What may best describe
a principle, though, are its exemplars; and the shining exemplars of
Libertarianism are Ayn Rand and Ebenezer Scrooge, before Scrooge’s encounters
with the ghosts of Christmas. Scrooge’s “Bah,
humbug, have they no poor houses to go to?” revealed not as polite an
indifference as some Libertarians would have sought, but indifference none the
less. And it is no accident that Ayn
Rand’s prime symbol is the solid gold dollar sign. But perhaps nothing better describes a passionately
moral and compassionate conservatism than Libertarianism’s most recent critic,
Governor Christie of New Jersey. This
past week, Christie, a Republican, took on what he called the “creeping
Libertarianism” besetting the Republican Party, and some Democrats. The topic was funding the National Security
Administration, and the particular person targeted was Rand Paul, a devoutly
pure Libertarian who opposed it. Funding,
using YOUR money to provide aid or prevent harm only to someone else, is a
particularly touchy topic for Libertarians.
That solid gold dollar is so personal!
It’s a shame that NSA was the
target, for that reveals only the seamy underside of Libertarianism. It demonstrates only the ungenerous roots of
an isolationism that starts with issues like Syria and spreads to issues like drought
in Africa, disaster relief, food stamps or educating the children of immigrants. Disaster relief has already been another hot
topic for Christie, as he has blasted fellow Republicans and Libertarians for
their foot dragging in funding super storm Sandy relief efforts. But the
Republican debate does not as yet shed light on the problems with the Libertarian
attitude that another person’s success, like his failure, belongs only to him
and deserves no support from you. No support
means no government funding for new technology or infrastructure or student aid. The fact that success would benefit all America,
not just the innovators, does not seem to register with the Libertarian
set. Innovators are all on their own,
just like you were when you inherited the fruits of your father’s success.
I’ve been writing for
some time about the moral issues associated with laissez-faire capitalism. I'll soon switch to other topics, but for now they’re becoming a front page topic,
though certainly not because of anything I’ve had to say. President Obama spoke this past week of the
immorality of the gross inequality in America today. And that gross inequality comes, as economist
Joseph Stiglitz notes, from the heaping up of a lot of little inequalities,
engineered by people careless like The Great Gatsby’s rich about the lives of
others and focused only on gaining their own personal advantage; in other
words, libertarians, whether they claim the title or not. In practice, that search for your own little
unequal edge is so ingrained into human nature that it can never really be
eliminated. But it can be better
managed.
Because of the surge in
interest, John Sutter has written an interesting column for CNN in which he
surveys the various possible moral positions on inequality, from the “blessed
are the poor” position of Christianity in which lack of equal access to wealth
is actually a blessing in disguise, to the “blessed are the rich” position of
Libertarians, which honors those who have seized the opportunity to gain their
own edge without regard to others. He
doesn’t cover all the morality issues, and some positions he covers are not
very practical, like the idea of Arthur Brooks of the American Enterprise
Institute that the moral issue is only how to equalize opportunity. Given the human proclivity and talent for
gaining an edge, that idea, by itself, is a pipe dream. The most practical of the moral alternatives
staked out by Sutter is the social philosopher John Rawls’ idea that society
should be rearranged so that excessive wealth of some becomes of benefit to
all. Rawls argues that great wealth
conferred by society on a few can be morally justified only if it results in
improvement of the lots of all. You
could call it structural altruism, as distinct from the structural self
interest induced by unregulated laissez faire capitalism. That implies such things as income redistribution
through regulatory limits on CEO salaries passed on to enable higher worker
salaries, high tax rates on wealth to enable innovation, infrastructure
development and better health care, and incentives for charitable funding of
socially beneficial activities like schools and hospitals and disaster relief. Rawls sees a structurally and legally
reinforced payment of that debt of reciprocity I’ve mentioned.
Some of what I’ve
written sounds a bit grouchy, even to me.
That comes in part from my having just got back from a delightful stay “down
ocean”, as we say in Maryland, with a touch of sciatica to reward my time
relaxing on the sand, and partly from the cheerfulness of the indifference to
others displayed by my Libertarian acquaintance. Another study published this past week
reports that in general conservatives are happier than liberals, and it’s
probably true. Pundits will debate the
why’s for years, but, as my wife quickly noted, it’s likely that a big part of
that extra happiness comes from a sense that the problems of the world are “someone
else’s problem.” To misuse badly the old
Zen koan, conservatives see the world only as a stick to be used, while
liberals tend to see both the ugliness of its crookedness and the beauty of
what it could be if straight; and beyond that the wide gaps to be crossed. And,
as King Solomon noted, the increase of wisdom is the increase of sorrow. But the gaps are not impossible. Crossing them begins with reforming the
political system to eliminate the gerrymandering that produces a congress
filled only with self-interest, not a passion for the good of the whole country,
and to enable a rebirth of moderation in politics. Societal reform will follow that.
No comments:
Post a Comment