Essay on Caring; R. Foley, Jr.

Ridgway K. Foley, Jr. ~:==========~Jr Essayon Caring ~\. ~,=============~ POLITICAL ASPIRANTS are notably "concerned and caring" for the com mon man. But is theirs a genuine compassion, or does it lead to plans and actions opposed to their pro fessed aims? I suspect that the political/eco nomic notion of "caring" generally amounts to ideological and practical extortion. A significant number of the self chosen saviors of mankind employ the caring concept as a tool for self satisfaction and aggrandizement. Just as some men and women erect concert halls and athletic field houses as modern pyramids to pro claim the importance of their being, so too do other individuals seek rec ognition and remembrance by the Mr. Foley, a partner in Schwabe, Williamson, Wyatt, Moore & Roberts, practices law in Portland, Oregon. 230 concoction of organized programs de signed to alleviate real or feigned in justices besetting the world about them.

In some cases, the benefactor achieves substantial and tangible pleasure by participating in such a plan-he becomes involved in some activity which provides meaning to an otherwise desultory life. In other instances, his reward takes on a much more material flavor-propo nents of many pseudo-charitable de vices make a very good living from their parade of good works, deriving power or prestige from these en deavors. Yet another gaggle of com passionate souls creates the intan gible pleasures incident to con verting the resistant and erring heathen to a particular philosophi calor theological point of view.

ESSAY ON CARING 231 There is, of course, a fourth divi sion-men and women who devote their efforts to assisting others in need without hope of tangible or in tangible earthly rewards. Unfortu nately, the numbers of this latter group appear to be declining. The Dividing Line A remarkable duality pervades the concept of caring and its current im plementation. Force represents the dividing line. Application or refrain from coercion separates the wrong ful intrusion into the sanctity of the life of another from the permissible compassionate endeavor. The law ought not impede attempts to aid others or to solve problems where those enterprises occur without com pulsion. This should be true where the majority decries the problem as ridiculous or the solution as ill advised; after all, the crowd often proves ineluctably wrong and, in any event, no human being possesses either the ability or the moral priv ilege to substitute his judgment for that of another choosing sentient being.

Conversely, no one should employ the legal monopoly of force to compel adherence to, participation in, or compliance with an artifice designed to better another, no matter how well intentioned or meritorious the plan. No individual should be permitted to thrust a decision or shunt responsi bili ty for the consequences of his choice upon another, unwilling hu man being. Disregard of this salient principle necessarily denies the dignity of that other individual, since moral choice and accountabil ity constitute an essential element in the human condition. Those who -purport to care, then, must submit to a. test of means and motive. The law (rules and orders created and enforced by mankind) should not address the means employed by those who promote compassion as a political or economic discipline ex cept to assure that no individual or entity compels a dissenter to assent to, support or participate in a pro posal disagreeable to the latter for any reason.

All too often, those who preach car ing, compassion and concern rest their case upon the root of envy: Loathe the rich and trust the poor; take from the evil producer and give to the high-principled but helpless victim of circumstance and oppres sion. Such caring persons really do not care at all about others: The cre ators must be plundered, the users must be pandered, by force and viol ence, by false premises and prom ises, in order to salve the promoter's inordinate ego and to effect his flawed view of mankind and the world. In these, the vast majority of instances, one can always count upon the concerned to care-for themselves!

232 THE FREEMAN April Do Caring Programs Improve Our Lot? Ignore for the moment the moral issue of might-makes-right in a good cause. Assume high-minded benev olence on the part of those who ex press concern. An essential question remains: Do the programs proposed by the "caring people" achieve mer itorious results-do the solutions al leviate hunger, suffering and hurt? Few individuals-and none of the vocal proponents of structured com passion-even pose this fundamen tal question, and for good reason: The undeniably negative response casts overwhelming doubt not only upon the efficacy of the particular solution but also upon the very sub stance upon which the adoring ad vocates of governmental charity base their lives! Make no mistake: All compulsive charities employ the state as the ultimate solution to any preconceived ill. One must search long and hard today to learn of or ganized attacks on human despair which resolutely avoid partaking of governmental subsidy or other coer cive aid. Yet the presence or absence offorce represents the imperative se lector, the pIumbline segregating ac ceptable and unacceptable charita ble response.

Analysis of the effect of coercive programs must focus upon two dis crete truths: First, the forceful re sponse always produces unintended and unwanted consequences which render the program counterproduc tive. Second, the institutional re sponse to a problem is always less helpful than the individual response. Initially, the unseen consequence so unerringly and eloquently de scribed by Bastiat and Hazlitt inev itably rises up to smite those who will do good with other people's lives and property. Consider the current plight of the starving legions in Af rica. Only the truly cruel eschew compassion for the suffering of an other human being. Nonetheless, most of Africa en counters famine, plague and pestil ence with great regularity. Rhodesia (until its recent transmutation into Zimbabwe) and the Republic of South Africa serve as the most re markable exceptions to this rule. The perceptive should inquire as to the reason for this recurring condition.

After all, Africa contains a store house of natural resources, a ple thora of exceptional ports, varieties of climate and rainfall, and other in dicia of an ability to provide its den izens with an adequate living. Nevertheless, other nations on other continents lacking equivalent nat ural resources and gifts must pro vide both continuing subsistence and emergency foodstuffs to the people of the African Continent. Delve beneath the superficial and one discerns the reason for this ex traordinary seeming dichotomy. Slavery impoverishes; freedom feeds.

1985 ESSAY ON CARING 233 Africa contains myriad venal, op pressive and murderous political re gimes dedicated to the unyielding repression of liberty and the en trenchment of socialism. A free so ciety-necessarily including a free economy-would and always will produce an abundant outpouring of goods, services and ideas in Africa as elsewhere. Instead, the caring peo ple importune (sometimes with force, sometimes with manipulation) their fellows to aid the starving Africans, apparently oblivious to the fact that bad values and bloody dictators have caused the current and ever-present despair. The gift of largess does little to alleviate longterm hunger in Af rica. And donations strangely turn up in the pockets of dictators, dic tocrats and gunrunners. Unfortu nately, ~ concomitant effect impedes the productive from future produc tion. Human beings robbed of the fruits of their labors tend to reduce their future production, boding ill for the next generation of starving Africans.

Other examples abound, but the point is clear. Those politicians who accuse their critics of cruel and in human conduct if they resist trans portation of great gobs of money to the poor, the helpless, and the dis advantaged, necessarily posit the axiom that it is not cruel and inhu man to steal and distribute as a mod ern Robin Hood. Not only are such politicians wrong but also their very actions will increase, not diminish, the problem perceived! As a dear and wise mentor early taught me, "No problem exists which the meddling of politicians will not make worse." Sadly, the liberal faith in democ racy resolutely clings to a belief in government as the essential vehicle to help the less fortunate. Even the "old right" concurs that the state must aid those incapable of self-as sistance, and the debate between the "old right" and the "old left" nor mally devolves into a controversy of definitions and a discussion of the level of the state most desirable to render the assistance.

Proper Role of the State Unfortunately, acceptance of the cliche avoids the seminal question concerning the proper role of the state. The inquiry cannot be phrased in terms of "states rights," for states possess no "rights," only powers of coercion. The proper issue is: Given the existence of human misfortune, who shall attempt to alleviate that condition? Surely not the state, the eternal compulsory bungler. Alle viation of distress calls for creative action. The state possesses only de structive powers. In face of calamity, we all believe that others should come to our assistance, yet charity and compulsion are mutually exclu sive terms. Man ought to perform properly, and natural law (not the victim, not the positive law) ought to 234 THE FREEMAN exact the penalty for failure to do so. Again, the moral and the efficient coincide. The individual response to a problem is always better than the institutional response. It is more personal, more meaningful, more ef ficient, more direct. It tends to reach the heart of the issue with a mini mum of overhead and delay, to resist excesses, and to avoid much weeping.

I am so very tired of caring people and sharing people who search for material or emotional monuments for their good works. They care about themselves; they do not share their own, but that belonging to another. I glory in the occasional iconoclast who disdains symbols and slogans and probes straight to the essence of a neighbor's concern, with love and without fanfare. The overworked phrase "unsung heroes" truly de scribes the men and women who visit the sick, comfort the elderly, soothe the confused children and perform all manner of good works. It is much easier to lobby legislators to send "aid" (tax dollars) to Africa than it is to spend an afternoon in a nursing home, or Thanksgiving serving the homeless a turkey in a volunteer mission. I think that such a rare breed truly cares many times more than all those who blather openly about their commitment. @ IDEAS ON LIBERTY Socialism in Ethiopia SOME YEARS ago I was arrested and underwent interrogation by officers in the Ethiopian army, the police, and finally by the Criminal Investi gation. One of the charges against me (the only true one) was that I had given charity to some widows and orphans who were not approved by the State for private charity. I was repeatedly told that charity is the work of the State and if I wanted to help people, I must give my con tributions to the governing body to distribute. (In the U.S. one is not yet arrested for helping poor widows and orphans, but charity is popularly deemed to be the work of the State and not of individuals, families, and voluntary institutions.) Peace, economic progress, and freedom is the goal of most people, even of multitudes who profess adherence to socialist ideology. It is inevitable, however, that socialism in Africa or elsewhere is incapable of attaining these goals.

FRANCIS E. MAHAFFY, 1976 Dean Russell Do Machines Destroy Jobs? YES, machines do destroy jobs. In fact, that's the purpose of machines, Le., to do the work formerly done by labor. And if a machine doesn't re place human labor, the making of that machine has been a waste of scarce resources, including the skilled labor that invented and con structed the machine in the first place. Usually, however, this relation ship between machines and jobs is expressed more softly, e.g., machines decrease the costs of production, thus permitting lower prices to consum ers; or machines are helpful to manDr. Russell, recently retired from a full schedule of academic work, continues freelance consulting, lec turing and writing from his home In Westchester County, New York. This Is one of a series of articles examining current interventions of the welfare state In the light of warn ings from the French economist and statesman, Frederic Bastlat (1801-1850).