Hat tip to Dr. Boudreaux at Cafe Hayek who cites a commentary in today's WSJ
by David Boaz of Cato.
In the commentary, Boaz challenges the notion, implicit or explicit, put forth by the presumptive nominees which states that we as citizens should commit ourselves to higher national causes.
Boaz is obviously not impressed with this vision.
First, with Obama, he takes issue with the theme he put forth in a commencement speech over the weekend at Wesleyan University in CT.
In the speech, Obama stated that the students need to devote themselves to "collective service" and that "our individual salvation depends on collective salvation." while speaking quasi-pejoratively to students who would "take your diploma, walk off this stage, and chase only after the big house and the nice suits and all the other things that our money culture says you should buy."
I agree with Boaz that while this sounds nice and sounds like the "the right thing to say", it also flies in the face of what life is really like and the pursuit of happiness. People will be looking for jobs, looking to start families, raise children and basically looking to be human while trying to be somewhat happy and fulfilled between now and retirement. Within that crowd may be future leaders or innovators who will contribute to society's improvement in their own way....whether they realize it or not and whether it was their intention or not....much like Adam Smith's proverbial Butcher or Baker who provide meat and bread...not out of altruism or some "collective salvation" but out self interest for one's family. As mundane and unsatisfying as it sounds, it's really as simple as that. Sure, it doesn't ring with a sense of altruism or beauty or "Amazing Grace" but it's how it is.
This concept is always a real problem to express because there just isn't an eloquent enough way of saying it without sounding "wrong" or heartless and that just isn't the case.
Says Boaz:
The people Mr. Obama is sneering at are the ones who built America – the traders and entrepreneurs and manufacturers who gave us railroads and airplanes, housing and appliances, steam engines, electricity, telephones, computers and Starbucks. Ignored here is the work most Americans do, the work that gives us food, clothing, shelter and increasing comfort.
The unshakable irony is that the lion's share of goodwill and happier, healthier lives we all lead comes from this but it just doesn't sit well with the human imagination.
Onto McCain who denounces "self-indulgence" and has said that we need to serve ""a national purpose that is greater than our individual interests." and that ""I led . . . out of patriotism, not for profit." while he tried to undermine Romney as someone who ""managed companies, and he bought, and he sold, and sometimes people lost their jobs. That's the nature of that business." The implication here is that McCain is somehow a "better man" than Romney because of all this or that Romney and others like him somehow lead a cheaper or less worthy existence because they come from the business world. Well LA-DEE-DA, Mr High-and-Mighty. We are not worthy! I guess being in the military puts you into a higher class of life! Maybe we all need to be soldiers in order to be up to your social standards. Kinda like thhe knights of yesteryear. Pompous jerk.
This may not be far from the truth. After all, McCain did speak highly of national service programs where we: "not only wear uniforms and work in teams . . . but actually live together in barracks on former military bases, and are deployed to service projects far from their home base,". IOW, we need to value what McCain values to be good people. Perhaps that's a harsh way of putting it but the implication is clear and I agree with Boaz that it stinks and all of it wreaks of true fascism...not the misused, narrowly and selectively defined and abused label applied to atrocities reminiscent of Hitler...but the real textbook definition where the rights and interests of the individual are unequivocally disparaged, discouraged and made to be shallow or inferior to the goals and interests of the collective state. Remember, fascism wouldn't sell if it were marketed as a military police state complete with a Gestapo and tribal salutes, it is the conditioned and well ingrained idea that you don't count by yourself...only as part of a national unit. And there's no better way to massage this into people's minds than by playing on their goodwill and desire to be good people and do good deeds.
And is with any type of regime like this, it's bursting with hypocrisy. McCain and Obama (and most "public servants" in politics for that matter) have all made nice and comfortable lives for themselves while they mildly or overtly sneer at the desire to do it.
Again, this lofty rhetoric sounds nice but it flies in the face of reality and what individuality and freedom are all about. And again, such explanations just don't sit well with human emotion and desire for a better world.
Says Boaz:
"A greater cause," "community service" – to many of us, these gauzy phrases sound warm and comforting. But their purpose is to disparage and denigrate our own lives, to belittle our own pursuit of happiness.
Too true, whether they or we realize it or not.
Boaz concludes with:
Messrs. Obama and McCain are telling us Americans that our normal lives are not good enough, that pursuing our own happiness is "self-indulgence," that building a business is "chasing after our money culture," that working to provide a better life for our families is a "narrow concern."
They're wrong. Every human life counts. Your life counts. You have a right to live it as you choose, to follow your bliss. You have a right to seek satisfaction in accomplishment. And if you chase after the almighty dollar, you just might find that you are led, as if by an invisible hand, to do things that improve the lives of others.
And yes, it just doesn't sound as nice to put it this way but it's the truth. And it's also the major principle upon which this country was founded...not national service nor a glorification of collective will (or the will of the "wise and powerful") nor a desire to be shown "the way" by people who did exactly what they are sneering at. Such conventions are the product of our mind and its pliability to tribal ideals or service to rulers...a state of living that has dominated human existence far longer than the notion of a truly free society. Indeed, a slow acceptance that individuals are worth more than their sum as part of whole (such a nasty thing to say...I know) is the major reason we have come so far. Yet, the continued and self-destructive allure of tribalistic rhetoric and idealism show just how far we still have to go.
__________________________
Oh Gag
Kill altruism. Kill idealism. Such dangerous motives. Be sure and teach them in kindergarten so they learn right.
"We the people"....... will forever be in a state of debate about what is and is not a civil society, or best for all. (see collective)
There is nothing self destructive about tribes.
It is for the cause of survival. Whether it's primitive instincts to find food, aknowledge who the best hunter, so that even the weak can eat and his mother, your father's uncle can say thank you. Or looking to find the best ideas, so even the weak minded, my brothers, sons son can say thank you, and his sister will give you a seat at her dinner table.
Self interest for one self interest for all, isn't that an altruistic ideal in and of itself.
__________________________It is the economy, stupid.
Principle of Invisible Hand...`
Providing what the people want better than central planning is valid. So making a good living means you are providing services, better and cheaper food, entertainment, housing.....whatever.
It is interesting that diarist alludes to Fredrich Hayak, who was considered one of the fathers of economic conservatism, then called the Austrian School. What is interesting is he, unlike, those who now speak as his acolytes, had a deep appreciation for the vital necessity of government to police private enterprise.
He was also for a social safety net for the losers in the free market, something he was convinced could only be funded by the prosperity of such free markets.
I would be so much more comfortable if I felt our next President had a deep understanding of economic issues such as these.
couple things...
first, thanks for the thoughtful comments.
Secondly, Hayek is in the name of the website of cited. Though yes, since you mention him directly, his views are somewhat relevant here when considering his book "The Road to Serfdom". Also, Hayek was not conservative...though yes...some of his views have been co-opted by the Right....often times quite selectively. The same can be said of Keynes.
His views on govt. are quite nuanced and his pragmatic acceptance of it for specific and limited roles should never be used to justify what he spent a lifetime fighting and warning against.
His fellow Austrian, Rothbard, is the anarcho-capitalist. They should not be blurred together on these deep details.
Please...
You don't really believe that, right? There's no correlation between making a living and providing a service. What service does the criminal provide? What service the bureaucrat?
I'd be much more comfortable if we had a president who realized that economics is an infantile field of knowledge, incapable of making even the most rudimentary prediction with better than 50/50 odds. Consequently economists should be in universities refining their field, not opining about matters.
__________________________I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
note to arodb...
be sure to specify that you mean law-abiding citizens in voluntary exchange next time. It doesn't go without saying...apparently. ;)
No it doesn't.
Funny that.
But more to the point there are any number of non-illegal and yet utterly useless if not harmful, and yet also profitable careers we can point to.
Enron, anyone? W.R. Grace? Union Carbide?
Robbers, and murders, but the legal (and profitable) kind.
__________________________I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
Fraud
is illegal.
Sure
But plenty of what Enron did, how it made its money was perfectly legal. It was also perfectly corrosive because like a great deal of big business it was nothing but a parasite.
Look at any brokerage. Their entire existence is one of pure parasitism. And yet brokers can make very good money.
As before- there is no correlation between making a living (even a legal living) and providing a service or benefit to mankind. Very often livings are made by exploitation, which is by definition harmful.
__________________________I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
So why, exactly, are you working for a parasite?
You don't believe that you derive any benefit from your employer? Why do you work there then?
Let this incongruity sink in a bit and get back to me.
__________________________Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree
Value
Wealth earned by one's living is corrolated to the subjective value placed on that service.
Key word being "subjective"
in other words wealth and value have no real relationship, which is what I've been saying.
__________________________I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
And if you notice,
such a claim to the contrary was never made by me as an iron-clad corollary.
I was just adding a wrinkle to the discussion.
You forgot to use your real-world to Tlaloc-world translator ...
:)
__________________________Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree
Well yes
Something got twisted somewhere along the way in the message when you say,The Fredrich, had a deep appreciation for the vital necessity of government to police private enterprise.
This is the piece of the puzzle that gets left out.
Some seem to have an irrational fear public servants. It can be a higher calling and 'we the people' are tasked with making it so.
It is human nature to look for a leader of the pack as a way to provide, maintain cohesion, and protect from danger.
This is my disagreement with the piece, the rank cynicism towards public service, as if someone might force you to do something you don't want to.
My other disagreement with the is an undercurrent of disgust for those who seek the highest office, as if 'they' are to blame for all problems. It sort of absolves those who seek self interest of responsibility if they happen to fail.
__________________________It is the economy, stupid.
Off the mark on your analysis of my intent.
You're missing the forest for the trees.
I can't read minds
but I can read.
"gauzy phrases used to denigrate our lives, and belittle your pursuit of happiness"
Excuse me if I don't buy that.
It would be just as easy to say that good strong businesses provide jobs, and that is a wonderful contribution to our society (the collective) that some chose over public service. Plenty of folks beat that drum, but a call for public service is seen as inherently threatening to liberty. *cough*
To say that calling people to think about community service is 'gauzy altruistic appeal' (to the collective) as if it is causing personal pain and suffering of denigrating your (selfish) right to pursue of happiness, is utter hysteria and reading intent that isn't there. Or in otherwords, complete bs.
__________________________It is the economy, stupid.
No you can't read minds
But you can read this:
me, downthread:
Was Boaz's reacction "utter hysteria and reading intent that isn't there">? Perhaps that's debatable.
But is there a over-developed sense of "needing" to serve the state or a "higher cause" of their framing conveyed by our candidates lest one be a lesser person? Yes, I would say so. Is this kind of rhetoric by the candidates a symptom of this tendency to convey such ideas? Yes, I would say so.
Absolutely not
Substitute "community" for "state" or any other non-government actor.
I'd have to say that someone who serves some higher cause for altruistic reasons are objectively "better people" than someone who goes into business, and has children or whatever makes them happy (as you say).
Simply encouraging people to do what makes them happy is not any noble goal. No encouragement is needed, since trying to maximize happiness is the human default. Encouraging people to do what sucks, but is necessary to make the world a better place is the noble goal.
In going along with my deontological ethics, one's intent makes the action good or bad. Bill Gates may have contributed more to making the world a better place than Richard Stallman
, but Stallman set out to make the world a better place while Gates just fell into it after he had more money than God.
Non-state entities (and to a lesser extent, government) should be doing more to push the idea of a common good. "Screw you, I've got mine" is not a moral way to live.
__________________________I never broke the law; I am the law! --
George W. BushJudge DreddI'm listening to...
correct
And I agree and never said otherwise.
Heartless Money Grubbing.....
I'm kidding. Excellent essay.
How ironic that there is convergence among the two parties in a two party system. Yet, it is what we now have, since "memes" or bumper stickers are the coin of the realm, not reading Adam Smith, Frefrich Hayak, or Karl Marx for that matter.
Americans just know what "sounds" right. "Winning" sounds better than "Surrender", and who cares whether the concept even applies to our Iraq Occupation. One thing that is common among Americans is we hate reading the small print.
So, our political system is imploding from both wings. "Framing" is the new way to win elections, not proposing policies that will sustain our Republic.
I wrote a diary here last week about the serious defects in the new GI bill, yet the substance of this bill has gotten little attentions here, or on a larger national level. The issue is reduced to "supporting the troops" or being callous.
Lately, after seven disastrous, fraudulent, partisan years in office, George Bush has gotten the fiscal responsibility religion. If only he hadn't waited until the end of his politicl career, it might ha ve been a more powerful example to those who still face elections.
Here's the GI bill article if anyone is interested:
http://swordscrossed.org/node/2219
well said
I'd expect that from a Randian
I'd actually go one further. The overriding goal of life itself is to leave the world better than how you left it. Every once an a great while someone who is in it for themselves manages to make the world a better place as a side effect. These people should not be commended any more than a terrorist trying to kill civilians accidentally kills any particularly distasteful person.
I suppose you could make the argument that being a good global citizen need not require one to commit to a national cause, but, generally speaking, those who would shun the more altruistic of us tend to just hate helping people rather than the institutions we use to further our goals.
__________________________I never broke the law; I am the law! --
George W. BushJudge DreddI'm listening to...
easy there, stiney
the point is not to shun the desire for altruism. The point is to not shun or devalue or belittle individualism and the pursuit of happiness...in whatever form it may take.
Besides, I don't pretend to tell people what the purpose of their life is. I think that's the overriding point Boaz is making. And I agree. I wish people all the happiness they can attain....whether it is through wealth, helping others, having children, researching for cures, serving in the military or just living a simple life of quiet zen. I can share my ideas of happiness with friends, family or anyone who asks but the difference is that I won't tell people what does and does not make their life more meaningful or valuable....
We all contribute to somone or something in our own way.
There is nothing more "liberal".
"How it is"
...is a convenient excuse of personal failings.
If you are going to write a tribute to self centered greed at least try to get some style. Michael Douglas provided the template in Wallstreet:
You might pause to consider just how much your philosophy, constantly droned, serves as a self fulfilling prophecy. And whether that's really a legacy you want to be part of- the prostitution and debasement of all mankind to the pettiest shallowest meanest existence imaginable.
__________________________I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
Vaya con Dios, Tlaloc
what else can I say?
That's kinda tough to respond to. I wouldnt know where to start.
That's a hint, John.
When you are rendered speechless it's because you hit the wall of your preconcieved notions.
It's a sign that the world is bigger than your philosophy.
__________________________I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
you're right
it is a hint....just not the one you think it is. ;)
I guess I don't see the problem
It's not like Obama said not to chase after the big house and the nice suits, etc. He's merely suggesting that that is not all there is to life. And if happiness is the ultimate goal, then it's pretty damn good advice to make sure that your life isn't all about money and material possessions. After 7 1/2 years of a president whose most inspiring message is "go out and shop," I see rhetoric like this as a huge step in the right direction, actually.
It's not clear to me what this is in the statement above. Are you saying that most of our happiness comes from our jobs? If so, I respectfully disagree. That certainly may be true for some people, but I don't think it is true for most.
I just don't get why anyone would have a problem with a leader, of a country, an organization, or whatever, suggesting to members of that group that happiness can be found through helping others.
You've said before, John, that "do no harm" is a good place to start, and I agree. But it is at best an adequate place to end. And it is not a bad characteristic of a leader to inspire others to be more than adequate.
__________________________We are the environment. There is no distinction. What we do to the earth we do to ourselves. —David Suzuki
Couple things, SL
What I'm saying can best be described in my comment above
.
On the quote, what I'm saying is that self-interest, and yes: that's part of individual freedom, and individualism and the voluntary action therefrom, has inadvertently done more for the human condition than calls to noble collective action or "answering a higher cause", IOW: putting the state before yourself, has.
It's not a "leader or head of whatever" that causes the problem for me, it's a leader of government belittling private everyday human action in favor of a cause that glorifies the state or service to them or their chosen causes. Our state is, by design, neutral on matters of individual happiness and that feature is undermined by politicians trying to make their existence mean more than it should.
It's not the act of helping others that I quibble...not at all. That should be clear.
No, I know
I know you are not saying altruistic behavior is bad. I understand your point, I just don't entirely agree with it. I haven't listened to the entire commencement address that Obama gave, but in the WSJ article, it says "it was interesting how long he went on discussing various kinds of nonprofit activism" (emphasis mine). I don't see this as a leader of government "glorifying the state."* I see it as basically a counterpoint to the prevailing cultural idea that materialism is what it's all about. There is certainly no lack of voices out there telling college graduates to go forth and be profitable. Any voice that offers alternatives is a good voice, in my opinion.
*I'm not sure I could as easily defend McCain's "patriotism, not profit" rhetoric, nor do I particularly care to.
__________________________We are the environment. There is no distinction. What we do to the earth we do to ourselves. —David Suzuki
though I also McCain's comments
to be far worse, they are two sides of the same general coin.