|
Send to a friend
Morals and the Welfare State, Part 3
by F.A. Harper, December 2000
ANOTHER POINT of
possible confusion has to do with coveting the private property of another.
There is nothing morally wrong in the admiration of something that is the
property of another. Such admiration may be a stimulus to work for the
means with which to buy it, or one like it. The moral consideration
embodied in this Commandment has to do with thoughts and acts leading
to the violation of the other Commandments, though still short of actual
theft.
The moral right to private property,
therefore, is consistent with the moral codes of all the great religious
beliefs.
It is likely that a concept of this type
was in the mind of David Hume, the moral philosopher, who believed that
the right to own private property is the basis for the modern concept of
justice in morals.
Nor is it surprising to discover that
two of history’s leading exponents of the welfare state concept
found it necessary to denounce this moral code completely. Marx said:
“Religion is the opiate of the people.” And Lenin said:
“Any religious idea, any idea of a ‘good God’ ... is an
abominably nasty thing.” Of course they would have to say these
things about religious beliefs. This is because the moral code of these
great religions, as we have seen, strikes at the very heart of their
immoral economic scheme. Not only does their welfare state scheme deny
the moral right to private property, but it also denies other underlying
bases of the moral code, as we shall see.
Stealing and coveting are condemned
in the Decalogue as violations of the basic moral code. It follows, then,
that the concepts of stealing and coveting presume the right to private
property, which then automatically becomes an implied part of the basic
moral code. But where does private property come from?
The right of private property
Private property comes from what one
has saved out of what he has produced, or has earned as a productive
employee of another person. One may also, of course, obtain private
property through gifts and inheritances; but in the absence of theft,
precluded by this moral code, gifts come from those who have produced or
earned what is given. So the right of private property, and also the right to
have whatever one has produced or earned, underlies the admonitions in
the Decalogue about stealing and coveting. Nobody has the moral right to
take by force from the producer anything he has produced or earned, for
any purpose whatsoever — even for a good purpose, as he thinks of it.
If one is free to have what he has
produced and earned, it then follows that he also has the moral right to be
free to choose his work. He should be free to choose his work, that is, so
long as he does not violate the moral code in doing so by using in his
productive efforts the property of another person through theft or
trespass. Otherwise he is free to work as he will, at what he will, and to
change his work when he will. Nobody has the moral right to force him to
work when he does not choose to do so, or to force him to remain idle
when he wishes to work, or to force him to work at a certain job when he
wishes to work at some other available job. The belief of the master that
his judgment is superior to that of the slave or vassal, and that control is
“for his own good,” is not a moral justification for the idea
of the welfare state.
We are told that some misdoings
occurred in a Garden of Eden, which signify the evil in man. And I would
concede that no mortal man is totally wise and good. But it is my belief
that people generally, up and down the road, are intuitively and
predominantly moral. By this I mean that if persons are confronted with a
clear and simple decision involving basic morals, most of us will conduct
ourselves morally. Most everyone, without being a learned scholar of
moral philosophy, seems to have a sort of innate sense of what is right
and tends to do what is moral unless and until he becomes confused by
circumstances which obscure the moral issue that is involved.
That which is newsworthy
The content of many magazines and
newspapers with widespread circulations would seem to contradict my
belief that most people are moral most of the time. They headline
impressive and unusual events on the seamy side of life, which might lead
one to believe that these events are characteristic of everyday human
affairs. It is to be noted, however, that their content is in sharp contrast
to the local, hometown daily or weekly with its emphasis on the folksy
reports of the comings and goings of friends. Why the difference? Those
with large circulations find that the common denominator of news
interest in their audience is events on the rare, seamy side of life; widely
scattered millions are not interested in knowing that in Centerville, Sally
attended Susie’s birthday party last Tuesday.
It is the rarity of evil conduct that
makes it impressive news for millions. Papers report the events of
yesterday’s murder, theft, or assault, together with the name,
address, age, marital status, religious affiliation, and other descriptive
features of the guilty party because these are the events of the day that
are unusual enough to be newsworthy. What would be the demand for a
newspaper which published all the names and identifications of all the
persons who yesterday failed to murder, steal, or assault? If it were as
rare for persons to act morally as it is now rare for them to act
immorally, the then-rare instances of moral conduct would presumably
become the news of the day. So we may conclude that evil is news because
it is so rare; that being moral is not news because it is so prevalent.
But does not this still prove the
dominance of evil in persons? Or, since magazines and newspapers print
what finds a ready readership in the market, does not that prove the
evilness of those who read of evil? I believe not. It is more like the
millions who attend zoos and view with fascination the monkeys and the
snakes; these spectators are not themselves monkeys or snakes, nor do
they want to be; they are merely expressing an interest in the unusual,
without envy. Do not most of us read of a bank robbery or a fire without
wishing to be robbers or arsonists?
What else dominates the newspaper
space, and gives us our dominant impressions about the quality of persons
outside our circle of immediate personal acquaintance? It is mostly about
the problems of political power; about those who have power or are
grasping for power, diluted with a little about those who are fighting
against power. Lord Acton said: “Power tends to corrupt, and
absolute power corrupts absolutely.” This dictum seems to be true,
as history has proved and is proving over and over again. So we can then
translate it into a description of much of the news of the day: News is
heavily loaded with items about persons who, as Lord Acton said, are
either corrupt or are in the process of becoming more corrupt.
If one is not careful in exposing
himself to the daily news — if he fails to keep his balance and
forgets how it contrasts with all those persons who comprise his family,
his neighbors, his business associates, and his friends — he is likely
to conclude falsely that people are predominantly immoral. This poses a
serious problem for historians and historical novelists to the extent that
their source of information is the news of a former day — especially
if they do not interpret it with caution.
To steal or not to steal
As a means of specifically verifying
my impression about the basic, intuitive morality of persons, I would pose
this test of three questions:
1. Would you steal your
neighbor’s cow to provide for your present needs? Would you steal
it for any need reasonably within your expectation or comprehension? It
should be remembered that, instead of stealing his cow, you may explore
with your neighbor the possible solution to your case of need; you might
arrange to do some sort of work for him, or to borrow from him for later
repayment, or perhaps even plead with him for an outright gift.
2. Would you steal your
neighbor’s cow to provide for a known case of another
neighbor’s need?
3. Would you try to induce a third
party to do the stealing of the cow, to be given to this needy neighbor?
And do you believe that you would likely succeed in inducing him to engage
in the theft?
I believe that the almost universal
answer to all these questions would be: “No.” Yet the facts of
the case are that all of us are participating in theft every day. How? By
supporting the actions of the collective agent which does the stealing as
part of the welfare state program, already far advanced in the United
States. By this device, Peter is robbed to “benefit” Paul, with
the acquiescence if not the active support of all of us as taxpayers and
citizens. We not only participate in the stealing — and share in the
division of the loot — but as its victims we also meekly submit to
the thievery.
F.A. “Baldy” Harper was the founder of the
Institute for Humane Studies. This article originally appeared in volume 1
of Essays on Liberty, published in 1952 by The Foundation for
Economic Education in Irvington-on-Hudson, New York.
Send to a friend
back to top
Subscribe to Freedom Daily.
|
