Alleged Morality of Collective Greed
Let’s start with a fundamental question: What is the LEGITIMATE purpose of government? It might be said that the legitimate purpose of government, particularly a Constitutional Republic, is to advance individual liberties and to protect personal freedoms.
How might government do that LEGITIMATELY? Government provides recourse and remedy to harms caused by one party against the person or property of another. The alleged harm should be more than theoretical and more than an offense against one’s delicate sensibilities. In order to be actionable by the state, the harm should be demonstrable, material, and proximate to the act to be remedied or proscribed.
To borrow from Thomas Jefferson:
The error seems not sufficiently eradicated, that the operations of the mind, as well as the acts of the body, are subjects to the coercion of the laws. But our rulers can have authority over such natural rights only as we have submitted to them. The rights of conscience we never submitted, we could not submit. We are answerable for them to our God. The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbour [sic] to say there are twenty gods, or no god. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.
What then is beyond the legitimate authority of the state?
As opposed to addressing affirmative harm, the state is not empowered to impose (by force … of law) any less than universal (moral) ideal — what Jefferson called “rights of conscience.” Government should not be looked to as the arbiter of morality. It is woefully ill-suited to the task.
Government cannot legitimately act as an institutional “Robin Hood” going about “Stealing from the [nebulously defined] Rich to Give to the [self-declared] Poor.” Wealth (Re)Distribution is beyond the legitimate authority of the state — absent compensation or reciprocal and commensurate benefit to the party, whose property is taken. Thievery is not made less damnable when undertaken for “good” causes (i.e. self-serving reasons). Persons are eager to argue that “the [self-serving] ends justify [ignoble] means.”
The state can only do as a collective act what an individual might be privileged to do on his own. That which would be a crime or sin, if undertaken by an individual, is not made less immoral when undertaken by a mob, up to an including a self-serving electoral majority. Should government engage in “Robbing Peter to Pay Paul,” it might enjoy the support of the Paul’s of the world, but the Peters of the world almost certainly would see the state action as abusive, oppressive, or tyrannical (and rightfully so). The actions represent Institutional Theft and Involuntary Servitude. One cannot enjoy the absolution, which might be offered even by hordes of coconspirators or a host of accomplices.
Collectivism and its denominational offshoots of Marxism, Socialism, and Communism are couched in terms of equality, fairness, and justice. These failed socio-economic philosophies embrace a perverse sense of “equality,” which is removed from equity. Proponents and adherents define the world in a false dichotomy. To them, the world is populated by “oppressors” and “victims.” They see a binary world in stark black-and-white: Good versus Evil.
Self-identifying “victims” seek recovery from those deemed “oppressors,” whom would-be beneficiaries view as unworthy or “excessively privileged.” Most often, the “remedy” to be provided is not in response to actions by the alleged oppressors themselves, but for actions perhaps undertaken by some forebear, predecessor, or demographically similar individual. The supposed “harm” likely was not imposed by the particular “oppressor” against the complaining “victim.” Instead, the victim “identifies” with some class of persons, who might have suffered harm in the past at the hands of other persons far-removed and/or only tangentially related to the current member of the offending “oppressor” class. Given the separation of time and space, it is impossible to determine the true relationships between any previous “bad acts” and the current condition or circumstances of the recovery-seeking “victim.”
What exactly might a son owe for the “sins of his father”? For how many generations past is a debt owed, and for how many future generations must repayment of the obligation extend?
Almost invariably, “ideal” moral behavior involves selflessness, altruism, and self-sacrifice. However, it is beyond the legitimate authority of the state to compel an individual to act contrary to his perceived self-interests. I would argue that it is unreasonable to expect one to act contrary to his own interests and that it is counterproductive (and certainly inefficient) to require him to do so (by force … of law).
Charity and altruism are admirable “moral” traits, and each should be encouraged and emulated. However, the nature, extent, and objects of one’s charity are matters between the individual, his conscience, and his God. Coerced charity and compelled altruism are beyond the legitimate authority of the state. Where compelled by force, the associated actions do not represent “moral” acts on the parts of either the giver or the taker.
It should not be presumed that the state, government, or collective knows what is “best” either for a particular individual or for the collective as a whole. There is nothing in the makeup of a numerical majority, which implies, much less assures that a proposed course of action is in the long-term best interests of the majority or of the collective (or any segment thereof). Moreover, that proposed course is almost certainly disadvantageous to a reluctant minority and deleterious to disfavored “others.”
It is impossible to undertake a meaningful or effective cost benefit analysis where the parties benefiting from a proposed policy, program, or promulgation are unrelated to or far-removed from other parties, who will be burdened with the costs or who must suffer commensurate sacrifices. Cost-benefit analyses are necessarily subjective and turn upon not only the specific goals and objectives of the individual but also his personal risk tolerance or aversion. Would-be beneficiaries are likely to deem any incremental benefit “worthwhile” under circumstances where “others” are to be saddled with the costs or sacrifices (whether entirely, principally, materially, or disproportionately so).
Institutions, including governments and religious bodies, are human creations; therefore, they tend to reflect the (im)moral motivations and inclinations of their constituent members. An institution has no moral compass of its own. Morality is an entirely individual trait. While it may be learned or taught, it cannot be “shared” or achieved vicariously; therefore, institutions have no separate or independent “morality.”
Like nearly all organisms, Human Beings are motivated by Self-Protection, Self-Advancement, and Self-Propagation. The inherent traits of our bestial species are not tempered by (involuntary) cooperative efforts. In fact, collective action often results in groupthink, and it tends to magnify and exacerbate our baser traits: selfishness, greed, envy, jealousy, revenge, covetousness, etc.
It is not enough to say that the proposed action favors some number more than the individual or group, which is targeted to pay the costs or to suffer the sacrifices. This is the foundation of Collectivism and Utilitarianism. Those who choose to advance the will of the collective, or some favored segment thereof — up to and including an electoral majority — act with a perverse moral certitude, which they mistakenly believe can be derived solely from their number.
The resulting institution or body politic quickly becomes motivated in a manner consistent with the inherent traits of its constituent members. The goals of the institution, party, organization, religion, or other group quickly become focused on: Self-Protection, Self-Advancement, and Self-Propagation. Can the “selfishness” of the institution or collective be fundamentally “better” or distinguished from the selfishness of the constituent members?
“Morality” under these circumstances becomes a quantitative rather than qualitative analysis. The will of the majority controls in a “democracy,” but how is this to be distinguished from Mob Rule? Do individuals or a numerical minority, which is comprised of disfavored “others,” possess no inherent rights or protected privileges, which might withstand claims and assaults by a self-serving collective?
Former President John Adams said in 1814:
When clear Prospects are opened before Vanity, Pride, Avarice or Ambition, for their easy gratification, it is hard for the most considerate Phylosophers [sic] and the most conscientious Moralists to resist the temptation. Individuals have conquered themselves, Nations and large Bodies of Men, never.
