How Government Destroys Moral Character
by
Robert Higgs
by Robert Higgs
DIGG THIS
"Thou shalt
not steal" is a rule as old as human society itself. It must have
been, else no complex human society would have proved viable.
We are
all taught very early to respect what belongs to others: "Don't
take your sister's toy away from her," your mother admonished, punishing
you if you persisted in your toddler's larceny. By the time you
were three years old, you understood the difference between mine
and thine. If you didn't take the lesson to heart and persisted
beyond your childhood years in treating everybody's property as
something for you to take, so long as you could get away with it,
then you were viewed as a sociopath, an enemy of decency and of
civilization itself.
Government
as we know it, however, rests entirely on this kind of sociopathy.
Rulers take what does not belong to them and dispose of it to suit
themselves.
When the
government has only recently placed itself in a position of domination
over a group of people, the people recognize full well that the
government's taking amounts to looting. They pony up only because
they are given the stark choice of "your money or your life," and
they want to go on living.
When a
government has been entrenched in a society for a long time, however,
its exactions become a "fact of life," a matter of "just how things
are," and people tend to lose their awareness that obtaining something
from the government amounts to receiving stolen property because
the government, having nothing legitimately its own, can give only
what it has unjustly wrenched from others. Rulers, abetted by their
kept intellectuals, go to great lengths to weave a cloak of legitimacy
to disguise their theft, because by doing so they ease the difficulties
of extracting wealth from the rightful owners.
In some
cases, especially in societies with governments that attempt to
justify their existence and their actions on "democratic" grounds,
many people may be taken in by this ideological sleight of hand.
They may actually believe that "we tax ourselves" so that the rulers
"we choose" can dispose of the loot in ways that "we voted for,"
failing to appreciate the gulf that separates this pristine ideological
vision from the sordid facts on the ground.
Once this
sort of thinking becomes pervasive, however, it serves to sanctify
specific forms of predation without any clear limit. People come
to believe, or at least they work hard at convincing themselves,
that anything the government might stand ready to give them, they
thereby have a perfect right to receive. At this point, all contact
with genuine morality has been lost, and because a society of sociopaths
cannot remain viable in the long haul, the nation that embarks on
this course has set sail toward its own ruin.
I thought
about this matter for the umpteenth time when I read an October
15, 2006, Washington Post story by Gilbert M. Gaul, Dan Morgan,
and Sarah Cohen, "Aid
Is a Bumper Crop for Farmers." The story concerns the widespread
practice of farmers' receiving, first, subsidies to purchase crop
insurance, then payments from that insurance when their crops fall
short, and then, on top of that payoff, additional government payments
denominated "disaster aid." Many farmers routinely collect large
amounts of money from the public treasury by means of this double-dipping – altogether
they've extracted almost $24 billion from taxpayers to fund crop-insurance
and disaster-aid programs since 2000.
The reporters
interviewed several farmers and others not only about the workings
of these programs but also about their propriety. Although none
of the recipients quoted in the article exactly gloated about his
serial commission of the offense, none chose simply to condemn it,
either. The prevailing attitude seems to be the one expressed by
farmer Charles Fisher, of Tulare County, California: "Whether it's
right or wrong, if they are offering it, you're foolish to turn
it down."
In that
single sentence, Fisher has encapsulated the rotten core of the
welfare state, and he has concisely expressed how such a state destroys
the people's moral character. The loot is there for the taking;
you're a fool not to take it, notwithstanding that your taking it
may be wrong. Financial gain trumps moral probity. Don't be a chump;
take the money.
I don't
know Charles Fisher, but if he is like a great many others who profit
by despoiling their fellow man, with government acting as the facilitator
of the crime, then I suspect that he is probably not the kind of
man who would pocket his neighbor's wallet if he saw it fall to
the ground unnoticed, and he is almost certainly not the kind of
man who would wait beside the road to carry out an armed robbery
of the first passer-by. Yet he will steal from countless strangers – in
effect, a little bit from everyone who pays federal taxes – "whether
it's right or wrong," simply to bulk up his income from farming.
(Needless to say, the so-called disaster payments rarely go to anyone
who has suffered a genuine disaster; like most of what the government
does, this program is for the most part a sham from the get-go.)
It would
be tempting to attribute this agri-plunder to some idiosyncratic
moral defect caused by the farmers' spending too much time in the
sun. We might recall, for example, H. L. Mencken's trenchant description
of the American farmer: "No more grasping, selfish and dishonest
mammal, indeed, is known to students of the Anthropoidea." Unfortunately,
however, the farmers are morally the same as countless others; they
are simply more politically successful than most of the others.
Sad to
say, for every specific form of farmer swag, the government must
open the door to a thousand other sorts of booty completely unrelated
to agriculture. The moral rot is comprehensive, not confined to
a few bad apples, and it defiles businessmen, doctors, lawyers,
clergymen, students, retirees, and countless others along with the
farmers. Virtually everybody has checked his morality along with
his pistol at the entrance to the legislature.
"The
state," Frédéric Bastiat told us long ago, "is the great fiction
by which everybody tries to live at the expense of everybody else."
If only the great man could see us now. Even he might be amazed,
and appalled, by the heights to which this futile quest has been
raised. In fact, this hoary fantasy arguably has become the central
truth about government in our time.
I
make these observations not because I hold myself to be an especially
upright man; far from it. Yet one need not have earned an A+ in
moral rectitude to understand that, however one may assess the morality
of modern government's hypertrophied taking from Peter and giving
to Paul, this activity bears a deadly fruit. Because it creates
such widespread and powerful incentives for people to engage in
government-facilitated predation, instead of production, it diverts
great energies, intelligence, and other resources to the pursuit
of privilege – to what the public choice analysts call "rent
seeking." As more and more such diversion occurs, the society falls
farther and farther below the full realization of its potential
to create genuine wealth.
Eventually,
everybody will be fighting to seize and consume the seed corn, and
none will remain for planting next year's crop. There's a natural,
unavoidable outcome of such action. Ask any farmer.
October
23, 2006
Robert
Higgs [send him mail] is
senior fellow in political economy at the Independent
Institute and editor of The
Independent Review. His most recent book is Depression,
War, and Cold War: Studies in Political Economy. He is also
the author of Resurgence
of the Warfare State: The Crisis Since 9/11 and Against
Leviathan.
Copyright
© 2006 LewRockwell.com
Robert
Higgs Archives
|