|
Some people feel that charity
must be enforced and administered through government welfare
programs because private charity would not suffice to meet
the needs of the destitute and desperate. If people are not
forced to give up half of their salaries to ensure a caring
society, then they won't do it and we will be left with a
dog-eat-dog world in which the needy are left to suffer and
die in the streets.
It is undoubtedly true that very few people would give up
anywhere in the neighbourhood of half of their earnings if
they were not forced to do so. What is not true is that
society as we know it would crumble as a result. Instead, it
would flourish. Allowing people to keep more (dare we dream:
all?) of their earnings would be a great incentive for
people to work harder, because the extra effort would be
fully rewarded. On the flipside, knowing that they will not
be automatically taken care of is a great incentive for the
unemployed who are able but unwilling to work to get off
their butts already. As for those recipients of welfare
programs who are truly unable to care for themselves, they
would be able to rely on the voluntary charity of a society
that will be even wealthier than the one we have right now
and whose productive members will not feel that they "already
gave at the office" to the tune of half of their earnings.
There is simply no grounds for believing that the bulk of
humanity is so uncaring as to let the truly needy suffer and
die when helping them is readily within their reach.
|
BELIEF # 04: We are our brothers' keepers |
|
|
There is a widespread belief that we have a duty to help others, and more,
a duty to place the interests of others before our own
interests. This is not to be confused with the idea that it
is good to help others in times of need, when we are able to
do so. It is the notion that we should do absolutely
everything in our power to help others, that we should
renounce our own selfish interests and devote our very lives
to helping others, and that it is morally wrong to do
otherwise. This kind of thinking leads to the now widely
accepted idea that we should be forced to help others,
through the expedient of involuntary taxation (see above).
As Ayn Rand pointed out over and over again, if we have a
duty to help others, then they have a claim on our lives.
This makes us all either masters or slaves, with those of us
who are most able to "master" our own lives enslaved to help
those who cannot or will not take the trouble to master
theirs. Those who believe this kind of talk to be hyperbolic
should not be allowed to lose sight of how conditional our
freedom really is. The demonstration of this is that
steadfastly refusing to pay one's taxes will result in armed
representatives of the government showing up at one's door,
followed by a lengthy stint in prison. Benevolence and
generosity do have an important place in human affairs, but
involuntary servitude is a perversion of that, and an
affront to the dignity of those thrust into the roles of
masters and slaves.
|
BELIEF # 03: Theft can be justified |
|
|
Many—okay, most—people believe that governments have the moral
right to steal from their citizens. They believe this theft, which they
disguise by the name "taxation," can be justified in any number of ways.
It can be justified because it is for a good cause, like healthcare for
all, or the support of higher culture, or the financing of a new
football stadium. It can be justified by simple appeal to the will of
the majority, as though democratic polling itself could make a thing
right or wrong. It can be justified as a way of correcting for negative
externalities or market failures in which some are harmed or merely
poorly served by certain players in the market. Or again, it can be
justified on the basis that since "property is theft," redistributing
the spoils can hardly be a crime.
Thankfully, in their private lives most people do not behave
like hooligans. Most people recognize the simple truth that
theft is an act of aggression, and as such must be banned
from civilized human relations. This basic decency is the
thin edge of the wedge upon which lovers of freedom must
capitalize. It is only through the sleight of hand of
government taxation that people are able to convince
themselves that theft is justified. We must challenge these
justifications by pointing out that people would not accept
it if a petty burglar stole from them even if they were told
it was for a good cause (with which they might or might not
agree) or that the rest of the burglars voted on it first.
We must also show that externalities are usually the results
of earlier government interventions, and that market
failures can be seen as entrepreneurial opportunities rather
than as problems to be dealt with by the blunt instruments
of heavy-handed dictates. As for the idea that property is
theft, this definition is circular: property cannot be theft
since theft is the forced removal of property. That some
property is acquired by theft is indisputable, but justice
demands that these cases be investigated and prosecuted
separately, and that the vast majority of us not be treated
like criminals.
|
BELIEF # 02: Order comes from above |
|
|
Many people do not fully appreciate how order can arise
spontaneously. This same basic error explains both why the religious
right believes the orderly universe had to be consciously designed by
some entity (God) and also why the "progressive" left believes the
orderly market has to be consciously designed and maintained by some
group of entities (the Government). It seems humanity is predisposed to
worship some idol or other, whether we have to make Him up out of whole
cloth or merely endow Them with preternatural wisdom and benevolence.
It doesn't have to be this way. Explaining how spontaneous order
arises and describing examples of it is the way to go here. Wikipedia,
Linux, and the internet itself are good examples of the complex order
that can arise with only a few simple rules in place. Of course, two of
the best examples are evolutionary theory, which shows how life arose
spontaneously from the primordial soup, and economic theory, which shows
how human beings can spontaneously order their lives with only the most
basic rules in place and virtually no guidance from above.
|
BELIEF # 01: Government is good |
|
|
Many people are under the mistaken assumption that government is
good: good at what it does and morally good. Although they might think
that a particular government is either inefficient or unethical, they
still believe at least that government can be good, if only the
right people would grab hold of the reins. Indeed, while they may hold a
quite low opinion of people in general, they are likely to believe that
the people in power are a cut above, or at least that those people who
are a cut above could, in theory, grab hold of the reins and make
everything better.
In reality, the people in power are no better and no worse (well,
maybe a little worse) than the populace at large. Pointing out all of
the historical and ongoing examples of inefficiency and unethical
behaviour in governments of every stripe is a necessary part of
spreading the ethos of freedom to an expanding section of society. It is
an inevitable structural problem that whatever human activity the
government controls is invariably beset by shortages, shoddy quality,
high prices, or some combination of these failings.
|
|
|
|
|
