Thinking Right or Wrong, Not Left or Right: Making the Moral Case for Separating State and the Economy (Part 2)
Exploring the moral basis for the contradictory views of religious and economic freedom.
In part 1, I contrasted the differing views of the separation of state and church, where most Americans subscribe to a “laissez-faire” approach, with the separation of state and the economy, where they don’t. In part 2, I’m exploring some of the causes for this inconsistency.
+++
“When I say “capitalism”, I mean a full, pure, uncontrolled, unregulated laissez-faire capitalism—with a separation of state and economics, in the same way and for the same reasons as the separation of state and church.
(Ayn Rand, from the essay “What Is Capitalism?” in “Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal”)
What explains the contradictory views of religious freedom and economic freedom? Why do most of us consider it immoral for the government to meddle in issues related to our faith, but moral when the government meddles in just about every aspect of our economic life—healthcare, education, agriculture and food, telecommunications, banking and finance, retirement, et cetera?
Paradoxically, in most cases the answer is: a faith-based moral code. Almost without exception, both Americans of traditional, alternative and no faith exercise their selfishly guarded religious freedom to practice a morality that teaches sacrifice and selflessness as the moral ideal. For example, most Christians consider Jesus Christ sacrificing his life so that our sins may be forgiven the symbol of moral perfection. And most other major faiths consider selflessness in one form or another a moral virtue, as do secular altruist moral codes.
Morality has great power over us and for good reasons. Having a moral code to guide us is necessary for humans to flourish. Most of us have a desire to be good by some moral standard. We go through life with a certain level of moral ambition, if you like. We look for moral principles to live by, and we try to act according to those principles. As life draws to an end, we want to be able to look back and conclude that we lived a good life, which for most of us implies that we lived a moral life.
If the moral code we subscribe to is teaching us that selflessness and sacrifice are moral ideals, then that’s what we’ll try to practice. The problem is that practicing a morality of selflessness and sacrifice disarms us against those who want to use government force to institutionalize such practices throughout society. After all, they say, if we subscribe to a morality of selflessness and sacrifice, what better way than for the government to help us fulfill our moral ambitions? A vote for universal healthcare, for food stamps, for social security, for government education, for tariffs and subsidies, for more regulation, is a vote to help us live up to our moral ideals. A tax here, a regulation there, in the name of helping the needy, the less fortunate, the elderly, our children. Why shouldn’t we be willing to sacrifice some of our individual rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness? It may hurt our pocketbook, it may prevent us from fulfilling our own, selfish ambitions, but who can object if selflessness and sacrifice is the moral standard?
Contrast this with the Think Right or Wrong, Not Left or Right worldview which subscribes to a different code of morality: a morality of rational self-interest. Such a moral code holds that you have the same right to selfishly guard your economic freedom as you have your religious freedom. Only when you’re able to proclaim with moral certainty that the fruits of your labors are yours to keep and dispose of will you be able to defend your individual rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness as it pertains to your economy and your property. Only when you become as rightfully self-interested in championing your economic freedom as you are in championing your religious freedom will you be able to effectively oppose the immoral intrusion of government force into every aspect of your economic life. Hence the Think Right or Wrong, Not Left or Right mission championing capitalism—with total separation of state and the economy—as the only moral social system. The goal? That those who walk in economic moral darkness shall see a great light.
Mission impossible? In today’s moral and political climate politically dominated by red and blue tribalism it may appear a Quixotic pursuit. But the fact is that we have no other option if we want to preserve and expand our freedoms. Deliverance from the evils of government intrusion in our economic lives requires serious re-thinking of some of our most deeply held beliefs. The American people have been up to the task in the past. Despite the current trends, I am still hopeful they will be again.
(Part 3)
Anders:
As you likely understand, I am in total agreement!
In my upcoming book, I imagine myself in attendance at the conclusion of the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia, on September 17, 1787. I imagine myself as a thoughtful and "arrogant" fifty-seventh delegate - together with the fifty-six invited from the colonies.
Delegates who perhaps represent the greatest gathering of enlightened political thinkers of the time. I would argue at ANY time, in history. I have been inspired by their intelligence, moved by their intellect, and impressed - as they resolve issue upon issue impeding their progress toward their goal, by their combination of resigned and determined resolution.
There is, however, trouble in paradise. Not just the "trouble" with the issue of slavery, but one of even far greater consequence.
As he is recognized and rises to speak, his manner is somber and reserved – unusual for such an arrogance.
“Gentlemen: (There were no women present. Additionally, it would be quite a while before the ideals expressed in Jefferson’s profound Declaration would politically include women, black Africans, and Native Americans). The political institutions you envision, and have remarkably fashioned, do not have the moral foundation to secure the ideals stated in Mr. Jefferson’s unprecedented Declaration.
Specifically, one cannot argue on behalf of a human being’s political right to their own life, creating political institutions designed, debated, and adopted to then secure same, while at the same time accepting of a morality that a human being has a universal higher moral obligation. One that demands they live their life in service to some other purpose not of their choosing - either to other human beings, or an imagined greater entity or abstraction.
Those for whom you wish to politically-secure such a right, and from whom its recognition and respect must be understood and defended, will disagree with it, while they maintain that each among us has a “higher” moral duty to fulfill, one that makes the “right” to one’s own life, subordinate.
This tirelessly repeated moral prescription has destroyed whatever expression of an individual’s right to their own life (individual rights!) that may have been temporarily recognized in past societies, without exception. In the absence of a proper moral defense of them, this body’s unprecedented attempt at their political consecration shall become doomed as well.” – David Walden, August 12, 2005.
This is well and clearly stated: "The problem is that practicing a morality of selflessness and sacrifice disarms us against those who want to use government force to institutionalize such practices throughout society. After all, they say, if we subscribe to a morality of selflessness and sacrifice, what better way than for the government to help us fulfill our moral ambitions? A vote for universal healthcare, for food stamps, for social security, for government education, for tariffs and subsidies, for more regulation, is a vote to help us live up to our moral ideals...."
Nice work, Anders.