The Curse of Misplaced Altruism
Most of us grow into adolescence believing that life should be fair, that others should enjoy the same advantages as we do, that privileged people should share their wealth with the poor or disadvantaged members of our society. The idea that altruism is an expression of human compassion is taught by loving families with Judeo-Christian values, and egalitarianism is a noble concept engendered by this upbringing. Unfortunately, life in the real world is not fair, individuals are not equal in their ability to create wealth and, like the greedy pigs in George Orwell’s Animal Farm, there are always those who will take advantage of another's earnings—particularly when “charity” is an entitlement by government legislation.
But because we are taught to believe that altruism is good—that everybody deserves a “fair share” of the nation’s wealth—we start out in the world as moral liberalists. The Marxist philosophy “From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs” is intellectually appealing as we enter the workforce, and socialism seems to have merit when we encounter the disparity between rich and poor, especially if we are naive enough to imagine Government as the benefactor of society. But human compassion is not the same as enforced sharing, and most of us soon learn that government handouts are a zero-sum game. Government produces nothing, earns nothing and has nothing that it doesn’t first appropriate from the producing public. No matter how much currency the U.S. Mint circulates, the source of all federal revenue is the wealth of its citizens.
Ayn Rand once said that there is no such thing as pure altruism, and we’re inclined to agree. There are of course exceptional individuals, like Mother Teresa, who devote their lives to the relief of destitute and suffering people, and philanthropists who contribute large portions of their wealth out of genuine compassion. But while compulsory taxation to fund government programs may accomplish similar goals, it is not altruism. Nor is human compassion the motive for government sponsored welfare; it’s the political strategy of public officials seeking the support of their constituents with costly schemes trumpeted as the solution to economic or societal problems. Unfortunately, this is too often lost on the voters, who tend to be swayed by the rhetoric of the politicians rather than the substance of their proposals.
Also lost on America’s citizens is the fact that by casting their votes for liberals, who appeal to the emotions instead of to reason, they are surrendering our heritage of freedom for the “paternalistic care” of a socialist state. Beware of politicians eager to spend your hard-earned money on grandiose projects in the name of charity. Charity begins at home, and your representatives in Washington were not elected to feed the public trough at your expense. The more you buy into this con game the less independence you have as a free citizen. Our Founding Fathers were so concerned about the potential abuse of federal power that they imposed severe constitutional restrictions on the province of government. Can we say that Americans today who look to government as their “great white benefactor” share this concern?
Yet, politicians are forever telling us that democracy can’t survive without a prosperous "middle class", implying that successful entrepreneurs amass wealth though inheritance, speculation, or some other “immoral” means. To correct this alleged injustice, the Washington bureaucrats have instituted “progressive” taxation, which penalizes the wealthy by taxing them at a much higher level than the average citizen. Americans have become inured to this disproportionate tax rate, as well as to the liberal view that millionaires “don’t deserve” to have more money than they need when ordinary citizens are poor by comparison. That this is a widely-held view was made evident recently in a statement by presidential aspirant Barack Obama. “I believe in capitalism and the free market, but when you've got CEOs that make more in 10 minutes than ordinary people make in an entire year, then something is wrong.”
The consequences of this ideology are numerous and damaging, not only to the economy of our nation but to the spirit of individualism and self-reliance underlying America's greatness.
First of all, handing 60% or more of one’s earnings over to the Government for redistribution as social programs he hasn’t approved reduces his incentive to produce (which is the driving force of capitalism) and it discourages private donations (once the major source of public charity). At the same time, such policies instill the false notion that the public is automatically entitled to unearned benefits, including cradle-to-grave health care, food and housing subsidies, college tuition, unemployment compensation, and child care. But perhaps the worst effect of economic socialism is that once these policies are implemented as the law of the land, it is next to impossible to rescind them. As a result, like most of Western Europe, the U.S. has become a debtor nation that is moving precipitously toward state socialism, while sustaining a dependent underclass that drains the nation’s economy.
The welfare state has also lessened the importance of fiscal responsibility in managing household expenditures. Unemployment insurance and welfare benefits reduce the necessity to save, allowing people to pay by the month for items they can ill afford, while incurring exorbitant interest rates charged by the credit card companies. This creates a change in the habits and outlook of people that sociologists call the “victimization of society”. Compounding this mindset is the Federal Reserve’s inflationary monetary policy and artificially reduced interest rates, all of which fosters the "I want it now" mentality that has resulted in America’s culture of debt.
According to official government figures, nearly half (45%) of the U.S. National Budget is spent on Medicare, Social Security, education, and social service give-away programs. The remaining half pays for the true business of Government, which is the defense and security of the nation. Operating expenses and interest on the national debt take about 40%, while foreign aid, transportation and infrastructure, community development and research grants account for another 10%. The entire national defense budget is less than 20% of the annual budget, and most of that would be spent to maintain a standing military, whether we are at war or at peace. (When liberals complain that the Iraq War is breaking us, they’re talking about a couple of hundred billion out of $3+ trillion, or only 8% of the total budget.)
Would a society survive with no welfare benefits? Well, it got along merrily without them prior to the Great Depression. Even as he introduced his New Deal to Americans in 1935, Franklin Roosevelt considered it a temporary measure and declared as much before Congress: "The lessons of history, confirmed by the evidence immediately before me, show conclusively that continued dependence upon relief induces a spiritual and moral disintegration fundamentally destructive to the national fiber. To dole out relief in this way is to administer a narcotic, a subtle destroyer of the human spirit."
In fact, when faced with the true cost of living, people realize the value of education and find lower-paying jobs (instead of joining youth gangs), which reduces inflation, crime, and the demand for immigrant labor. They also spend their earnings more frugally, learning to save for luxuries, vacation trips, and medical emergencies, instead of defaulting on credit. Unburdened by rising welfare costs, employers and employees alike tend to be more generous with their charity, eliminating the need for enforced giving.
But what about the disabled, infirm, or sick individuals in society, some of whom may have to forfeit their homes in order to pay their medical bills? Surely income-producing Americans have a moral obligation to provide for those citizens who are unable to provide for themselves. Or do they? Consider this reasoning by David Kelley, Founder and Senior Director of the Objectivist Center, who has studied this problem. In a treatise entitled Altruism and Capitalism, Kelley writes:
“This is a valid question to ask, as long as it is not the first question we ask about a social system. It is a legacy of altruism to think that the primary standard by which to evaluate a society is the way it treats its least productive members. ‘Blessed are the poor in spirit,’ said Jesus; ‘blessed are the meek.’ But there is no ground in justice for holding the poor or the meek in any special esteem, or regarding their needs as primary. If we had to choose between a collectivist society in which no one is free but no one is hungry, and an individualist society in which everyone is free but a few people starve, I would argue that the second society, the free one, is morally preferable. No one can claim a right to make others serve him involuntarily, even if his own life depends on it.
“But this is not the choice we face. In fact, the poor are much better off under capitalism than under socialism, or even the welfare state. As a matter of historical fact, the societies in which no one is free, like the former Soviet Union, are societies in which large numbers of people go hungry.”
Campaign promises are a rite of passage for presidential hopefuls. If you can promise enough people you’ll give them what they want, you just might have a chance at getting elected. But how much do these promises cost and how would we pay for them?
Amidst calls for an emergency economic stimulus package, the presidential candidates sought cash handouts. But the news media by and large ignore the policy proposals put out by the campaigns aimed at securing votes and spending taxpayer money. And when they are mentioned, few questions are asked about where the money will come from. For example, Senator Obama, interviewed last month on the CBS Early Morning Show, said: “Well, I think that it’s important for us to make sure that we get as much money as quickly as possible into the pockets of hard-working Americans, understanding that, you know, we have finite resources.”
Obama’s reference to “finite resources” is ironic, considering that he leads all presidential contenders in proposed new spending with a whopping $287 billion, according to a report from the National Taxpayers’ Union Foundation. Fellow Democrat Hillary Clinton trails Obama with $218 billion in proposed new spending, while Republican candidate John McCain has proposed a mere $7 billion. Only Clinton’s $110 billion-per-year health care plan received any real scrutiny over the last six months.
Still, voters are seduced by the political rhetoric that America is a rich and powerful nation with the means to care for all its citizens, if not also the poverty-stricken populations of the entire world. After all, isn’t this the moral thing to do? Magnanimous promises are easily made and warmly received by a public that overlooks the fact that the U.S. debt is projected at four times its national budget, and that the funding of humanitarian programs must come from its income producers. But we’re fooling ourselves if we think that electing a candidate whose idea of “change” is implementing universal healthcare and expanding an already bankrupt welfare system will not jeopardize America’s future.
Seymour Itzkoff is a prolific writer and a true renaissance man well-trained in music, education, and the philosophy of science. He also happens to be the politically incorrect professor at Smith College who believes that racial differences in intelligence exist and rejects the idea that all members of Western society have the capacity to maintain civilization. In his provocative book "Rebuilding Western Civilization Beyond the Twenty-First Century Collapse," published in 2003, the author makes the following somber prediction: “A mass of people—about 10 billion by mid-century, mostly non-Whites—will demand ‘the good life'. But it will be ecologically impossible to supply this to them. Chaos will rule and those then alive will curse the misplaced altruism of today's White liberals.”
We can only hope that the next American President, whatever his/her race or party affiliation, will have the perspicacity to recognize this curse upon our nation and the moral courage to institute the drastic changes necessary to avert Professor Itzkoff’s prophecy.
--HP