Paternalism and the Infantile Society

By Simon Grey, on May 14th, 2012

The continued expansion of the welfare state is a grave concern to me, now more than ever. I fear the expansion of the welfare state because I believe it infantilizes society. By this I mean that citizens of the United States become more dependent on the federal government’s largesse, and in so doing become less inclined to behave responsibly, secure in the knowledge that if all else fails, the government will be there to save.

Now freed from the main concerns of life, such as finding food and shelter, and now freed from having to constantly be working to afford these things, people will be increasingly able to enwrap themselves in their own little petty dramas. In a panem et circenses world, this will mostly take the form of eating junk food and watching mindless entertainment, which is what a large number of US citizens already do anyway. The more serious minded might make an effort to watch and read the news, but the news is still entertainment, although more deceitfully packaged. Ultimately, the infantile society is one where innovative risk is discouraged, moral risk is subsidized, and the pursuit of leisure and entertainment becomes the point of life.

This is not healthy, and is indeed a form of arrested development, for people will not be expected to worry too much, nor will people be expected to work hard, at least in the sense of doing labor. The emphasis will be on being compliant citizens and, above all else, being safe. This emphasis on safety is the most infantilizing action of all. Consider, for example, how risk-averse boys are treated by their more adventurous peers: they are often called babies. And the more risk-averse men are often called boys by their peers. The idea is that there is some shame to be found in prizing safety above all else, and that aversion to risk is a hallmark of youth, wherein one lacks the resources to deal with the risks that adults often face.

What’s interesting about this infantilization of society, though, is how it is self-perpetuating. The childish mindset belied by the focus on safety—which is very much in full effect in the United States, as evidenced by the DHS, among a variety of other safety-oriented federal agencies—is often accompanied by another childish mindset: tattling.

And here is how it all works: citizens are treated like children, and they eventually come to act like children: dependent ignorant, unthinking, and hedonistic. They are unduly focused on safety, being generally unable to provide it for themselves, and they are told that they can only be safe if they obey The Rules. Nothing enrages the infantile mind more than disobedience to the rules; it is as if the fundamental justice of the universe has been called into question if anyone ever disobeys The Rules. They are in place to keep us safe, after all, and therefore everyone must comply with them.

Therefore, when the infantile-minded of society observe someone disobeying the rules, like running a red light or holding gold when it’s forbidden to do so, the infantile-minded will have no qualms about tattling to the paternalistic government because they perceive themselves to be acting in the best interest of society. In reality, the tattlers are nothing more petty tyrants who wish to exercise power over others, in the guise of acting in everyone’s best interests.

Nonetheless, that is how the paternalistic society works and self-perpetuates. Citizens are treated as children, then act as children, and eventually take on the vices of children. And then society collapses on itself.



Leave a comment   Economic Theory   , , , , ,  

How Far Can Ayn Rand’s Ethical Egoism be Defended?

By Winton Bates, on February 10th, 2010

In a post a few months ago I discussed whether Ayn Rand actually viewed selfishness as a virtue. I suggested that in arguing that selfishness is a virtue she was adopting a peculiar view of selfishness because the heroes of her novels did not seem to me to be particularly selfish.

The point was explained more clearly by Neera Badhwar in the recent discussion of Ayn Rand’s ethical thought on Cato Unbound (What’s living and dead in Ayn Rand’s moral and political thought):
‘Like Aristotle, Rand holds that the virtues, including justice, are not only means to the agent’s happiness, but also an essential, constitutive part of it. Julia Annas calls Aristotle’s ethical egoism a “formal” egoism because it essentially incorporates regard for others. Rand’s eudaimonistic egoism, likewise, is a formal egoism’.

Some other participants in the Cato discussion were not so sure that Rand viewed the virtues as an essential, constitutive part of the agent’s happiness.

Roderick Long noted that Rand appears to waver between treating virtue as a constitutive part of the agent’s own interest and as an instrumental strategy for attaining that interest: ‘The constitutive approach predominates in her novels: the chief reason that Rand’s fictional protagonists … do not cheat their customers, for example, is pretty clearly that they would regard such parasitism on the productive efforts of others as directly inconsistent with the nobility and independence of spirit that they cherish for themselves, and not because they’re hoping that a policy of honesty will maximize their chances of longevity’. He suggests, however, that in her philosophical writings that ‘her emphasis began to shift, though never unequivocally, to the instrumental reading’.

Other participants suggested that Michael Huemer had an instrumental reading of Rand’s views in mind in his initial contribution to the discussion. Huemer suggested that: ‘ethical egoism posits that the only thing that ought to matter intrinsically to me is my own welfare—for me, my own welfare or happiness is the only end in itself. It follows from this that I ought not to regard other individuals as ends in themselves; rather, I should see them only as means to my happiness—just as I see everything else in the world. This is a very simple and straightforward implication of the theory. I cannot hold my own well-being as the only end in itself, and simultaneously say that I recognize other persons as ends in themselves too’.

In defending the constitutive interpretation, Neera Badhwar made the point that ‘Rand shows her philosophy in the worlds she creates in her novels better than in her non-fictional statements’. I think this is a good point. Rand’s ongoing influence stems mainly from her novels rather than her philosophical writings.

Much of the Cato discussion centred on the question of whether what is good and right for one individual can ever conflict with what is objectively good and right for another individual. Douglas Rasmussen expressed his view that ‘if human flourishing is individualized and agent-relative … then this would mean that human flourishing is different for each person, and thus it is possible for there to be conflict—that is, there is no way that one can in principle rule this out’.

Roderick Long was closest to endorsing Rand’s view that there can be no conflicts between two people’s rational interests: ‘One’s individual nature can make the requirements of human nature more specific, but it cannot contradict them. …So the fact that the human good is individualized differently for different people doesn’t entail that one person’s good can conflict fundamentally with another’s.’

Neera Badhwar responded by suggesting that such fundamental conflicts, including situations where there are two equally good candidates for one job, occur frequently.

I think it is appropriate to give Douglas Rasmussen the final word in this highly selective summary of a complex discussion:

‘I do think that it is possible for people to cooperate peaceably. This is why basic negative rights are so important, but the issue here between me and Rand seems to be whether the existence of such rights depends on the assumption that what is objectively good for one individual cannot ever conflict with what is objectively good for another. I don’t assume this. She did.’



4 comments   Opinion   , , , ,  

The Veneer Of Order

By Trace Mayer, on January 20th, 2010

Over the past few days I have received insane Facebook status updates from a close friend.  The stream that followed has left me with profound respect and caused me to reflect on some lessons that can be learned.

14 January 2009 9:54 a.m. I am packing for Haiti… so many things bring to help. How am i going to carry all this?

15 January 2009 12:26 p.m. I am STUCK in Dominican Republic trying to arrange a chartered flight to get us and the 36 rescue workers 4 dogs and 7,300 pounds of rescue gear to get them on the ground in Haiti. it is FAR too dangerous to cross on land WE NEED A FLIGHT. can you help in ANY way?

17 January 2009 7:33 p.m. I was put in that situation NO ONE EVER wants to be put in tonight… I got to ground zero to a hospital in the capital of Haiti, we were told needed us. The doctor pulled us aside and to a woman that had a gash in her calf big enough to put a football in, he siad, what do you do? I quickly replied, a tourniquet 1.5 inches above the knee… he said perfect DO IT.

WOW

There are two options:  coercion and force or freedom of choice.  My friend exercised his freedom of choice to spend his own money, which he has very successfully and morally earned through many entrepreneurial ventures, to board a plane and fly straight into a third world hell hole where it is estimated that hundreds of thousands of people have died in the recent earthquakes.  Despite the economic conditions an estimated $10M of donations has been raised for Haiti relief efforts.

Fortunately my friend, like so many other good people, still has enough resources to perform this service while Obama struts around like a hero for using extorted tax revenue for aid.

THE DRIVE TO SURVIVE

Life has an unquenchable drive to survive even at the expense of other life.  It is the ability to reason that largely separates humans from the rest of the animal kingdom.  But that is not to say that humans, both in rags and pinstripe Wall Street suits, do not act like animalistic barbarians trampling other’s freedom of choice.

When times get tough it is the rare human that showcases the supernal spark by willingly sharing the last breadcrumb or boarding a plane and descending into chaos with the intent to relieve suffering.

THIN VENEER OF ORDER

Sure, there is the bad man who may steal or even rob a piece of bread.  But we can have at least some sympathy for this behavior when considering the totality of the circumstances.  And the bad man also realizes his badness.

But the truly evil man is the one that struts around thinking he is doing good by robbing the piece of bread from another to then allocate how he sees fit.

America, like Haiti and the rest of the world, has a tiny fraction of the population which produces the food.  When there are disruptions, whether it is a hurricane in New Orleans or an earthquake in Haiti, the thin veneer of order tends to evaporate for many reasons.

SURVIVALISM IN THE SUBURBS

The Telegraph reports that Royal Caribbean International, who has pledged $1m to relief efforts, maintained the schedule to send its cruise ship to dock at a private beach a mere 60 miles from the devastated Port-au-Prince.  Of course, some keyboard rescue workers think providing revenue for the locals in that city is insensitive and the trip to Labadee should have been canceled.  But that is about the worst thing that could be done.  But how far away from a disaster zone should activities be canceled?  60 miles?  600 miles?

Sure, dialing an 800 number or texting a $5 donation is commendable.  But to make a real lasting impact the issue is the need to be prepared locally with medical supplies, food, power, etc.

I compiled a collection of suggestions in Survivalism In The Suburbs for how an individual can be better prepared for possible disruptions and the dissolving of social order.  Being prepared bestows a position of power and the ability to act with a higher standard rather than resort to baser animalistic impulses.

Additionally, I recommend people have a ‘last plane account’ which answers the questions:  if you have to take the last plane out of your city then (1) where do you go and (2) how do you maintain your standard of living?  I have used my own preparations several times over the years.

THE REAL CAUSE

Since the earthquake is just the most immediate action in the causation chain it is credited with killing the tens or even hundreds of thousands of people.  But how many deaths could have been prevented but for do-gooder politicians voting to send foreign aid and market restrictions that destroy wealth and thus prevent the ability of the Haitian population to make adequate preparations?  But for these giant wealth destroying machines how many more resources would be available to respond to and relieve suffering?

Like the socialized roads in America that result in about 40,000 deaths per year; in this instance the blame is not being squarely placed on the criminal gangs costumed in government regalia who have made serious decisions months or years before that are both actual and proximate causes in the deaths of hundreds of thousands.

It is so much easier to lay the blame on an unaccountable ‘act of God’ in an attempt to absolve the truly culpable parties.  Ideas have consequences and bad ideas have bad consequences which are resulting in hundreds of thousands of dead Haitians.

GOOD IDEAS

I am grateful for those who have donated to help relieve the suffering in Haiti.  I admire my friend who has traveled into chaos to look his benefactors in the eye.  Hopefully he returns safely.

The Haiti earthquake of 2010 can be a teaching experience for us all.  When considering physical preparation I think the best insurance is a three month supply of food and a 72 hour kit.  We can inventory and bring current our supplies.

But to strike at the root we need to help others understand the source of humans rights and the proper role of government.

Since individuals are “endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights” and because individuals form governments to protect property, life, and liberty, it follows that individuals are superior to their creation of government.  Individuals can grant to their creation at most only those rights they possess.

No individual possesses the right to unjustifiably infringe on another individual’s autonomy, and because individuals create governments, no government can possibly be justified in the possession of such a right.  Neither does an individual possess the moral authority to use coercion and force to compel another to perform charity against their will.  Therefore, legitimate government must act within the constraints of the Non-Aggression Axiom.  Otherwise those actors are merely criminal gangs costumed in government regalia.

Government represents one of the most powerful forces on earth.  Therefore, an individual’s political beliefs reveal with perfect clarity his or her moral character.

Over just the past five years I have been in hurricanes and earthquakes in America, a massive civil disturbance in Argentina and several other life threatening situations. It can happen here and there.  Once we understand the philosophy then we can live in harmony with it and attempt to persuade others to do likewise.

You can not feed someone else when your own stomach is empty so why not at least get a 72 hour kit.  You can also persuade others through your example.  What better way than your local food bank or getting on a plane like my good friend?



Leave a comment   Opinion   , , , ,