Category Archives: Morality

Morality and Illiberal Democracy By Tibor Machan

Barely A Blog, Morality

Tibor R. Machan, a regular contributor to Barely a Blog, is RC Hoiles Professor of business ethics & free enterprise at the Argyros School of Business & Economics, Chapman University, and a research fellow at the Hoover Institution, Stanford University.

MORALITY AND ILLIBERAL DEMOCRACY

By Tibor R. Machan

When the term “democracy” is used loosely, as in geopolitical discussions, it is used to mean that kind of political system in which everyone can have input into decisions bearing on public affairs. What is left mostly unspecified is just what counts as public affairs.

In a totalitarian state everything counts as the public realm; in a free country there are strict limits. In most existing countries today it’s somewhere in between. Democratic decisions impact taxation, government regulation, international diplomacy, education and health policies, and whatever else the government is involved in. The idea of limiting the public realm has gone out of fashion and was never taken very seriously except by a few political theorists and even fewer politicians, let alone bureaucrats. Once in power, there is a very strong temptation to expand the reach of the power one has. People who get chummy with government tend not to like it when its powers are limited —they have agendas and such limitations could impede their efforts to carry them out.

And in democracies the politicians’ constituency often urges government to expand its power so as to provide the voters with various benefits —ones, however, that have to be obtained by confiscating other people’s resources, including their labor.

In short, democracy often tilts quite powerfully against morality. No, there is no consensus about what is the right morality for people to practice, but there are some general principles or virtues most of us support at least in the realm of private conduct. Few people champion robbing Peter so as to “help” out Paul —we usually believe that Peter needs to agree to the idea. Instead of confiscation and stealing, most would tend to endorse generosity and charity. The same is true for honesty —on the whole, other than in exceptional cases, most of us value straight talk and have contempt for liars. I think the same can be said about respecting the liberty of others —we hire them if we would like them to work for us and do not coerce them into doing such work. Millions of others do valuable labor but we tend to consider it wrong to conscript this labor for our benefit.

So while there are disagreements about various moral matters —abortion, assisted suicide, child-rearing and so forth —there is a very large sphere of agreement, too. Yet when we look at the way democracy functions in most countries, it is in these areas of basic moral agreement where a serious discord is evident. Democratic decisions do, in fact, lead to robbing Peter so as to “help” out Paul. (I use the scare quotes because one can hardly call forcing people to part with their resources bone fide help given to anyone! This is why government cannot be compassionate!) Democratic decision making routinely endorses conscripting people’s labor, limiting their liberty, making them act as they do not choose to even when they are not violating anyone’s rights, and so forth.

In short, illiberal, unlimited democracy is routinely in conflict with standards of morality or ethics.

In practical terms this means that most countries are replete with public policies that are out-and-out immoral … yet widely accepted, too. Is it so curious, then, that young people in these countries get mixed messages about how they ought to conduct themselves? If it is OK for politicians and bureaucrats to make promises they not only will not but cannot keep, who is to communicate any objections to this in how young people comport themselves toward each other and their elders? Why should they not lie when governments do so all the time? If it is OK for democratically established public policies to violate strictures of ethics —let’s take Peter’s wealth (he has too much, he doesn’t need it so much, she is using it badly, etc., and so forth) and transfer it to Paul (but take a good chunk on the way to pay for our diligent transfer efforts) —why should young people abstain from stealing? What if, especially, they get peer approval —isn’t that like democracy, after all?

Throughout the schools in most Western countries democracy is hailed day in and day out but at the same time some of the worst kind of human conduct is carried out in democracy’s name, with democratic sanction. Does this not tell those students that, well, when there is wide consensus for breaching morality and ethics, it’s just fine to perpetrate the breach? So go ahead and cheat, copy other’s tests, plagiarize, bully some kids, steal from a few, and so on. I would think it does.

It seems clear to me that if one expects the younger generation to grow up to be decent people, illiberal democracy isn’t helping to facilitate this.

Updated Again: The ‘Idiocracy’ Has Spoken! (About My Hornbeck Pieces)

Media, Morality, Psychology & Pop-Psychology, The Zeitgeist

Some of the deficient comments that have poured into the blog in response to “Hornbeck & The Tyranny Of Low Expectations,” and “In Defense of Bill O’Reilly,” have, naturally, not been posted because their deficient originators have audaciously distorted not only my views, but the actual text of my columns on the topic. That’s a low that’s not tolerated on this blog. Disagreement is fine; any distortion of the opinion discussed is out of the question.

Others complained bitterly about the fact that this writer does work from first principles —always has, always will. Principled positions demand a theory of human nature.

And what would the “Idiocracy” be without those who’re filled with venom on encountering an English word they don’t know. (“What’s a dictionary, Butthead? Hehehehehe“) Dogmatic plebeians are always poised, pitchforks hoisted, to enforce the lowest common denominator. Really, save yourself the heartache; if you hate people who value first principles and utilize the English language to the best of their abilities —there are an infinite number of writers who don’t violate the tyranny of no expectation. Oh what would the Founders have said if they read my mail box! (Jefferson actually answered all his mail in beautiful longhand and in an English to which we can only aspire. And, woe is me, he was a First Principles kind of guy).

When interviewed for a Canadian men’s magazine, I said this: “When people are rational, they observe reality as it is, and are more likely to be concerned with justice and avoid misplacing compassion.” Indeed, rationality and reality are the enemies of the petty minded and the evil. Thus, because I have fought the pseudo-science of pop-psychology and believe that guarding liberty rests on upholding personal responsibility and combating the “diseasing of society” by the professional class and their patsies —I am viewed as heartless.

Speak to me about compassion when you’ve volunteered your time as an AIDS and HIV counselor in South-Africa, and held in your arms the newly diagnosed —just one of the things this heartless rationalist has done. But then the slobs that have written in have probably never been out of this country; much less acquainted themselves with the world out there —and some genuine sorrow.

And to the same weak-minded slobs I say, “Don’t dare to impugn my daughter’s kind, dear heart.” Like her mother, she doesn’t misplace compassion. In South-Africa, when she was a very small personage —five or six —her cruel and exacting mom would get her to make sandwiches each and every time we went out together on errands. She was to give the food to the street kids. In SA, they beg on every corner and at every traffic light. Yes, she was taught how to develop authentic empathy.

My greatest achievement is my daughter. Moreover, I consider being loved by my child both an honor and an accomplishment. Children should show their parents respect, but they are not obliged to love them, especially if parents have not inspired love. When you have earned the love of your child —well, then, you have surely ARRIVED.

I’m sure those of the “Idiocracy” who’ve written in response to my Hornbeck articles inspire great love— in their slobbering pets.

Updated: Michele Lowe (see Comments Section) was the only left-liberal who attempted some civility. (Yes, this is as good as it got. But, swearing like sailors, and leveling ad hominem, never argument —they all demanded to be published on my private property: this blog). She points out that my opinion is a minority opinion. Again, the sum total of my non-deterministic world view —to which Viktor E. Frankl, the existential philosopher and distinguished psychiatrist, would certainly not object —is an infuriatingly simple contention: Hornbeck, who was given ample freedom, was capable of contacting his parents, or muttering under his breath to the cops, who picked him up on numerous occasions, and with whom he even filed a complaint: “I’m that kidnapped kid.”

In any event, having a minority, or unpopular, opinion in no way invalidates it. I (and other libertarians) was in a minority when, starting in September 2002, I argued against a war many of the truly heartless lauded. It turned out my minority opinion was correct.

Incidentally, speaking of misplaced compassion: where is the sorrow for hundreds of thousands of Iraqis we’ve killed and caused to be killed and displaced? I bet none of the low-brow, frothing-at-the-mouth types writing in has shed tears for those who really need them: Iraqis. But poised they are to pounce like rabid hyenas if one so much as suggests that their prototypical indulged youths can phone home if abducted, and given considerable freedom (and a cellphone) to dick about at malls, on the Internet, at sleepovers, and so on.

Updated Again: I wish to repeat one of the comments with which I interspersed a letter hereunder. The histrionic hisser mistook me for someone who has “traveled to the ends of the earth to give aid,” and declared that “If you have never experienced abuse or control in a relationship, you truly do not have the perspective to make such judgemental comments on this subject.”
Such statements leave me marveling at the intellectual sloth and cultural insularity evinced by so many Americans on this matter, and in general. First, information about me is available on this site. I was born in South Africa; I didn’t travel there to give aid. If it were me writing to someone, I’d actually bother to make sure I was correct about their biographical details, rather than ass-uming a whole lot of stuff about her or him.
Next, how insular and stupid must one be to believe that a woman with an adult daughter, who is from South Africa, and who grew up in Israel, having lived through a few wars in that country, has never known trauma and tragedy? Only in America! My background alone and life experience make it highly probable that I’ve experienced far more than have the pop-psych fetishists writing in to fulminate. See, the thing is, I don’t go telling everyone about my past traumas. And if I were so tacky, I would never demand special breaks for them. Try it: such conduct was once known as dignity and grit and formed the foundation of this now-crumbling soft society. As my mother would say, when pushed to “share” things she was too much of a lady to share: “I have my pride and my privacy, respect those, please.”

Updated Again: The 'Idiocracy' Has Spoken! (About My Hornbeck Pieces)

Media, Morality, Psychology & Pop-Psychology, The Zeitgeist

Some of the deficient comments that have poured into the blog in response to “Hornbeck & The Tyranny Of Low Expectations,” and “In Defense of Bill O’Reilly,” have, naturally, not been posted because their deficient originators have audaciously distorted not only my views, but the actual text of my columns on the topic. That’s a low that’s not tolerated on this blog. Disagreement is fine; any distortion of the opinion discussed is out of the question.

Others complained bitterly about the fact that this writer does work from first principles —always has, always will. Principled positions demand a theory of human nature.

And what would the “Idiocracy” be without those who’re filled with venom on encountering an English word they don’t know. (“What’s a dictionary, Butthead? Hehehehehe“) Dogmatic plebeians are always poised, pitchforks hoisted, to enforce the lowest common denominator. Really, save yourself the heartache; if you hate people who value first principles and utilize the English language to the best of their abilities —there are an infinite number of writers who don’t violate the tyranny of no expectation. Oh what would the Founders have said if they read my mail box! (Jefferson actually answered all his mail in beautiful longhand and in an English to which we can only aspire. And, woe is me, he was a First Principles kind of guy).

When interviewed for a Canadian men’s magazine, I said this: “When people are rational, they observe reality as it is, and are more likely to be concerned with justice and avoid misplacing compassion.” Indeed, rationality and reality are the enemies of the petty minded and the evil. Thus, because I have fought the pseudo-science of pop-psychology and believe that guarding liberty rests on upholding personal responsibility and combating the “diseasing of society” by the professional class and their patsies —I am viewed as heartless.

Speak to me about compassion when you’ve volunteered your time as an AIDS and HIV counselor in South-Africa, and held in your arms the newly diagnosed —just one of the things this heartless rationalist has done. But then the slobs that have written in have probably never been out of this country; much less acquainted themselves with the world out there —and some genuine sorrow.

And to the same weak-minded slobs I say, “Don’t dare to impugn my daughter’s kind, dear heart.” Like her mother, she doesn’t misplace compassion. In South-Africa, when she was a very small personage —five or six —her cruel and exacting mom would get her to make sandwiches each and every time we went out together on errands. She was to give the food to the street kids. In SA, they beg on every corner and at every traffic light. Yes, she was taught how to develop authentic empathy.

My greatest achievement is my daughter. Moreover, I consider being loved by my child both an honor and an accomplishment. Children should show their parents respect, but they are not obliged to love them, especially if parents have not inspired love. When you have earned the love of your child —well, then, you have surely ARRIVED.

I’m sure those of the “Idiocracy” who’ve written in response to my Hornbeck articles inspire great love— in their slobbering pets.

Updated: Michele Lowe (see Comments Section) was the only left-liberal who attempted some civility. (Yes, this is as good as it got. But, swearing like sailors, and leveling ad hominem, never argument —they all demanded to be published on my private property: this blog). She points out that my opinion is a minority opinion. Again, the sum total of my non-deterministic world view —to which Viktor E. Frankl, the existential philosopher and distinguished psychiatrist, would certainly not object —is an infuriatingly simple contention: Hornbeck, who was given ample freedom, was capable of contacting his parents, or muttering under his breath to the cops, who picked him up on numerous occasions, and with whom he even filed a complaint: “I’m that kidnapped kid.”

In any event, having a minority, or unpopular, opinion in no way invalidates it. I (and other libertarians) was in a minority when, starting in September 2002, I argued against a war many of the truly heartless lauded. It turned out my minority opinion was correct.

Incidentally, speaking of misplaced compassion: where is the sorrow for hundreds of thousands of Iraqis we’ve killed and caused to be killed and displaced? I bet none of the low-brow, frothing-at-the-mouth types writing in has shed tears for those who really need them: Iraqis. But poised they are to pounce like rabid hyenas if one so much as suggests that their prototypical indulged youths can phone home if abducted, and given considerable freedom (and a cellphone) to dick about at malls, on the Internet, at sleepovers, and so on.

Updated Again: I wish to repeat one of the comments with which I interspersed a letter hereunder. The histrionic hisser mistook me for someone who has “traveled to the ends of the earth to give aid,” and declared that “If you have never experienced abuse or control in a relationship, you truly do not have the perspective to make such judgemental comments on this subject.”
Such statements leave me marveling at the intellectual sloth and cultural insularity evinced by so many Americans on this matter, and in general. First, information about me is available on this site. I was born in South Africa; I didn’t travel there to give aid. If it were me writing to someone, I’d actually bother to make sure I was correct about their biographical details, rather than ass-uming a whole lot of stuff about her or him.
Next, how insular and stupid must one be to believe that a woman with an adult daughter, who is from South Africa, and who grew up in Israel, having lived through a few wars in that country, has never known trauma and tragedy? Only in America! My background alone and life experience make it highly probable that I’ve experienced far more than have the pop-psych fetishists writing in to fulminate. See, the thing is, I don’t go telling everyone about my past traumas. And if I were so tacky, I would never demand special breaks for them. Try it: such conduct was once known as dignity and grit and formed the foundation of this now-crumbling soft society. As my mother would say, when pushed to “share” things she was too much of a lady to share: “I have my pride and my privacy, respect those, please.”

Updated: Hornbeck: Too Busy Playing Dragon Ball Z and Gears of War

Crime, Morality, Psychology & Pop-Psychology

To all the muddled thinkers out there, who’ve bought into the (decidedly progressive) paradigm, according to which every misdeed is a disorder–think about Shawn’s parents. Quit working overtime to reduce cognitive dissonance and, instead, think rationally:

If my daughter were abducted, and given such freedoms as this boy was given; if she then visited her mom’s website and posted a message thereon, as this boy did, saying, “For how long will you be looking for your daughter?”–I would be furious. A parent in this situation is beside himself with worry — all he or she can think of is, Is my baby alive; is she warm enough. Is she suffering? Parents would be living every day with the fear that their child died in agony.
And this little shit can’t even add to his e-mail: “Your son is alive, don’t sweat … like, whatever. Sorry gotta run; I have a game of Dragon Ball Z and Gears of War on the go with my buddy Tony.”
Use your heads!
I know that my daughter, who still checks in with me even though she’s an adult, would have let me know she was alive. She’d be too scared not to. And she knows better than to try this line on me: “Mom, I was suffering that syndrome that nice lady on TV said I had, and that prevented me from calling.”
Perhaps my kid was brought up to think logically, which is why she’s such a mensch.

Update: Consider: small children during the Holocaust performed amazingly brave acts, such as smuggling food in and out the ghetto for their families. Some were shot on site by the Nazis. Read about the brave children of Afghanistan. The human spirit — that of children too—is irrepressible. Yet here people are suggesting that this lad was incapable of contacting his poor parents for 4 years, not even to let them know he was alive.