Wrong in the Eye of the Beholder
A friend asked, “Why do some politicians choose to do ‘wrong’ after being elected to office?” There is a threshold issue: “Wrong” as to whom … themselves, constituents, or the collective?
Should one be expected to act inconsistent with his or her own interests? Once elected, does one owe fealty and allegiance to a finite constituency or to the collective as a whole? When there are inevitable conflicts of interests, how should those be resolved?
If we expect persons to be regularly selfless and routinely altruistic, we expect them to act in a manner contrary to human nature. If we expect government to be forever benevolent and always benign, we ignore the intrinsic traits of that institution.
Morality is a trait limited to individuals. There is no collective morality. No people is inherently better than another, and institutions are incapable of having a moral compass. Instead, institutions reflect the (im)moral inclinations of their constituent members. Since government has no inherent morality, it is incapable of serving as moral arbiter, and given that morality is an individual trait, persons should not be privileged to use government so as to impose their sense of morality (which is quite often self-serving) upon others.
If the standard of propriety is based upon whether I would personally perform a particular act or undertake a proposed behavior, I may deem the act wrong or the behavior improper, and in doing so, I may choose not to engage in the act or behavior. However, it is more difficult to define a universal morality or to impose (by force … of law) one’s own sense of morality upon all other persons and peoples.
When considering the “wrongness” of the acts of politicians and other persons in positions of authority, we must acknowledge that we are not in their positions, under those specific circumstances, and at a particular point in time. We may have made other choices (particularly with the benefit of hindsight), but that does not make their decisions necessarily wrong or immoral.
If we consider “wrongness” with reference to the actions of others similarly situated and consider whether the contested actions are readily distinguishable from the equal or greater wrongs that are regularly and routinely exhibited by other persons, who actively engage in selective self-righteous indignation, an objective morality is much harder to divine and the propriety is much more difficult to distinguish.
I do not expect persons to be selfless and altruistic. Such acts are entirely inconsistent with inherent (and nearly immutable) human nature. Morality on that level is limited to saints. While such behavior may represent a desirable ideal, we should not expect the whole of humanity (or even a significant segment thereof) to embrace that level of morality or martyrdom en masse.
I expect persons to act consistent with what they believe to be their individual self-interest, but such persons should not be privileged to require (by force … of law) that I act contrary to my self interests or that I act to advance their self-interest to the detriment of my own. Therefore, persons should be punished for affirmative harms imposed upon others and for forced takings. The legitimate power and functions of government extend to remedying such wrongs.
Nevertheless, an action (individual or collective) is not “wrong” merely because it does not advance one’s personal interests. The proposed action likely is not “wrong” (or disadvantageous) as to all persons. What is good for one is almost inevitably “bad” for others. Life is seldom a win-win proposition, and government almost never is.
Where government forces parties to engage in economic transactions and interpersonal relationships, in which those parties would not voluntarily participate, the practical effect is institutional theft and involuntary servitude. In such actions, government is always “wrong.”
Government is fundamentally an instrument of brute force whereby an electoral majority or controlling voting bloc seeks to impose its self-serving will upon a disfavored minority. There is seldom anything more moral or noble in the machinations of the state.
Most persons want government to do more for them personally and less for everyone else. Political minions either promise everything to everyone until it overwhelms the system (e.g. a National Debt in excess of $30 Trillion) or the back-and-forth retaliation, retribution, and revenge cause increasingly violent swings of the political pendulum until the mechanism of government breaks and the state comes crashing down.
Persons should not expect or anticipate that government will “do” for them. The best that can be hoped for is that government does no harm. Therefore, “government does best that does least.”
