Archive for self-interest
Don’t Tread On Who?
Posted by: |Critics of libertarianism often charge that it is a “selfish ideology,” or that any explanation of self-interest is just a warmed-over excuse for selfish behavior. While it is indeed possible that the libertarian impulse attracts the selfish, careless, wanna-be hermit, the worldview of most libertarians should not be reduced to “leave us alone.”
The Gadsden flag proudly displays the message “Don’t tread on me.” At first glance, this is understandably interpreted as selfish. Deeper reflection, however, conveys a more important meaning: “Don’t tread on others.” Deeper yet, the mantra applies equally to everyone. Properly understood, the image announces to everyone, “Don’t tread on anyone.”
While libertarians are far from advocating a “do anything you want” way of life, Christian critics claim that this mentality contradicts both the demands Jesus makes of his followers and the expectations God has for societies. To be sure, the Bible presents serious consequences for those who do not care for others in need (see Matthew 25). In the Old Testament, God displays much dismay, even anger, when the poor are being mistreated or ignored. And Jesus announced liberation to those oppressed by evil regimes, enslaved by social norms, and dehumanized by others. It isn’t that libertarians can’t still agree with and pursue these elements. It’s just that we believe that whatever form “treading” takes, it must be abolished (hence the anarchist impulse to denounce the State).
In order to be clear about what being a libertarian is, we must be clear what it is not. It is not absolution of responsibility to those in need. It is not license to excuse inaction. It is, essentially, declaring a plethora of “thou shalt nots.” How one chooses to live purposefully is another matter.
“Don’t Tread On Anyone” is an important message, but it is simply the starting point, a reminder to society that Bastiat’s “everybody plunders everybody” isn’t a viable option for a just society. While we should be clear that liberty isn’t just about what we can’t do, we must also be clear that ending oppression in all forms is a worthy start.
Tags: Bastiat, don't tread on me, Gadsden flag, libertarianism, self-interest, selfishness
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
This essay continues the Christian Theology and Public Policy Course by John Cobin, author of the books Bible and Government and Christian Theology of Public Policy.
Does the nature of man change on account of the ballot box or a political appointment? For years scholars in disciplines like political science and history have taught so. The basic idea is simply that a man who succeeds in being elected to office would reasonably be the “cream of the crop”—able to govern his fellow man with virtue—and subordinating his own self-interest motives for publicly-spirited ideals. Paradoxically, the mass of self-interested and often selfish voters would evidently elect such a virtuous man from their own dissolute ranks. Democratic processes and majority voting may thus bring about optimal social results, especially when “the voice of the people” has been heard through large voter turnouts.
However, this questionable notion has come under extensive attack by economists during the last several decades. Inspired by the libertarian-leaning writings of Nobel laureate Friedrich Hayek, and especially Austrian economist Ludwig von Mises, “public choice” economists such Gordon Tullock, James Buchanan, and Robert Tollison—as well as many “hybrid” economists espousing aspects of both the Austrian and public choice schools—began to promote a simple, but radical new idea. They extended the work of Adam Smith in The Wealth of Nations (1776) and other economists to conclude that being elected or appointed to office does not affect man’s nature. Men still pursue their own self-interest in the political arena just as men in the private sector would. And why would any Christian think otherwise? The Bible never indicates that the nature of political actors is different than other men. Surely the fact that rulers like Nero and Herod are “ordained by God” (Romans 13:1) does not mean that they had human natures with less corruption!
Tags: Bible, economics, politicians, politics, self-interest, theology
Economic Theory, Self-Interest, and the Bible
Posted by: |This essay continues the Christian Theology and Public Policy Course by John Cobin, author of the books Bible and Government and Christian Theology of Public Policy.
Economic theory tells us a lot about the nature of political actors along with the inadequacy of their knowledge in regulating society to bring about the common good. All rational men act purposefully to remove uneasiness from their lives. They try to maximize those things in life that give them the greatest satisfaction (e.g., money, love, power, influence, charity, altruism, holiness, etc.). However, they also act in such a way that engenders cooperation with others, facilitating and exploiting mutually beneficial gains from trade. Peaceful cooperation is the result of the operation of the market economy. People pursuing their own self-interest voluntarily cooperate to provide the needs and wants demanded in society.
We must be careful to not equate self-interested motives with selfish ones. The former describes one’s economic motivation while the latter deals with one’s character. For example, a person might have altruism or to “shepherd the flock of God” (1 Peter 5:2) as his highest goal. He would thus pursue the self-interested agenda that he believes has the highest probability of attaining that goal. He might also pursue other things along with this objective, such as owning his home debt-free, raising four children, and taking his wife on an annual skiing trip. But all these elements (and others we might think of) mix together into concerted, purposeful, self-interested action to attain the conglomerate goal.
Tags: Austrian School, economics, human action, Ludwig von Mises, self-interest, theology
Squirrels and Spontaneous Order
Posted by: |If I were designing a world, and I had a moment of sheer genius and came upon the idea of something as magnificent as a forest of great trees, I can’t imagine I ever would have thought of squirrels.
If I decided that, far from being mere wooden statues, the trees would be living, growing, dying, and dropping seeds to propagate future trees, I expect I would have invented some wood nymph or fairy to spread these seeds.
It seems logical that an entity that served to spread seeds to ensure a fertile growth of future trees should be designed with this sole purpose, and would accomplish it with great efficiency. I suspect I would think of an entity that felt a sense of responsibility, obligation, mission and purpose to propagate the forest.
But what did the Creator settle on as the keeper of the forest? A fuzzy little creature that is as unpredictable as it is unlikely to serve any valuable purpose. Squirrels, frantically scurrying and hopping from branch to branch, seeking nothing but their own ends, entirely unconscious of the need for seeds to be spread, are yet the tool that spreads them and thus perpetuates the beauty and function of the forest.
By seeking only their own, limited, animal self-interest these squirrels are unwittingly stewarding the forest and ensuring the livelihood of squirrels and trees present and future in so doing. The creator put in them a desire to eat, chase, and play in pursuit of their self-preservation. He did not put in them reason, nor compassion for the woods, nor a sense of duty to the trees. He relied on their self-interest to create and result in ends entirely not of their design, but to their and the earth’s mutual advantage.
Why then is it so hard to see this same pattern everywhere we look? The examples among plants and animals are too numerous to count. This same pattern exists in the beautiful coordination of human affairs. Though we are equipped with faculties greater than the squirrel, at bottom we still can do little else but seek our own fulfillment and preservation. This motivation, if enlightened and not short-sighted, is not bad or something to be overcome. Indeed, it is by this self-interest that we unwittingly produce benefits to ourselves and all mankind greater than we could imagine or produce if our efforts were more deliberate.
A creator that put in place a substructure that masterfully and effortlessly coordinates the billions of disparate plans of man and animals to our mutual advantage and flourishing is a great creator indeed. No firm hand is needed to guide, direct, scold or manipulate our actions to what is good for his creation. Instead we are free to pursue our dreams and allow the invisible hand to make space for them in the universe; to let the wake of our efforts be the very signal and catalyst for the pursuits of others. The universe not only expands to accommodate our efforts and desires, but the very process of this seeking and accommodation creates a byproduct that aids every other human in their own pursuits.
In peacefully pursuing your desires you are a part of the amazing process of co-creation and coordination. Markets are not only efficient, but in a way they are the most natural thing in the world.
Tags: coordination, creation, Hayek, markets, nature, order, self-interest
Norman Horn is the creator and primary writer for LCC. Learn a little bit about him in the 