Something written so well to describe something written even better still should not be “improved” upon with my arrogant words. Therefore, I bring you the words of Joshua from The Only Willing Move:
I’m always on the lookout for neat aphorisms that nicely encapsulate important points of Libertarian thought. This is because I think Libertarianism argues from a weak position in modern society. There aren’t very many of us to begin with, and our views are rarely, if ever, given a fair hearing in the public forum, so anything that can get the point across sucintly is helpful.
Today I came across a true gem – from hacker Eric S. Raymond via the EconTalk Podcast.
Love doesn’t scale.
…
We classical liberals get a bad rap for being heartless – but it’s just because we understand this and everyone else doesn’t. Washington doesn’t love me, Washington can’t love me, Washington shouldn’t love me, and you know what? I don’t even want it to try. I don’t give two figs about any politician’s professed “concern” for “the people” or any of that jazz because I know that love doesn’t work that way. It’s piss poor motivation for keeping the trains running.
Right on Kev,
The government cannot love, but it really cannot dispense justice either (it can as it comes to keeping the peace but not in terms of “social justice”). The reason the government cannot truly be socially just is that it operates out of coercion. An entity that forces others to give money so that it can give to other things is not a loving organization like a church or non-profit is. Taxes are coercion. The government coerces us to give money (if we don’t we go to jail), coerces us into giving the right amount, and tells us that is knows how to dispense love and justice more appropriately than we do.
Neither love or justice scale. But that’s the argument I hear: “Well the government has so many more resources than do non-profits or churches so it should do these things.” Hmmmm, but what if the government didn’t coerce everyone into giving it all the resources?
Dave
@David Strunk: But of course. And I think you’ll find that giving from the heart is at remarkable lows in countries where the tax rate is increasingly raised. One might even posit that the relationship between the two in inversely proportional, though I haven’t done the research.
What IF our Government didn’t take so much of our money? Imagine what could be done, on a local level, when givers take the time to KNOW where their money is going. Certainly our churches and non-profits could do a better job of fostering a culture where giving is highly important, but the American people are already the most giving givers in the world per capita.
This argument that we need to leverage the mighty resources of the Federal Government in order to provide for those who cannot provide for themselves (which is a group of drastically different magnitude depending on who you ask) is based on a whole slew of false premises. One of the biggest, I would say, is that it’s possible for the Government to be charitable on our behalf. At the very least, this ignores our politicians’ desire for re-election.