As long as most people remain insensitive to the basic incompatibility of coercive means with humanitarian ends, societies will be hijacked by manipulative politicians and consumed by destructive power struggles between groups determined to impose their preferences and priorities on others through the force of law.
Having humanitarian aspirations does not make using force to achieve them any less inhumane. Put another way, caring deeply about the education of children or the health care needs of poor people doesn’t justify acting like a careless bully on their behalf.
Furthermore, labeling as “moral” any laws that authorize seizing people’s wealth or exerting control over people’s lives if and when lawmakers’ stated intentions seem sincere and idealistic and are well-received by a majority of citizens is nothing less than an attempt to justify the unjustifiable.
At a minimum, the morality of a law consists of its rejection of coercive uses of force. When laws themselves become instruments of coercion, when people are interfered with or penalized by laws merely for undertaking peaceful and voluntary behavior, when people’s earnings and property are treated by the law as a resource that can be seized or controlled without their consent, then those laws no longer have any moral justification.
This is not to say that humanitarian goals are not worthwhile. Of course, they are. But declaring a noble goal doesn’t result in a moral blank check! No matter how well a bottle of wine goes with a particular meal, you’re not justified in stealing it to make the match. Today’s political partisans typically resist criticisms of their favorite projects by trumpeting the heartlessness of their opponents— “So-and-so doesn’t care about ____, how insensitive so-and-so is!” But what of their own insensitivity to the dehumanizing havoc wrought by their policies in the service of those about whom they care?
What I’m hoping is that a critical mass of people will conclude in my lifetime that virtuous goals are simply unobtainable via coercive behavior or laws. One is as likely to arrive at a moral accomplishment via murder or rape as via a law that overlooks and undermines the humanity of a single person.
First and foremost and without exception, each and every law in a just society must preserve and uphold the equal claim of all individual human beings to the absolute and inalienable ownership of their bodies, their minds, and their property. Every law must implicitly or explicitly protect individuals as they exercise their free will in the peaceful and voluntary pursuits of their choosing.
Very many people disagree with me about this, profoundly. Their moral premise— “bullying is sometimes necessary”— is the predominant moral premise powering today’s laws. People who would never say that a crime is justified based on the perceived resilience of its victim will nonetheless muster the emotional distance and amorality required to argue that people who earn more should pay greater sums and additional fees and higher rates for no other reasons than that “they can afford it.” People who would never raise their voices to their neighbors will nonetheless vote to imprison neighbors who smoke a plant! People who would never ask to borrow money from their friends will nonetheless vote to increase the amount of their friends’ wealth that is seized under threat. People who would say, “two wrongs don’t make a right” to their children exercise political power in this delusional and hypocritical manner.
Many people tolerate the contradiction involved in helping (or serving) some by penalizing others. Based on their biases and preconceived notions, such people are apparently comfortable picking winners and losers, and using the brute force of law to enforce those preferences. There is a cost to this approach to politics that ought to be borne by those who perpetuate it, but which far too rarely is. That cost should be public shame. Shame not unlike that which tarnished the reputations of self-serving advocates of human slavery generations ago. To be clear, the moment a person supports threatening to fine or imprison people who do not comply with laws that compel them to support projects they would never voluntarily support, they’ve crossed a line that not only denies them the option of honestly claiming a moral high ground, but also should hurt their reputation.
Say what you will, Mr. and Ms. Advocate of Well-Intended, High-Minded Coercive Public Policy, about why you think taking from some to help others will achieve worthwhile goals. But don’t cloak your bullying behavior in some twisted dialect of morality. You surrendered the actual moral high ground as soon as you pulled out the “gun” you’re relying upon to impose your will.
I am sometimes frustrated by the alarming absence of a moral component to the typical libertarian’s critique of contemporary politics. Yes, absolutely, there are empirical data, economic insights, and historical references that support resistance to allowing the State to gain greater control of the economy or intrude in our personal lives. Yes, central planning and regulation and taxation are devastating practical failures for a variety of reasons worth examining and pointing out to others But they should be expressed in addition to a moral rebuttal, not instead of one.
There is something macabre about engaging in a conversation about the practical problems with government intervention without ever pointing out how morally outrageous it is in the first place. People who believe in the benevolence of increasingly powerful government often respond to technical critiques (“it’ll never work because…”) by falling back on their moral pretenses (“but it’s the right thing to do!”). No, actually, it isn’t. The moral option ain’t ever coercion. That epically mistaken presumption has to be abandoned and the laws derived from it must be abolished.
What other hope is there for a humane world than the widespread adoption, culturally and legally, of the moral premise that initiating force against anyone for any reason is unjustifiable?
{ 1 trackback }
{ 1 comment… read it below or add one }
I enjoyed your article and you know that I agree with you.
I wonder if you intend to publish a compilation of your essays someday?
I imagine that if someone indoctrinated in the prevailing belief system were to read your essay whether he or she would come to the realization that coercion by any name is immoral. They might consider that the desired ends would just never happen at all unless someone were compelled to give up a bit of their money and that would simply be the price that would have to be paid. They seem to be all about “making sure” something gets done.
I just noticed the title on the button I need to press in order to have my comments sent in. I am not into “submission” these days as I am in a more revolutionary mood. I would be happy if you would consider changing the word submit to revolt!