Welfare-state advocates like to pass moral judgments on
those of us who oppose their leftist ideals of socialism,
redistribution, and “economic justice.”
Allegedly, we lack “compassion” and
“sensitivity” and are “selfish” and
“mean-spirited.” Therefore we are promoting a
society without reference to basic moral principles
— as defined by the political left.
Unfortunately, many of us who take a hard line against
any form of government safety net tend to fall into a
trap when challenged on our absolutist position against
government charity. When confronted with the ethics of
socialism, we counter that capitalism is a superior
economic system that elevated human beings out of the
muck and mire of centuries to a standard of living
unprecedented in the history of the world. This is
undoubtedly true. Still, it’s not the first argument
we ought to be making.
Morality is ultimately a question of choice. When
leftists argue that their “moral” positions
regarding public schools, welfare, socialized medicine,
or progressive taxation are more sound than ours, and
therefore deserve to be supported by government, we
should ask a simple question: What is morality? Morality,
simply put, is the ethical code we each choose to guide
us in our daily lives, in accordance with our respective
values. Note that the root of this definition lies in the
verb “choose.”
When welfare-statists talk about the alleged virtues
behind their proposed system, they fail to realize that a
policy of imposed ethics is anything but ethical.
Ordinary people make the choice in their daily lives to
give to charities, donate time and money to schools,
mentor children, open businesses, or protest against
animal cruelty. These are moral choices. However, when
these same policies are promoted using the force of
government, they nullify any claim to choice, and
therefore morality, altogether.
Every person who hopes to function rationally in a
society has to make choices every minute of the day. The
sum of our choices can fairly be said to define our
particular “morality.” Using the government to
force others to behave in a certain way is not morality,
by any stretch of the imagination. It is the antithesis
of morality. It may come as a bit of a surprise to our
leftist brethren, but this fact applies even when the
motive is pure.
Proposing that those of us who oppose the welfare state
are in any way “immoral” lacks logical
credibility. Morality requires choice, which means the
right to choose differently from our fellows, or even
wrongly.
How, then, does such an approach to morality deal with
the murderer, who may choose to kill people? Does his
particular “morality” deserve respect as well?
Like the use of government force, private force is a
negation of choice, not an extension of it. One cannot
claim to be acting in the name of morality when imposing
his will by force. The purpose of government, then, is
not to make people moral, but to make morality possible
by discouraging the use of force in human relationships.
A natural progression from this point is to show that a
society that leaves people free to make their respective
moral choices unfettered by government imposition
actually produces results superior to a system of
coercion. The proof is in the explosion in material
wealth and charitable activity that took place in 19th-
century America, when government welfare and regulations
were minimal.
If the leftist genuinely wishes for a moral society based
on “compassion,” he has to allow for those who
are not compassionate. Whatever else can be said about a
welfare state, it cannot be said to be moral.
As we start this new year, let us each understand that
morality begins with personal choice. That is the heart
of libertarian principles: as long as my choices do not
forcefully interfere with yours, we each should be left
alone to find our respective paths to happiness and
contentment. What could be more moral than that?
