This post is about why "liberals" hate 'free market capitalism', but there is some groundwork first to be laid.
"Liberals" and conservatives are very different, I think all can agree. It's not just that the two groups disagree on specific policies; it's that they see and understand the world in different ways, and indeed in contradictory ways (the "liberals" see the world falsely, and generally *refuse* to see it clearly/truly, but that's not the immediate point here).
At the root of the different world-views is this: sin -- specifically, beliefs about, or approaches to dealing with, human sinfulness --
Conservatives understand that all men -- including themselves -- are sinful, are ultimately and inescapably flawed -- even those few 'atheists' (who thus tend to deny, at least on a surface viewing, the reality of sin) who are also conservatives share this understanding. Conservatives have a tragic view of human nature; we understand that all humans are flawed and no individual, nor group, nor social tinkering, can cure us of it.
"Liberals" deny the reality of sin and human sinfulness -- at any rate, as applies to themselves -- and even those Christians who are "liberals" ultimately deny that all human beings are inescapably sinful. "Liberals" have a sentimental view of human nature (and, it's a cheap sentimentalism, at that; though, in the end, it tends to be expensive in human lives); they imagine that with the right social tinkering, they (the individual "liberals" acting collectively) can cure the rest of us of our flawed nature.
Conservatives look at the "crooked timber of humanity" and say, "OK, this is what we are given to work with: what beautiful and enduring thing can we build of it?" In contrast, "liberals" look at the "crooked timber of humanity" and shriek, "No, no, no! This will not do! We must straighten these timbers before we can commence building anything worthwhile!" To put it another way: conservatives try to work with the readily observable reality of what human beings really are like when they go about designing social structures; "liberals" are always trying to design social structures which can be used to force human beings to be other than they really are.
Here is how the above applies to 'free market capitalism' and the hatred "liberals" have for it --
The concept -- and implementation -- of 'free market capitalism' is utterly conservative and antithetical to “liberalism” because it is grounded in the recognition that all human beings are inescapably self-centered, and not infrequently, selfish. So, rather than trying to change human nature so that people will “do the right thing”, with respect to economic matters, merely because it is the right thing to do, 'free market capitalism' is purposely designed to induce men to “do the right thing” because it is in their own self-interest to do so. This has the seeming paradoxical effect, over time in each individual’s life, of training the individual to be less selfish, and even less self-centered.
That is, rather than trying to force human nature to be other than it is -- a task, could it be done in the first place, never-ending, for each new generation starts from the same place -- the conservative approach to economic matters (as in all matters) is to work with, and redirect, the innate self-centeredness (and selfishness) of human individuals to achieve non-selfish public ends.
"Liberals" look at the resulting public goods and have conniptions: "But, but, but! They’re doing this public good for private and probably selfish reasons!" the “liberal” freaks-out. For, as usual, "liberals" are more concerned with attitudes and motivations than with results -- this is the same dynamic which allows "liberals" to continuously push for all sorts of public policies, with inevitable and quite foreseeable terrible consequences, on the grounds that "my intensions are pure".
'Free market capitalism' allows and encourages individuals to strive to "do well" ... with the result -- paradoxical to the "liberal" insistence on what reality is really like -- that they also "do good" thereby. "Liberals" cannot, or rather, will not, understand how this works, and thus are compelled to try to destroy it; for, to begin to admit that it works and to understand how it works would be to begin to cease to be "liberal".
Conservatism, recognizing the unalterable self-centeredness (and frequent selfishness) of human nature, seeks not to eradicate the self-centeredness, but rather to tame and harness it toward the creation of public goods. "Liberalism", refusing to recognize the unalterable self-centeredness (and frequent selfishness) of human nature, sets it rampant ... with the inevitable result that public goods are diminished, and ultimately destroyed; but, hey! at least their "hearts are in the right places".
Understand, this is not a criticism of Mother Teresa, and certainly not in the evil and wicked spirit in which the late Christopher Hitchens condemned her, but the truth is that that worthy woman, for all her lifetime of good works, didn't do nearly as much good for mankind as does the meanest, must unremarked, honest businessman.
Sunday, January 8, 2012
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
Understand, this is not a criticism of Mother Teresa, and certainly not in the evil and wicked spirit in which the late Christopher Hitchens condemned her, but the truth is that that worthy woman, for all her lifetime of good works, didn't do nearly as much good for mankind as does the meanest, must unremarked, honest businessman.
One minor nitpicks - the businessman would also have to be good at business.
But I think this is an apples and oranges comparison, and here's why. Mother Teresa and people like her tend to focus exclusively on one particular class of individual - ones who have fallen through the cracks in whatever system is in place. The businessman's efforts affect a system which you already agree will not be perfected. I absolutely understand the idea that, say... Walmart, just by being Walmart, will help hundreds of thousands of poor people by providing them with increasingly affordable, accessible products. But some underclass cripple who has no job prospects because he's of the wrong caste is the sort of person charitables acts and a charity are best situation to help.
You can even think of it in market terms if you like. Mother Teresa 'goes after' the people the businessman would say "is not a target demographic".
"One minor nitpicks - the businessman would also have to be good at business."
Why is that? It seems to me that even a failed businessman may "do good for mankind", even if, all things being equal, success is better than failure.
"But I think this is an apples and oranges comparison, and here's why."
I suspect, and it seems you agree, that Mother Teresa didn't set out to, nor see herself as, "doing good for mankind", but rather as doing good for specific actual human beings. BUT -- and here is why I made this particular comparison (*) -- under the twin auspices of leftism and the religiosity which gave rise to it, neither does the businessman see himself as "doing good for mankind", though he does good both for men and for mankind.
(*) I had originally intended to compare Andrew Carnegie's two very different careers, the first as an alleged "robber baron", which did great good for mankind, and the second (which continues post-mortem) as a philanthropist, which in the long-term has been injurious to mankind.
"But some underclass cripple who has no job prospects because he's of the wrong caste is the sort of person charitables acts and a charity are best situation to help."
Like my mother (except for the carved-in-stone caste system) before my parents married? My mother had a job -- at Goodwill. Now, it's true that Goodwill is (or was) a charitable organization ... but it was also a money-making organization: it could offer paying jobs to the people that most people don't want to see and want to pretend don't exist because its business model called for it to be as self-sustaining as possible.
Charity -- and especially charity-as-a-profession -- is a very dangerous thing; it's at least as apt to do long-term damage as it is to do good in the first place.
Which, in the end, is the more truly charitable act?
1) To give "some underclass cripple who has no job prospects because he's of the wrong caste" food every day for the rest of his life ... and the same for his children in their turn;
2) To give him a real job, or provide him the means to create his own job, so that he may earn his own daily bread, and that of his children?
"Professional charity" almost never matures out of a patron-client relationship; it almost never allows the recipient of the charity to cease to be a supplicant of the supplier of the charity. While being the recipient of "professional charity" may be better than death, it is utterly degrading -- it's better to be Bob Cratchitt working for Scrooge than to be Oliver Twist, whether child or man, forced to subsist off any charity, whether the Queen's Royal Charity or Mrs. Goodwife's privately organized and funded charity.
Why is that? It seems to me that even a failed businessman may "do good for mankind", even if, all things being equal, success is better than failure.
I think it becomes far less likely. You can't be saying that just being an honest businessman betters mankind, regardless of what else takes place?
Which, in the end, is the more truly charitable act?
1) To give "some underclass cripple who has no job prospects because he's of the wrong caste" food every day for the rest of his life ... and the same for his children in their turn;
2) To give him a real job, or provide him the means to create his own job, so that he may earn his own daily bread, and that of his children?
They aren't exclusive options. 1 can be seen as a way to enable, or at least make more likely, 2. Likewise, circumstances can make 2 unworkable if one is simply operating from a business perspective.
Would the honest, mean businessman in India hire an untouchable if it would hurt his business? Of course not.
"Professional charity" almost never matures out of a patron-client relationship; it almost never allows the recipient of the charity to cease to be a supplicant of the supplier of the charity.
Well, I prefer person-person relationships - I'm actually very worried about some charities. My point was only that the 'mean, honest businessman' and the charitable organization (use 'charitable person' instead if you dislike the organizational aspect) have different targets. The businessman allows people to fall off his radar. The charitable person can and often does aim for the person who falls off the radar.
Post a Comment