Author Archive
The Law is Written on Our Hearts
Posted by: |Cross-posted at the Values & Capitalism Project
A great many people believe that changing the law is the solution to social problems. This is a fiction.
If written law were some kind of unbreakable magic spell, the United States would not look as it now does. Nearly all of what the government does today is not by any stretch of the imagination “constitutional.” Written laws and documents do not hold the power to control individual behavior or government behavior.
It is true that when people believe the law to be important, they will obey it. But when they believe it to be unimportant they will just as easily disregard it. In the end it is people’s beliefs, not the law that determines behavior.
Perhaps we are seduced into the “Myth of the Rule of Law” because it is so hard to see what’s really regulating behavior and generating social order. The “Invisible Hand” that Adam Smith described as channeling self-interest in the marketplace to serve the diverse needs and wants of its participants is also at work in the marketplace of ideas, social norms and morality. The core beliefs we hold and the norms that emerge from centuries of social interaction are what restrain or fail to restrain behavior.
This is not merely academic. It is dangerous to persist in the belief that the law is the ultimate check on human behavior for two distinct reasons: First, law does not ultimately change the behavior of its intended targets; second, because it does change the behavior of others.
The first problem renders social reform efforts ineffective. The vast majority of attempts to restrain government, help the poor, make people healthier, more charitable, more equal, less intolerant, more responsible with natural resources, or better educated are really just attempts to change what’s written on pieces of government paper. A different combination of words in the Federal Register one day to the next cannot change human hearts one day to the next.
A powerful example is the brief experiment with alcohol prohibition in the United States. Many in the temperance movement genuinely wanted to prevent drunkenness, alcoholism and the irresponsible and even violent action that sometimes accompanies. They focused their attention mainly on what they incorrectly thought to be the source of power over human behavior—the law. They were successful in changing the law, but failed to sufficiently change hearts. A large number of people still wanted to consume alcohol because they did not believe it was immoral to do so. Because they believed in it, they did it despite the law. The main effect of making the activity illegal was to make the production and distribution of alcohol a violent business, where it had previously been much like any other beverage. There were not gang wars over the soda fountain.
Contrast the legal strategy with the strategy of an organization like Alcoholics Anonymous. AA aims for the heart. They work to change individual lives and behavior by developing a non-judgmental network of support and accountability. AA has been able to change countless lives and free people from the bondage of alcohol addiction. The law could never do that, and we should not ask it to.
I mentioned a second problem with believing the law to be the source of social order: It has a negative effect on unintended parties. This can also be illustrated by the prohibition example. Not only did the law fail to change the behavior of most drinkers, it succeeded in changing the behavior of criminals and government officials, leading to more corruption and violence. It also allowed those who wanted to lessen the damage done by alcohol addiction to feel like they’d “done something about it,” when in fact they’d not helped those that needed help at all.
The change in the average citizen’s moral sense is probably the gravest danger of belief in the power of law. It weakens our moral sense and lulls us into the belief that legality is a substitute for morality. We cease evaluating actions based on their merits as against the moral law and begin evaluating them against state-made law. We shirk responsibility to offer genuine aid because the law will do it, and at the same time we pronounce judgment on actions that are perfectly moral, just because they are illegal.
The issue of illegal immigration is illustrative. If we examine the idea without cloaking it in legal/illegal terms, we begin to see a different picture:
A friend of mine is desperately poor and wants to earn a better living for his family. He applies for a job with the local grocer. The grocer is impressed with his work ethic and is happy to offer him a job. This job means my friend can move his family out of their impoverished condition, afford a reasonable apartment and begin saving so his children and grandchildren can have a much better life. There is no trespass or harm committed in this story by any of the parties involved.
Would it be moral to hire armed men to stop my friend on the way to his first day on the job and physically remove his whole family and send them back to their old neighborhood and old life? Would you do this even if you knew it meant you were ensuring him a life of grinding poverty and very possibly death?
It is clearly immoral to interfere with another individual in this way, in particular when such interference condemns them to a much harsher life. But that is precisely what most Americans advocate when they cry for enforcement of immigration laws. The only thing that makes otherwise moral people advocate such immoral behavior is the word “illegal”—in other words a belief in the power of law.
People believe that breaking state-made law is in and of itself an immoral act that justifies the use of violence in retaliation. This absurd notion does not hold up under the slightest scrutiny, even for those who most strongly believe it. I have yet to find an American who says that those harboring Jews during the Holocaust were acting immorally and deserved punishment, or that the individuals who assisted escaped slaves along the Underground Railroad were deserving of incarceration for breaking the law.
Helping peaceful people who are destitute and persecuted is noble, and when done in defiance of the law can even be courageous. It is only a belief in the supremacy of man-made law over moral law that prevents most Americans from viewing as heroic those who assist immigrants hounded by armed border agents. I submit that looking out for the poor is better than locking them up when they have done nothing but seek a better life.
When we remove our awe for legislation we discover that genuine social change is hampered by a belief in the power of law. We also discover that good people will tolerate or even condone immoral acts when they believe that what is legal is more important than what is right. It is lazy to let the law be our agent of change and dangerous to let it be our moral compass.
Tags: immigration, law, morality
The Freedom to be an Idiot
Posted by: |A very nice summary of one of the powerful arguments against the state and for freedom:
Many many years ago, John Milton made similar arguments regarding the censorship of blasphemous speech and bad doctrine.
Tags: free will, freedom, morality
Equality, Envy and Idolatry
Posted by: |My latest post over at the Common Sense Concept:
The poor in the US are doing very well compared to the poor in Kenya and enjoy things like quality housing, access to health care, basic education, and enough food so that obesity is their biggest nutritional threat. The rich in this country are also far better off than the rich in Kenya. There is a big difference in wealth between the richest and the poorest in both countries. This is clear evidence that the rich in the US need to be taxed more.
That’s essentially the case presented by Nate Roberts at Recovering Evangelical. Let’s restate the premises’ and conclusion of his argument:
Premise: The rich and the poor in the US are both far better off than the rich and the poor in Kenya.
Premise: Poverty is not life-threatening or grinding in the US.
Premise: The rich are really rich in the US.
Conclusion: We have a major problem that demands more taxes on the rich.
I agree with each premise, but in order for the conclusion to follow, one of two assumptions must first be true:
- There is a certain level of material wealth that is objectively immoral.
- There is a certain ratio of difference in material wealth between people that is objectively immoral.
Next, IF one or both of these assumptions are true; several secondary assumptions must also be true:
- It is possible to extract more taxes from the rich in the US.
- Increasing taxes on the rich will not change the overall system in a way that harms the poor.
- It is possible for government agents to redistribute income effectively so that it genuinely helps the poor and costs only the rich.
- It is possible to achieve and maintain a desirable ratio of difference in material wealth
- It is possible to accurately measure material wealth
Before examining each of the assumptions necessary for this argument to be true, I want to point out how bizarre it is that the article does not anywhere applaud the US for having essentially eliminated poverty of the type that exists in Kenya. The author is apparently much more concerned with the amount of luxury enjoyed by the rich than the amount of suffering endured by the poor. In reality, the poor the world over have seen tremendous improvement (most pronounced in countries with freer economies). Watch this stunning time-lapse graph from GapMinder and consider that in 1880, the average American lived to be 39 and made about $4,276. In 2000, there is not a country in the world with a life expectancy below 44. A very poor country like Angola, with a life expectancy of 48 and average inflation-adjusted income of $5,056, is better off than the US just a handful of generations ago.
But let’s examine the assumptions.
Primary Assumption: There is a certain level of material wealth that is objectively immoral.
What is it? I’ve never heard anyone willing to put a dollar amount or precise description of how much wealth is too much wealth for anyone to ever have. The closest you’ll get is the claim that the richest of the rich today have, “too much”. If that is true, vague as it is, are you willing to say that if you could flip a switch and tomorrow everyone in the world could enjoy Bill Gates’ standard of living you would not do it? Put another way, if a wealth-capping policy had been enacted a few hundred years ago, so that no one could live better than the richest kings and titans of trade and industry at that time, most of today’s middle class in America would have to reduce their standard of living.
Everyone seems to believe that some wealth is objectively moral – hence the efforts to get more of it to those with little – yet it is often claimed that at some point it becomes immoral. This is logically sloppy and morally empty. Biblically there is no evidence that a certain level of wealth is immoral. Wealth, like all earthly things, can be the object or tool of immorality, but is itself benign. It is the human heart, not the dollar, that commits sin.
Primary Assumption: There is a certain ratio of difference in material wealth between people that is objectively immoral.
What is that ratio? If the poorest in the world could be 20 times better off and thus avoid death, disease, starvation, etc, but only if the richest could be 40 times better off, would you oppose it? Would that be compassionate to the poor? Is reducing the wealth of the rich a more noble cause than relieving the suffering of the poor?
There is no logical or Biblical argument for a certain level of material equality. All such sentiments are thinly veiled envy, and materialist idolatry. To despise someone for their wealth and to desire them to have less of it (without even knowing the state of their heart) is a sin. To desire that people to have a more equal level of material wealth is to focus on materials rather than hearts. The obsession with how much people have relative to each other is revealing of an idolatry of both possessions and people. The standard by which we measure ought to be Christ, not others, and the thing we measure against that standard should be our hearts, not our stuff.
A world of incredible inequality of wealth but tremendous love, compassion, and humility is far better than a world with material equality and hate.
Let’s assume one of the primary assumptions IS correct. We still have several secondary assumptions to check:
Secondary Assumption: It is possible to extract more taxes from the rich in the US.
The richest 1% in the US account for 19% of the country’s total income and they pay 38% of the country’s total tax bill. The richest 5% earn 33% of the national income and pay 57% of the tax bill. The bottom 50% earn 19% of the income and pay 3% of the tax bill. (2007 data here). If you’ve never heard of the Laffer Curve, you might want to read up on it. Raising taxes on those already paying nearly all of them may not work as hoped.
Secondary Assumption: Increasing taxes on the rich will not change the overall system in a way that harms the poor.
Have you ever asked whether a (even somewhat) free-enterprise system and the inequality that comes with it is itself the driver of improved standards of living among the poor? If the cost of successful entrepreneurial activity is increased, will you get more or less of it? When an entrepreneur makes tons of money, do they do it by making something people value more than what they give up to get it? Does it create jobs and incomes and higher standards of living only for the rich? The ability to reap rewards is a great motivator that spurs innovation that helps everyone. The poor in America are getting richer, and at a faster rate than the rich! (As an aggregate group, and more importantly and powerfully, as individuals). Increasing the cost of success for the rich will also reduce wealth creation opportunities for the poor.
Secondary Assumption: It is possible for government agents to redistribute income effectively so that it genuinely helps the poor and costs only the rich.
What is the incentive of a government agency on poverty: to get rid of poverty and therefore eliminate the department, or to keep poverty alive, either in rhetoric or reality, to justify growing the department in power and resources? Humans are humans, and as such they are self-interested. A quick study of Public Choice Theory and the history of welfare programs and their inability to meet their own stated goals should bring this assumption into question. We may not like some things about reality, but we ought to consider whether the outcomes are better or worse when we turn to government to fix things. The evidence does not favor government.
Secondary Assumption: It is possible to achieve and maintain a desirable ratio of difference in material wealth.
If wealth was redistributed overnight so that everyone had an equal share, how long would that ratio last? Inequality is a part of life – it’s how we were created and it’s wonderful! We are different not only in ability, but in tastes. I would sacrifice a much higher income to have a career that allows me more time with my family – others would eschew having a family for more income. There is nothing immoral about the radical differences we were created with, and it is impossible to suppress them.
Secondary Assumption: It is possible to accurately measure material wealth.
In order to maintain a certain ratio of difference in wealth, we’d have to be able to measure wealth. What is it? Is it the dollar value of our stuff on the open market? If that were so, then someone in the mid 1990’s who had no food or shelter, but a giant pile of Beanie Babies would be wealthy, even as they died of starvation. A person in the dessert with no water but a bag of diamonds would be wealthy. Clearly, it is not the market price of our goods that determines our quality of life. Economic value is subjective. For some hermit monks, material wealth may actually make them less happy. If they have worked all their life to avoid the accumulation of possessions, and have only achieved it with great struggle and are now in a state of pure joy, are they to be counted as “poor”? Should we rush in to force goods upon them? When we attempt to aggregate and count wealth levels, all we are counting is the current market price for the goods people own. Real humans don’t care about these things except to the extent they help in reaching the actual goal, happiness.
Conclusion: Invalid, untrue and ineffective.
The idea that we must reduce inequality of wealth by taxing the rich is an ineffective means of achieving an immoral end.
The author ends the article with the famous “WWJD” question. We needn’t ask what Jesus would do in the face of great wealth and poverty. We can look at what he did do. He helped the poor and instructed others to do the same, but he never forced anyone to help on threat of fine or imprisonment as our tax and welfare system does. He told one rich man to give his possessions to the poor, but then let the man walk away. Apparently, it was the rich man’s heart, not his possessions, Jesus was after.
Don’t get caught in the web of envy and idolatry that lurks behind the desire for greater material equality among people. Seek to improve the lives of everyone, rich and poor, in ways that are genuinely meaningful, including but not limited to physical quality of life. Whatever ends you seek, don’t rely the on ineffective and immoral means of coercive government programs. Before you argue for something, check your assumptions.
——————————
Note: In the rambling post, Roberts also points out with disgust the huge sums the US spends on its military. I am in complete agreement with the author that military spending in the US is appallingly high.
Tags: envy, equality, idolatry, poor, poverty, rich, wealth
Reconciling Rand and Jesus
Posted by: |There have been a number of articles lately about the apparent contradictions among small-government supporters who claim Ayn Rand as a hero and who are also religious. This is supposed to be some kind of “gotcha” moment where supporters of big-government point out the hypocrisy in their opponents’ beliefs. There is no hypocrisy in being a fan of both Rand and Jesus.
There are many ways in which Christianity and Rand’s philosophy of Objectivism are irreconcilable. Though both share a belief in an objective moral law, Objectivists would never attribute such a law to anything supernatural. Rand herself was no fan of religion and emphatically did not want her philosophy reconciled with Christianity.
However, most modern fans of Rand are not, nor do they claim to be, Objectivists. They are fans of her political philosophy, not necessarily the entire Objectivist ideal. Specifically, most Rand fans take away a few key insights: individualism is preferable to collectivism, success should not be punished nor failure rewarded, equality is a dangerous and unachievable goal, wealth is not inherently bad, and government can’t make everything better. None of these insights are antithetical to Christianity.
It is not hypocritical to consider someone with whom you do not agree 100 percent an intellectual hero. How many people praise the genius of Aristotle yet disagree with, for instance, his support of slavery? To find truth in Rand and Jesus does not make one a hypocrite any more than finding truth in Einstein and Newton.
Something Deeper
You do not owe anyone anything. No one owes you anything. Christians have a lot to gain from these powerful Randian insights.
Genuine acts of kindness are not motivated by guilt, fear, or shame. Yet modern religion is saturated with guilty consciences. Fear of sinning, guilt over your station in life, shame about your dreams and desires are commonplace in churches. These feelings are played like instruments by power-seeking ministers, activists, and politicians. The Kingdom of God brings freedom from this condemnation. Anytime you hear a pundit trying to motivate religious people by making them feel guilty, remember that you cannot truly give if you do not freely give. You do not owe anyone anything, but you are free to give everything.
Of course those who decry Randian ideas and favor bigger government are free to give away all they have too. They rarely do. More often they serve the poor by putting on fancy suits and going to fancy restaurants to lobby politicians to spend more of other people’s money. Then they call those other people selfish when they complain. Don’t buy it. Help those in need out of love, not guilt.
On the flipside, no one owes you anything. Nearly all political activism starts from the idea that someone owes you something. A job, a house, medical services, an aesthetically pleasing landscape, a low-fat diet, and on and on ad nauseam. The Christian idea of grace is the antithesis of this sentiment. You don’t deserve it.
The goal of material equality, or the idea that those with more owe those with less, is naked envy. Most people confuse the issue by believing the state, not another person, owes them something. The state has nothing to give but that which is first takes, and it takes from citizens. Your fellow citizens do not owe you anything. You are free to ask and you are free to receive, but you are not owed. What’s amazing is just how generous people can be in an environment of freedom.
Be Free
If you are a Christian who likes Rand you can ignore the cries of “hypocrite” from those with a political agenda. You needn’t defend or support every tenet of Objectivism to appreciate its political philosophy. There’s no contradiction between Christianity and Rand’s main thrust that individuals should be free.
Take to heart the Randian idea that you are not owed nor do you owe. There is a tremendous freedom in this that makes way for genuine giving and receiving, done with joy and motivated by love.
Cross-posted at CommonSenseConcept.org
Tags: Ayn Rand, Jesus, Objectivism, self-interest
Norman Horn is the creator and primary writer for LCC. Learn a little bit about him in the 