in favor of 99% of the population. Instead, we have essentially a government by marketing, where people vote based on obscure solipsistic philosophical issues that nobody can really pin down.

Anyone equating communism or Marxism with progressive taxation is being just plain stupid. Communism eliminates private property altogether; it doesn’t just impose a mildly progressive tax on income.

Mild is in the eye of the beholder. I think 39% is excessive taxation. Also, progressive taxation is the embodiment of the phrase “To each according to their needs, from each according to their means”.

Zafner: 2007-03-13 11:32
Progressive taxation is not communism.

Hmmm. I’m sorry, but I think that is the very essence of communism: “From each according to his ability…”

Do I detect a bit of bitterness toward said class of people? This always seems to be the underlying, unsaid, motivation for the scheming that takes place to remove them from their “richness”.

Read “Atlas Shrugged” by Ayn Rand, a bit long winded, but she understands.

“Consider two individuals: one is a salaried worker with an annual income of $100,000 and good job security, and the other is an entrepreneur with a 10 percent chance of earning $1 million in a given year and a 90 percent chance of earning nothing that year. Their average annual incomes are the same, but a highly progressive tax will make the entrepreneur’s expected after-tax income much lower than the salaried worker’s. Many of the people at the top of the income distribution are risk takers who turned out to be lucky; the unlucky risk takers fell into a lower part of the distribution. It is rich people as a class who are growing relatively richer, not necessarily individual rich persons.”

If we really want to increase the fortunes of the many, we would combine a consumption tax which is the most revenue neutral form of taxation available (nevermind all of the saved waste), and Milton Friedman’s idea of negative taxation to supplement the income of our nation’s poor (as opposed to the welfare beaurocracy.)

Costs influence daily decisions in every aspect of our lives….why most don’t understand that in regards to taxation as it applies to the “rich” is beyond me.

And I am not, not, not talking about class warfare. I’m just talking about the tax structure, which is just a bunch of numbers that people made up. We’ve already decided that we can “control the successes of others and confiscate their assests for projects [we] endorse”. That’s not Marxist communism. It’s called taxation, and we already have it. I pay my taxes, just like most other people. If you believe it’s wrong to tax people in general, well, I could probably get behind that if you had some kind of rational alternative plan in mind and could convince me that it would work and was better.

And regardless of how many times you people are going to keep bringing it up, I never said (and wouldn’t say) communism is a good idea. Taxes aren’t communism. Progressive taxation is not communism. You could make a pretty good argument that central planning of industry is, but in a lot of ways we already approach that too — because we have so much law concerning it. So we already have a system that isn’t total capitalism, but is far from communism. And a lot of this was arrived at in a perfectly reasonable way by reasonable people, many of whom were scared out of their wits by the “Dirty Commies”.

And, frankly, I don’t reject the flat tax, as long as it’s well thought-out and maybe starts at around twenty-five grand or so. Actually I recently read a study that says that we already have a pretty effective flat tax of around forty percent, with some variance, in this country, which is why I picked forty per cent above.

And stop saying I want to take somebody’s money away when you just advocated the exact same thing in the same paragraph. Once again, we already have that. It’s called taxation.

And no, your dismissal of us as aspiring to become rich is wrong. I have no such aspirations, yet recognize your rationalizations are simply class warfare. You feel that someone to control the successes of others and confiscate their assets for projects you endorse. Sorry brother, that’s Marxist collectivism. Call it whatever you want, it has failed everywhere it has been tried, because it removes personal incentive to produce (from both the high AND the low ends of the economic spectrum.)

Your rejection of the flat tax makes no sense. The hypotheticals you offer are equally applicable to pretty much any tax system. With the flat tax, everybody participates. The guy who makes 10x as much as me pays 10x as much in taxes. What he KEEPS is irrelevant, unless you are indeed Marxist (or some variation thereof). Let him keep what he earns. I have no right to it. Don’t punish him for productivity.

As for “class warfare jargon” like “four giant yachts instead of five”: I’m not trying to muddy the waters, I’m just trying to make a succinct point. The difference between a hundred million dollars and a hundred and ten million dollars is a lot more, by subtraction, than the difference between twenty and twenty-two thousand dollars. It’s even the same by proportion. In the real world, though, small changes like this can have massive effects on people’s lives at the very low level that they just don’t have at the other end of the wealth spectrum.

I don’t advocate communism. In fact, I’m a huge fan of capitalism in general and competition specifically, when it’s directed in a rational fashion (i.e. when something good comes out of it; I’m not talking about central planning, I’m just excluding sports here). But to really support capitalism honestly, you have to acknowledge that it has some flaws. If left unchecked, competition almost always results in monopoly, which I’m against. Unless there’s some physical barrier, someone does the job better than anyone, or handles the business better than anyone, and they buy their competitors, until there’s only one company with its own way of doing things. This has been seen again and again. That’s why I’m in favor of breaking up monopolies.

“Fair share” is what we decide it is. The government takes a share and says it’s fair, but that amount changes again and again — can it really be a unique number and be right over and over, if it’s really different all the time? You can pick one number — say, forty percent flat — and say that’s fair, but what if there’s some kind of national emergency, like a real war, and we need more money? Or what if, by some insane stroke of fortune, we have an extended surplus and want to lower the tax rate? Does the new number become “fair”? Well then, wasn’t the old one fair?

People are sold the idea that everybody should pay the same percentage using an old technique that’s the basis of advertising. The vast majority of people who see an advertisement think they’re too smart to fall for it. That’s what the advertiser wants you to think: he’s playing to your sense of superiority. When people talk about “the masses”, they almost invariably don’t include themself. A lot of people think the hyper-rich should get to keep all their money because deep down they secretly believe that one day they’ll be among them. The goal of that kind of government, though, is just the opposite: to allow a relatively small group of people to hold all the wealth, and exclude everybody else. The only people that should realistically be in favor of this are the people who are already in that group.