Free will, selflessness & Ju-jitsu (huh?)

It has taken me a while to be able to formulate my response in words, (since shortly after you posted) so I’ll give it a try now. (I also freely admit I couldn't resist the Free Willy title.)

“Those benevolent souls are convinced that they are 'doing the right thing' and 'leveling the playing field' by their charity - hey, if it's voluntary then it must be a good, charitable impulse, and who are we to argue? In fact, they would argue that it is the baser nature of conservatives that makes us oppose such impulses!”

My response is simply that these “benevolent souls” do not understand that by using the power of the government to enforce their charity, that it is inherently evil. You cannot have free will at the point of a gun. These people are simply robbing Peter to pay Paul. To turn another phrase, the road to hell is paved with good intentions.

Redhead, in your response.

Also, quoting from your previous note: many people will vote for programs due to a feeling of selflessness and self-sacrifice. What they miss, though, is that they then rely on the power of the state to impose their will on others. They are trying to take away the free will of others.

VoR: but the concept of charity (as defined in the voluntary, individual sense) would be seen as very limiting to do-gooders. Most of them believe that they can do more good if they mobilize a larger group (town, county, state, country ..) than with individual charity alone. The fact that it becomes evil when scaled-up indicates the subjective nature of altruism.

You are correct in identifying such do-gooders as 'evil' and coercive, infringing on the free will of individuals. However, in our popular culture, they are seen as heroes. In the amoral mess of modern-day politics, they are defined as Leftists, who seek to redistribute that which they have not earned!

You've seen the movies, documentaries and newspaper articles: one selfless person, making a 'difference' and either coercing (or 'guilting') an entire community into some selfless action. How often are such selfless people (or their actions) called 'evil'? What happens to the free will of the few people out of thousands who don't agree with that 'selfless' action but are coerced to go along?

The do-gooders get away with this because of our acceptance of unearned guilt and due to the subjectivity in our stance on charity.

For an interesting essay titled "Verdict: Not Guilty" that is along similar lines, click on: http://www.theatlasphere.com/columns/070702-machan-not-guilty.php

Here is an excerpt from the above article:
"In the past, the religious doctrine of "original sin" was the main source of the idea of our fundamental corruption. Today, it tends to be the environmental movement which preaches this misanthropic doctrine."

"You're correct,
Redhead, in your response."

Of course! :)

But, what I don't know, is:
What is the answer to this problem?? How do we convince others that imposing their will on others is evil?

I'll agree here with you on another premise. The churches are a big part of the problem. I've said before, I think this is due to a mis-reading of the Bible, although I am hardly a scholar in that respect.

The only other answer that I can see is education, and you are doing a good job in that respect.

.. we will have to attack the immorality HEAD-ON (apply directly to the forehead .. as the irksome commercial goes!)

There will be plenty of opportunity in recent months as issues such as Universal Health Care take centerstage.

Do conservatives have the guts to frame EVERY discussion on this topic as a morality play between producers and parasites? If not, UHC will be the law-of-the-land in 2009 and many related industry segments will be doomed in about 20-30yrs. Selfishly, I worry about this, because I will be in my prime health-care-consumption phase by that time!

There has been a lot of damage done by conservatives who focus only on the pragmatic, but skirt the moral issue - as if sensing a weakness. Since there IS a weakness, conservatives enter the debate with limited ammunition and get tagged as 'heartless' to boot - which is what most Leftists would like to do to conservatives anyway!

Religious leaders too share the culpability in this, but it is unlikely that they will see it that way. Consider the recent examples of churches that provide sanctuary to illegal aliens and the lack of clarity from their leadership. This shows their moral ambiguity on these topics.

"Socialism's biggest victory (albeit a Pyrrhic one) has been the voluntary acceptance of the producers that they should live for the sake of their parasites."


"but the concept of charity (as defined in the voluntary, individual sense) would be seen as very limiting to do-gooders. Most of them believe that they can do more good if they mobilize a larger group (town, county, state, country ..) than with individual charity alone. The fact that it becomes evil when scaled-up indicates the subjective nature of altruism."

I have known these concepts for some time now, but have had a hard time phrasing them correctly as you have.
I look forward to gleaning more insightful ideas along these lines.

The VOLUNTARY acceptance by the producers that they should live for the sake of their parasites is something that deserves more scrutiny.

Consider that one has to be fairly smart to be a 'producer' in a competitive market. So, you would think that it takes some special mojo to convince reasonably smart, successful, competitive people to voluntarily work that extra bit harder for the sake of their uninvited hitchhikers.

It comes as a surprise to many that the 'mojo' is nothing more than a perverse extrapolation of the producers' own charitable impulses.

Just to let you know, I linked back to this post from my most recent post, but the trackback doesn't look like it took.