It seems to me a general theme of liberal policy is focused on fairness, or balancing perceived inequalities. The arguments tend to be rather infantile: Everyone should get health care, it’s not fair to poor to deny them. Letting businesses lobby is unfair because they have lots of money. It’s unfair for businesses to discriminate, the government should force them not to.
Some people have more money than others. Sometimes it really isn’t fair: born into a wealthy home versus a poor home is beyond your control. This is of course why they say life isn’t fair. This isn’t something that can or should be legislated away. It’s impossible to make life perfectly fair and equal for everyone.
The problem with people’s obsession with fairness is they fail to properly determine exactly what should be fair; and the answer it turns out is stunningly simple. There is in fact one thing which not only should be fair, but must be fair: laws.
Laws must apply to everyone equally, or they cannot possibly be fair or just. Yet we have huge programs which blatantly defy this truth, created in the name of fairness: Medicare/medicaid and social security are unfair for many reasons. They are demonstrably unsustainable, they force everyone into them regardless of their preference, and even if they were sustainable some people will die before they can collect. The ADA and anti discrimination laws target specific groups, forcing one to treat the other a certain way or cater to them; by their very existence they don’t affect everyone equally. It is a sad irony that these kinds of laws actually foster and create discrimination of a different sort.
You cannot legislate the world into being fair; and attempting to do so begets numerous unintended consequences. Focus less on the folly of trying to force an unfair world otherwise, and more on fundamental rights when examining proposed legislation. While the latter may sometimes seem at odds with the former, it will counter-intuitively yet assuredly result in a more free, prosperous, and ultimately fair world.
Posted by wobbles on Aug 11, 2010
Very recently, within the past few months, I became what I call a principled libertarian. Rothbard would probably describe it as Anarcho-capitalism. I discovered a few ideas and principals which I had prior not clearly recognized. My beliefs have mostly not changed, but I’ve dug down to the root of them and unearthed the foundation they’re built upon. It gives me a much clearer understanding of why I believe the things I do, and in circumstances where I’m presented with new problems, a starting point.
Is it common for people to have this luxury I now possess? My inclination is to say the average person does not, but I cannot be certain this is not for the selfish reason of wanting to believe I’m not stupid for taking 26 years to finally stumble upon the truth.
So what is this truth, the idea behind my so-called principled libertarianism and Rothbard’s anarcho-capitalism? Put simply, property rights. At the center of any philosophical discussion I’m engaged in, I side with the position which advocates absolute property rights. From intellectual property to capital punishment to animal rights to abortion, all of my positions can be traced back to my belief in a property owner’s absolute right to control his own scarce resources and defend them from aggression or invasion.
I could give in-depth analysis on how each of the above subjects can be traced back to property rights, but for now here’s the basic gist of each:
Intellectual Property: Ideas are a non-scarce resource, and thus not subject to property rights. Attempting to treat them otherwise forces upon others restrictions on how to use their own property; effectively ceding exclusive control of their property to another without consent.
Capital Punishment: A crime is an act of aggression against another person’s property: be it damages, trespass, or theft. The victim is the only one with a reasonable claim to punish the aggressor, because it is his property rights which have been violated (through the concept of self-ownership, each individual’s body is their property, and they therefore retain the exclusive right to its control and defense). In the case of murder, the victim has been removed from the debate: in this case, either an heir or the victim’s will would decide to what extent to punish the aggressor.
Animals’ Rights: This is the one way in which rights are not universal; they do not extend beyond the human species. The reason is simple: animals do not respect any property rights whatsoever, and operate based on their own necessities exclusively. They are not rational or even (in most cases) self-aware. We will recognize the property rights of animals whenever they petition for them.
Abortion: This one is sort of complex, but to be as brief as possible: where life begins is irrelevant. If a fetus is alive and unwanted (regardless of at what point in the pregnancy it becomes unwanted), it immediately becomes a trespasser and invader to the woman’s property, and given that she has the exclusive right to control her body then she may expel it. Note that I make no judgment on the personal morality of this scenario, only on the larger immorality denying the woman’s natural right would be.
I’ll probably post about each of these four things and go into more detail on each another time.
Posted by wobbles on Jul 21, 2010
“It is unfortunate that [Benjamin Jealous] does choose to label millions of God-fearing and good Americans as racist.” —Reverend C.L. Bryant in this segment of the July 17 episode of Freedom Watch
This phrase struck me as odd. While I agree with his sentiment and the segment itself was a good one, I couldn’t quite get past the way the term “God-fearing” is used.
I’m trying to wrap my head around what exactly makes it an appealing or positive quality: what does it say about either the person, or the omnipotent being? What benefit is there to be afraid of your God? If you fear his reprisal and this is why you do good things, I can’t fathom you’re truly a good person. A good person does not steal, murder, or rape because they know these things to be an immoral violation of their fellow man’s natural rights. The threat of jail or Hell is unnecessary. This would seem to nullify the second adjective he chose to use, “good Americans.” I don’t think a good American should need to fear their God, right?
That only leaves one other explanation, being that God is just a huge jackass and not at all loving as most tend to claim. If you’re a good person, a truly genuine good person who does not need the fear of eternal damnation to do the right thing, the only possible reason left for you to fear God is because he’ll fuck you up for no reason. He’ll shit in your cereal and fuck your sister without calling, then cause a manure truck to jump the curb in front of your house, running over your dog before crashing through your living room wall. Not because you did anything to him or because you deserve it, just because he’s like that and thinks it’d be funny.
And you religious people think God is loving? What the fuck is wrong with you?
Continue Reading…
Posted by wobbles on Jul 19, 2010
You’re at a restaurant, having a great time with a couple friends or colleagues over dinner. The meal comes to a close, and the check is dropped off at your table. Two of your friends/colleagues reach for it, which sparks a short debate over who pays. Isn’t it interesting that the ensuing debate isn’t who has to pay, but who gets to pay? Isn’t it even more interesting that this does not surprise you?
I go out of my way to pay attention to little things which display the general good nature of humanity. Penn Jillette (a personal hero of mine) mentioned on this episode of Penn Point that some Hasidic Jews he was eating dinner with insisted on paying the check. It was tangent to the main story, just an offhand comment, but it was one of those cases where I’m struck by the oddness of two people competing for the honor of being generous to the other.
Some will argue that they’re not doing it due to selflessness. They merely value the feeling they get from appearing generous to others, or perhaps that they use it to gain standing with another person which in turn will benefit them later. Either of these might be true, but I submit that neither negates the generosity. One does not have to be selfless to be a good person, and in fact being selfish can lead to great things.
Let me explain something important about the distinction I make between selfish as opposed to greedy, as I define them. I use the word selfish as meaning something closer to enlightened self-interest: people do good because it is in their long term best interests to do so. This is as opposed to simple greed, which entirely disregards long term effects for short term gain.
For example, a greedy person might steal an expensive watch from a friend or relative, but a selfish person would not. A greedy person wouldn’t share his bon bons with a friend, while a selfish person would. A greedy person wouldn’t pick up a check he wasn’t forced to, while a selfish person will fight for the right to pay it. In every case, the selfish person is recognizing that there are either positive or negative consequences to each situation: if he steals he might get put in jail; if he won’t share he will damage his reputation with his friend; if he picks up the check he will gain respect.
In a broader sense, the self-interested person can even do the right thing because what’s good for the society at large because it is also good for him. If he manages a toy company, maybe he could save a few bucks by using crappy (but cheap) lead paint. Even in a lawless, non-regulated society it’s not in his best interests to do so. Harm your customers and pretty quickly you will have none. So he buys the safer, more expensive paint not just because he’s a good guy, but it’s good for business.
Let’s stop demonizing this kind of selfishness. Everyone acts in their own self-interest, it’s just a matter of recognizing how best to serve that interest. If you ask me, what’s best for the individual is almost always also what’s best for everyone.
Posted by wobbles on Jul 07, 2010
Hi. The glorious ramblings of wobbles will soon once again rain down upon the unwashed masses; a refreshing downpour of controversial and uncommon thought to confuse and anger the would-be reader.
You’d probably be happier remaining dry.
Posted by Administrator on Jul 02, 2010