Freedom And Benevolence Go Together (True Compassion Begins With Limited Government Alert)

Townhall.com ^ | 07/11/2007 | John Stossel

[goldstategop]

I interviewed Michael Moore recently for an upcoming "20/20" special on health care. It's refreshing to interview a leftist who proudly admits he's a leftist. He told me that government should provide "food care" as well as health care and that big government would work if only the right people were in charge.

Moore added, "I watch your show and I know where you are coming from. ... "

He knows I defend limited government, so he tried to explain why I was wrong. He began in a revealing way:

"I gotta believe that, even though I know you're very much for the individual determining his own destiny, you also have a heart."

Notice his smuggled premise in the words "even though." In Moore's mind, someone who favors individual freedom doesn't care about his fellow human beings. If I have a heart, it's in spite of my belief in freedom and autonomy for everyone.

Doesn't it stand to reason that someone who wants everyone to be free of tyranny does so partly because he cares about others? Wishing freedom to one's fellow human beings strikes me as a sign of benevolence. But Moore and the left don't see it that way.

Moore thinks respecting others' freedom means refusing to help the less fortunate. But where's the connection? All it means is that the libertarian refuses to sanction the use of physical force (which is what government is) to help others. Peaceful methods -- like voluntary charity -- are the only morally consistent methods. I give about a quarter of my income to charities because I've seen that private charity helps the needy far better than government does

Moore followed up with a religious lesson. "What the nuns told me is true: We will be judged by how we treat the least among us. And that in order to be accepted into heaven, we're gonna be asked a series of questions. When I was hungry, did you feed me? When I was homeless, did you give me shelter? And when I was sick, did you take care of me?"

I'm not a theologian, but I do know that when people are ordered by the government to be charitable, it's not virtuous; it's compelled. Why would anyone get into heaven because he pays taxes under threat of imprisonment? Moral action is freely chosen action.

If Moore's goal is to help the less fortunate, he should preach voluntary charity instead of government action.

Surprisingly, he did show an understanding of the importance of the libertarian philosophy to America. "John, your way of thinking actually was great for this country. I mean it; it helped to found the country. It helped build us into one of the greatest nations, perhaps the greatest nation, that the earth has ever seen. Limited government, pull yourself up by your bootstraps, every man for himself, forward movement, pioneer spirit. That's why a lot of people in these other countries really admire us, because there's this American get up and go."

I interrupt here to point out another smuggled premise. Did you catch that "every man for himself" line? America was never about every man for himself. A free society is about voluntary communities cooperating through the division of labor. Libertarianism is far from "every man for himself."

After acknowledging that limited government helped make America great, Moore went on to say, "But I don't think that what you believe is what's going to allow us to survive."

He means that if government does not assure people health care and food, our society will disintegrate.

But why would a philosophy that was good enough to build a successful society be unsuited to sustaining that society? Individual freedom, with minimal government, made it possible for masses of people to cooperate for mutual advantage. As a result, society could be rich and peaceful. As the great economist Ludwig von Mises wrote, "What makes friendly relations between human beings possible is the higher productivity of the division of labor. . . . A preeminent common interest, the preservation and further intensification of social cooperation, becomes paramount and obliterates all essential collisions."

Freedom and benevolence go hand in hand.

[goldstategop]

John Stossel reiterates a lesson of timeless wisdom: benevolence doesn't come by confiscating someone's income in order to help someone else. You can't help another person by depriving them of their freedom. True compassion begins with limited government bounded by its proper sphere of authority. Which allows individuals to work together to help each other. That's an old truism: no bureaucracy can show compassion. Only human beings can extend that to others in need of it.

"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus

[Tribune7]

ping

[Tribune7]

Stossel is far too kind to Moore.

[mazza]

Maybe Michael Moore can show compassion by not making movies that are packed with lies so he can make millions.

[Vn_survivor_67-68]

The “Great Society” pretty much countermanded traditional help to those who needed it given freely and in good spirit from neighbors, family, Churches, and other non-govt agencies.

Now with 40+ years of metastasis we have a genuine monster on our hands......almost limitless “entitlements”

[The Pack Knight]

But why would a philosophy that was good enough to build a successful society be unsuited to sustaining that society?

It's rather obvious to me why Moore believes this. Moore clearly takes the Marxist view of history as a series of class struggles, of which capitalism is the penultimate stage prior to the communist revolution. Marx held that capitalism was a necessary precursor to the achievement of true communism. This is why he predicted that his native Germany would be the first country to experience a communist revolution, as he, and many others, viewed it as the most advanced capitalist society of its time.

Any Marxist knowledgeable about his ideology must appreciate capitalism, as Moore seems to, as a step on the road to communism. If I had any doubt as to Moore's true beliefs, they've been put to rest now.

[The Ghost of FReepers Past]

I agree. Now if only libertarians would recognize that you have to draw some social boundaries if you want true God-given freedom. Banning things like bestiality, pedophilia, and homosexuality are no threat to real freedom. Those things violate the laws of nature and nature’s God.

[The Pack Knight]

Also, and incidentally, this is the ideological rationalization the Chinese Communist Party uses for its current program of economic liberalization, which it refers to as "Communism with Chinese Characteristics".

China, they say, never experienced a true capitalist period, jumping from the feudal-colonial period prior to Sun Yat-sen directly to nationalist socialism and attempted communism. This is, by the way, seen as an implicit excuse for the atrocities known as the Cultural Revolution and the Great Leap Forward. Thus, the Communist Party is attempting to engineer a pseudo-capitalist society to progress Chinese economic culture to a point where true communism can be achieved.

In truth, of course, beyond a few true believers, this is simply a rationalization for a cynical policy designed by the Party leadership to avoid the Soviet Party's fate, retain power, and generate profit for themselves and their cronies.

It's also important to note that Marx, like Moore, admired capitalism as superior to all previous socioeconomic systems. Don't be fooled when a "progressive" admits the strengths of capitalism. Their end goal has not changed.

[The Pack Knight]

Now if only libertarians would recognize that you have to draw some social boundaries if you want true God-given freedom. Banning things like bestiality, pedophilia, and homosexuality are no threat to real freedom. Those things violate the laws of nature and nature’s God.

As something of a libertarian myself, I agree to an extent, though I would say that much of public morality is best enforced through means other than the police power of the state. By my view, part of the very definition of a free society is that government is not sole institution responsible for the regulation all aspects of that society. The church and the family are best suited to the regulation of morality.

I also believe the reverse, that a society that lacks such institutions cannot endure as a free society, and will, in time, degenerate into chaos or tyranny. When traditional social institutions are weakened or eliminated, the state will inevitably move to fill the resulting vacuum.

[flat]

just another grape rollin down the pipe....

I would not be just a muffin’
My head all full of stuffin’
My heart all full of pain
I would dance and i’d be merry
Life would be a ding-a-derry
If I only had a brain

[The Ghost of FReepers Past]

Having some boundaries doesn’t mean government is completely enforcing morality. In fact it is impossible for gov’t to completely force morality because morality deals with the heart as well as actions. But gov’t can and should draw some boundaries. No one claims freedom is threatened by bestiality laws (yet). Few see nudity laws as a threat to real freedom. Few see age-of-consent laws as a threat to freedom. Few used to see sodomy laws as a threat to freedom. Without any boundaries we all become trapped by the whims of the most deviant among us.