« Bubbles | Main | New Bridge to Nowhere »
In Praise of Selfishness
By John | November 11, 2008
During the presidential campaign, Barack Obama ridiculed selfishness. Joe Biden said paying more in taxes is patriotic, implying that minimizing taxes is selfish and an indication that you are uncaring about your fellow citizens. Members of the news media regularly condemn businesses and businessmen for what they see as selfish and greedy behavior. The popular news media honors those who serve others without reward, but looks suspiciously at those who serve others with the prospect of receiving benefits in return.
In short, many in our culture favor socialistic behavior, while rejecting capitalism and its accompanying selfishness. Why? Does this trend represent an advancement in civilization?
The United States today is the most advanced technologically and militarily. Americans enjoy the highest standard of living on earth. Americans are still among the most free on the planet, having the most control over their own lives. We have a border problem, not because our people want to escape, but because citizens of other countries want to get in.
How did we get here? Why is it that Americans enjoy such advantages over other countries? I believe these questions can be answered with one word: Freedom. The United States was founded on a notion of individual freedom; one that placed the government in a role of servant of the people, not the other way around. Per the U.S. Constitution, the government’s primary function was to protect the freedom of its people, and to allow its people to pursue their own interests without government interference.
This experiment in limited government proved extremely successful, as it fostered a culture of optimism, creativity, energy, self-reliance, personal responsibility and productivity. It unleashed the power of millions of individuals, each pursuing his or her own dreams, unfettered by controls and restraints, as long as the rights of others were respected.
Gradually, over many decades, the culture of the United States has changed. Those attributes that made us what we are, are now being condemned as “selfishness”. No longer is government limited to its constitutional role. Now government is empowered to control the economy. No longer is the power of taxation limited to supporting essential services. Taxation is now a tool to be used to control individual behavior and to redistribute wealth from those who have produced it to those who have come to rely on government for financial support.
So, what’s wrong with that? Many Americans obviously are voting for this “change”. They view the Constitution as a “living” thing, that must be adjusted to meet the requirements of a modern society. Why must we live our lives based upon a 220-year old document? We don’t need those old, conservative values and rules any more. After all, we’re rich! Let’s enjoy life!
Let’s examine their arguments.
First, there is no free lunch. To the extent that wealth passes through the government, then is redistributed to individuals, there is a price to pay. You have received benefits. You have received wealth you did not earn. But you had to relinquish your freedom to qualify for those payments. Government is the ultimate example of selfishness. It never gives without taking something in return. You have lost some of your freedom of choice. Government will now make those choices for you. Every time you qualify for a government transfer payment, whether it’s in the form of unemployment insurance, Social Security payments, government grants, subsidies, loans, welfare payments or government contracts, there are strings attached. You just came under the umbrella of a government bureaucracy, and you need to conform to the expectations of that agency if you want to receive their benefits. You have just joined a new culture, one that doesn’t value independence or entrepreneurial spirit. This culture values conformity and subservience. Adjust! They won’t.
Second, these new cultural values affect behavior. Productivity is now valued less. Conformity and “needy” behavior are valued more. So, there will be less wealth produced, and more demand for that wealth. A culture of “shortages” is fostered. To each according to his needs? Then I will be needy. It’s human nature.
Third, and most important, these new cultural values don’t reflect reality. If you really believe selflessness is a virtue, go look for it. Look for it in those “selfless” government agencies that exist to help the “needy”. Do those government employees look out for others, or do they look out for themselves? After all, aren’t they being paid? Do they belong to a union ? Does that union look out for the “needy” or does it look out for the government employees? Why is the expression, “I’m from the government, and I’m here to help you” a joke, instead of a reflection of reality?
Capitalism, and the culture it fosters, provides more for everyone. It rewards and honors production and inventiveness – activities that benefit producers and inventors, but that also benefit many other people, especially those who choose to voluntarily do business with the producers and inventors.
This country was founded on principles of limited government and the supremacy of the individual. These are not principles that require adjustment every generation or two. They are timeless principles that are unaffected by changes in technology, changes in population density, changes in economic conditions, or changes in international interdependence. If anything, these principles have been tested over time and under different circumstances, and have been shown to have universal application because they are designed, not for the times, but for the people. Real people.
Selfishness is not a crime. It is an inherent characteristic of human beings. It is what causes us to survive and to flourish. It is not inconsistent with caring for others. In a capitalistic economic system, the energies of the ambitious (the “selfish”) are channeled into production of goods and services that benefit everyone. Those who condemn selfishness bite the hand that feeds them.
Freedom made this country what it is today. Beyond its economic benefits, freedom creates enormous opportunity to make of your life whatever you want it to be. To trade away that freedom for the illusion of security is a very bad exchange.
Topics: Government Excesses | 4 Comments »
November 12th, 2008 at 12:04 am
Nice Site layout for your blog. I am looking forward to reading more from you.
Tom Humes
November 12th, 2008 at 2:03 am
Selfishness is one of my favorite myths. Everyone is equally and completely selfish. The difference is the extent to which individuals extract personal pleasure from benefiting others. “Selflessness” is no more than a high personal valuation of others’ happiness. Or, maybe in more cases, the high personal penalty paid by causing others harm (guilt – much more powerful).
With that said, I don’t think you were truly fair in your representation of your fears. For example, the sentence “To trade away that freedom for the illusion of security is a very bad exchange.” This is a very tough generality to defend.
Now before we can consider the sentence we have to deal with a roadblock which is the word “illusion.” Of course it seems silly to trade something as valuable as freedom for anything which is an illusion. So anyone would agree that it’s a bad deal to trade your freedoms for the illusion of world peace. So this stance lives or dies on whether the socialist programs you have in mind do only provide illusory security which is not so easy to write off. For example, many have benefited from the concrete security offered to them (and myself) by unemployment insurance.
So leaving behind the idea of actual traded for illusion, the real crux is either that freedom should not be traded for security or – much weaker – that some specific program is not a good deal for us (if this is your point, you should dismiss with the generalities and talk specifics as this is an isolated gripe). I am fairly certain that you intended the first. But this is not a fair presentations of your beliefs since I very much doubt that you are in support of eliminating social services funded by taxation like transportation infrastructure, defense spending, the prison system, etc…
*The following is a guess and I apologize if I am way off the mark* I would guess that you are particularly miffed by the current rash of bail-outs plaguing this nation.
Building on my above assumption, as a proud Libertarian I agree with you in principle; however, I think that our case would be better served if we kept our arguments in the realm of the concrete, and if we keep our statements transparent and precise. The real world is never black and white, and whenever we pretend that it is, we turn listeners off. So instead of “never trade freedom for security” we might write “some social programs are indispensable and should always remain and continue to be bolstered – like education – but we need to realize that freedom is our most precious asset and should not be traded idly.”
Overall though, thank you for your article. It’s wonderful to read that there are still those who believe in the merits of freedom, risk, and responsibility.
PS. Thinking about your article has inspired me to write my own thoughts on socialism in the United States. Thank you.
November 12th, 2008 at 2:10 pm
To hear the liberal press talk, we are on the “right” track. How could anyone in their right mind think that a politician from Chicago would be upright in any area of endeavor. So do we get out our brown shirts and boots? How do we survive the next four interminably long years. How do we get our country back, short of moving? Are you going to be commenting on the “state of the union” on a regular basis, that is of course, before the Fairness Doctrine is indoctrinated. Looking forward to your comments.
November 13th, 2008 at 9:12 pm
Benn,
“To trade away that freedom for the illusion of security is a very bad exchange.” That was my closing sentence intended to summarize the points made earlier.
Is this “a very tough generality to defend”? I don’t think so. The opposing point of view would be that freedom SHOULD be traded away for the illusion of security. Apparently I have not convinced you of the “illusion” part.
Yes, I believe the government actions I refer to provide only the illusion of security. Efforts to control the economy by propping up failing businesses, so they may continue operating and employing people (voters), may seem to be a godsend to those directly affected, but even that is only temporary. However, the effect of the failing businesses has not been eliminated; merely spread out over the economy as a whole. Eventually, many other business managers no longer believe serving the customer is the key to success. Being needy enough to qualify for a government bailout starts to interfere with customer service. (Have you flown on a commercial airline lately?)
When government interferes with the workings of a free market, for example by taking from the producers of wealth and transferring to the less productive, there are consequences to the economy as a whole. The receipt of those transfer payments may seem free; may seem to provide security against poverty; but I maintain that the net cost to the economy is greater than the benefit provided. Entrepreneurial activity and productivity have been discouraged through taxation and bureaucratic red tape. GDP and the quality of life in “a free society” suffer.
Government takes and gives, but keeps a bug chunk of what it takes before it gives.
And, incidentally, I include unemployment benefits in the above. If one needed unemployment insurance, it could be provided much more efficiently by the private sector, and without adding costs and burdensome reporting requirements to employers. If you value the benefit, pay for it. If you don’t value the benefit enough to pay for it, why should the rest of us pay for it? If the benefit is “free”, you will not value it. If everything is free, who will produce it?
The “security” benefits offered by governments could be provided much more effectively by the private sector, if they are needed at all. And, that includes charity.
I believe those government functions not enumerated in the Constitution are destructive and should be abolished. They do not provide true economic security – that is illusory.