Whenever arguing foreign policy, welfarism, the nanny state, or whatever our wise overlords (TM, Tom Woods) might be getting us into, we have to ask "what is moral?". Preventing someone from jumping off a building is moral, but not if it means pushing 10 people off the building to distract the one you're saving.
Walter Block (yes, I'm citing him again) takes the side of deontology. That is, if you have to kill one person to save 10, what is moral? Deontologically speaking (actions and not results define morality), it's not okay to murder so it's immoral to kill the one.
The issue gets a little muddier when you consider the "initiator of aggression". A store owner who kills an innocent bystander because he's defending himself during an armed robbery is not responsible for the death of the bystander, but the robber who initiated aggression. Muddier yet, Nazi prison guards who claim to have saved Jews by not killing as many as their ruthless fellow Nazi are still responsible for the lives they ended. And as a final example, consider "Lost" the TV show when Mr. Eko had to kill to save his village, in this case you might argue the one who gave the ultimatum is initiating the aggression so isn't the person who pulled the trigger only a proximate cause of death? I include these ideas for completeness, but are extreme and rare examples of moral choice. In most cases it's easy to delineate the aggressor for the victim.
The issue gets a little muddier when you consider the "initiator of aggression". A store owner who kills an innocent bystander because he's defending himself during an armed robbery is not responsible for the death of the bystander, but the robber who initiated aggression. Muddier yet, Nazi prison guards who claim to have saved Jews by not killing as many as their ruthless fellow Nazi are still responsible for the lives they ended. And as a final example, consider "Lost" the TV show when Mr. Eko had to kill to save his village, in this case you might argue the one who gave the ultimatum is initiating the aggression so isn't the person who pulled the trigger only a proximate cause of death? I include these ideas for completeness, but are extreme and rare examples of moral choice. In most cases it's easy to delineate the aggressor for the victim.
So what does this have to do with helping the least among society? (this is supposed to be part 2 of the answer). I'm not interested in helping the disabled if it means pushing people off of buildings. That is to say, I cherish basic morality above the extension of morality: altruism. Since yesterday was Valentines day, let's say Fred forgot to buy flowers. Since he loves his wife he wants to do something and sees Tom with a bouquet of roses walking down the street. Fred's love for his wife motivates him to stab Tom, take the flowers, and give them to his wife. One response would be, "what a loving husband, he's willing to kill for his wife." Fred has just used the political means (using Oppenheimer's definition) to provide a gift. I'm repulsed that anyone would praise Fred and I am equally repulsed by those who say "Obama cares about the less fortunate". Tom is foremost a murderer and a thief. And I say this with some hesitation since the Patriot Act just got extended, likewise Obama is foremost a murderer and a thief.
There are rationalizations (not good ones) for taxation and offensive wars. Taxation and market regulation are the main issues for this topic. These rationalizations are built on economic fallacies, namely the static wealth pie. That is, to the political scientist, there is a fixed amount of wealth in the world and it is the job of the political hack to figure out the best way to divvy it up. This ties in well with my last post so I won't belabor this point. Industrialization, contrary to what Upton Sinclair, lifted people out of poverty; there is vastly more wealth now then there was 200 years ago.
Sure, there is a fixed amount of natural resources (not including cosmic sources like the sun, which I suppose is fixed too), but they don't count as wealth unless they are transformed into something useful. The ones who create wealth are those who homestead the natural resources. When they transform them into something that serves the needs and desires of others they can accumulate capital with their profits and expand operations. Those who do not satisfy the needs of others go out of business or their operations are severely limited.
When we take the issue of "divvying up the pie" back to homesteading we see that there is no aggressor, only voluntary interactions in the accumulation of wealth by the economic means. Therefore, we conclude any confiscator of private property (including wages and profit) is the immoral aggressor. Anything he does with the stolen loot should not be heralded as humanitarian any more than Fred's flowers show an act of love. True love, true humanitarianism can only come by the economic means. Serve others by trading, entering into contracts, and working. Any use of the political means negates any positive outcome because it leaves another party violated.
I've spent two posts on "negative statements" or reasons to not worry yourself about the poor and disabled, that there are more fundamental problems to worry about. I won't promise that the 3rd post will be much different but I'll try to include some positive statements. I can't prescribe too many positive statements because no market anarchist pretends to know how the market ought to work (except free of the state), all I can do is propose how things MIGHT work.
There are rationalizations (not good ones) for taxation and offensive wars. Taxation and market regulation are the main issues for this topic. These rationalizations are built on economic fallacies, namely the static wealth pie. That is, to the political scientist, there is a fixed amount of wealth in the world and it is the job of the political hack to figure out the best way to divvy it up. This ties in well with my last post so I won't belabor this point. Industrialization, contrary to what Upton Sinclair, lifted people out of poverty; there is vastly more wealth now then there was 200 years ago.
Sure, there is a fixed amount of natural resources (not including cosmic sources like the sun, which I suppose is fixed too), but they don't count as wealth unless they are transformed into something useful. The ones who create wealth are those who homestead the natural resources. When they transform them into something that serves the needs and desires of others they can accumulate capital with their profits and expand operations. Those who do not satisfy the needs of others go out of business or their operations are severely limited.
When we take the issue of "divvying up the pie" back to homesteading we see that there is no aggressor, only voluntary interactions in the accumulation of wealth by the economic means. Therefore, we conclude any confiscator of private property (including wages and profit) is the immoral aggressor. Anything he does with the stolen loot should not be heralded as humanitarian any more than Fred's flowers show an act of love. True love, true humanitarianism can only come by the economic means. Serve others by trading, entering into contracts, and working. Any use of the political means negates any positive outcome because it leaves another party violated.
I've spent two posts on "negative statements" or reasons to not worry yourself about the poor and disabled, that there are more fundamental problems to worry about. I won't promise that the 3rd post will be much different but I'll try to include some positive statements. I can't prescribe too many positive statements because no market anarchist pretends to know how the market ought to work (except free of the state), all I can do is propose how things MIGHT work.
I agree wholeheartedly with many of your points, including that basic morality should triumph over altruism. (Since I anticipate agreeing with you that altriusm cannot be altriusm if it leaves someone injured.)
ReplyDeleteI also agree that basic economic means are the best ways for people to benefit themselves and others, since it retains the dignity of all involved.
Nevertheless, the question seems to be how should a society approach a person who wants to participate in economic contracts, selling their labor and so forth, but for some reason or another cannot - and perhaps does not have the capital to invest in education where they could sell the kind of labor that sidesteps their disability (in the case of physical disability). Moreover, in the case of a mental disability, such as schizophrenia - a person may have comparably less to sell in terms of labor than someone without schizophrenia.
I don't believe anyone would suggest taking from one person with schizophrenia to support another (pushing someone off a cliff to save the life of another). Someone may say that what government does is "take" from someone who would be hurt the least by the taking to "give" to someone who would benefit most by the giving. This does not avoid the violence of taking, but does seem to be somewhat less morally troubling than apples to apples.
This is probably typical:
Consider the lottery of birth. One person is born at "nature's default" with an IQ of 50. Another person is born into a family with many resources, and has an IQ of 150. (I am uncomfortable reducing people to IQ's) But the average IQ's of these two people is also the average of the population.
Does the community, in the form of government, have the ability to take from the one to give to the other - since the one has more of a liklihood of success and was born into a standard of living to which the unborn should expect no entitlement (that is, nature's default)?
Muddy waters? Yes!