Liberty and Wealth
by Tibor R. Machan
Over the years, as I have argued for the free society and its political-philosophical base, libertarianism, quite often I have been confronted with the charge that all I am doing is rationalizing the welfare of the rich. I am by no means the first to face this charge—classical liberal defenders of the free society and its free market have often been regarded as mere apologists for the wealthy. Karl Marx was notorious in his dismissal of Adam Smith for this, as has been the Canadian neo-Marxist C. B. Mcpherson. There are many others, and they have spawned a legion of epigone who repeat the idea.
Aside from the fact that hardly any libertarians I have ever known are wealthy — there are a few, and good for them — this charge is very ill-conceived. It assumes that one can dismiss an idea simply by associating it with certain unpopular motives. In this case the motive involved is seeking to prosper—the profit motive, in other words. Yet nothing at all follows about the merits of an idea from showing that someone proposed it because it might make him rich. The idea could be a good one — and often this is just what goes on when inventors of useful gadgets propose their ideas. It is good, can make them rich, and that’s why they propose it. It would be strange if the idea’s merits depended on the proponents' disinterest in it.
But there is something else very wrong about dismissing the case for freedom on the grounds that some people who support it also wish to be rich — to pursue profit while enjoying their liberty. Consider that most journalists support freedom of the press. OK, so such freedom will benefit them a lot — they will have jobs, will be able to report what they deem worthy of reportage, and so forth. Does any of that lessen the importance of the freedom of the press? Clearly not.
And then there are all those other liberties, such as freedom of religion, artistic freedom, political freedom and so forth. All these leave those who possess them free to pursue their object — religion, art, political involvement, etc. Does any of that diminish the worth of the freedom these folks champion? Again, not at all.
The simple fact is that anyone with any kind of goal he or she deems worthy of pursuit will also champion the liberty to pursue that goal. So what really must be annoying the challengers of the free society who complain that it makes the pursuit of wealth possible is … well, the pursuit of wealth. But why? Why don’t they complain about, say, the pursuit of health? Or beauty? Or organic farming? Or dentistry?
The answer, I think, is that the pursuit of wealth is so brazenly, unabashedly and unapologetically self-enhancing that many people who wish to come off as urging us all to be saviors of humanity — altruists to the core — just cannot stomach it. Of course, people who pursue good health, fitness, a career in the arts or any other profession they wish to be free to pursue, are no less involved in self-enhancement. Despite what some of them say — namely, that they are in it only to be of service to others — many actually find their pursuits quite self-satisfying. Even Mother Teresa is reported to have confessed that she loved being of help to the needy, thus not doing it for the pain but, at least in part, for the pleasure of it all.
Another thing that probably explains the hostility toward the pursuit of wealth is that wealth makes possible choosing from among many alternatives – one can keep it, give it away, leave it to a favorite charity or cause, squander it, etc. Wealth provides one with options, and many people really seem to hate it that the wealthy might be free to choose the goals which their wealth will promote. Instead, they would love to be able to dictate to the wealthy what goals they ought to advance — it is just so awful that the likes of Bill Gates, Warren Buffet, and the rest get to decide that millions, even billions, will be devoted to something the critics have no say about.
So, perhaps the ulterior motive behind criticizing libertarians for helping along the pursuit of wealth should be examined — it may well be wishing to control people, coerce them to support what the critic likes instead of what the wealthy person likes. Then it no longer looks so noble to criticize liberty and its champions, does it?
Discuss this Article (3 messages)
|
