The-Morality-of-Capitalism-PDF

Recommendations

Info

Welfarism: The Unchosen ObligationThe fundamental premise of welfarism is that people have rights togoods such as food, shelter, and medical care. They are entitled tothese things. On this assumption, someone who receives benefitsfrom a government program is merely getting what is due him, inthe same way that a buyer who receives the good he has paid for ismerely getting his due. When the state dispenses welfare benefits,it is merely protecting rights, just as it is when it protects a buyeragainst fraud. In neither case is there any necessity for gratitude.The concept of welfare rights, or positive rights as they areoften called, is modeled on the traditional liberal rights of life,liberty, and property. But there is a well-known difference. Thetraditional rights are rights to act without interference from others.The right to life is a right to act with the aim of preservingoneself. It is not a right to be immune from death by naturalcauses, even an untimely death. The right to property is the rightto buy and sell freely, and to appropriate unowned goods fromnature. It is the right to seek property, but not a right to a dowryfrom nature, or from the state; it is not a guarantee that one willsucceed in acquiring anything. Accordingly, these rights imposeon other people only the negative obligation not to interfere,not to restrain one forcibly from acting as he chooses. If I imaginemyself removed from society—living on a desert island, forexample—my rights would be perfectly secure. I might not livelong, and certainly would not live well, but I would live in perfectfreedom from murder, theft, and assault.By contrast, welfare rights are conceived as rights to possessand enjoy certain goods, regardless of one’s actions; they are rightsto have the goods provided by others if one cannot earn themoneself. Accordingly, welfare rights impose positive obligationson others. If I have a right to food, someone has an obligationto grow it. If I cannot pay for it, someone has an obligation tobuy it for me. Welfarists sometimes argue that the obligation isimposed on society as a whole, not on any specific individual. Butsociety is not an entity, much less a moral agent, over and aboveits individual members, so any such obligation falls upon us asindividuals. Insofar as welfare rights are implemented through73
government programs, for example, the obligation is distributedover all taxpayers.From an ethical standpoint, then, the essence of welfarism isthe premise that the need of one individual is a claim on otherindividuals. The claim may run only as far as the town or the nation.It may not embrace all of humanity. But in all versions of thedoctrine, the claim does not depend on your personal relationshipto the claimant, or your choice to help, or your evaluation of himas worthy of your help. It is an unchosen obligation arising fromthe sheer fact of his need.But we must carry the analysis one step further. If I am livingalone on a desert island, then of course I have no welfare rights,since there is no one else around to provide the goods. For thesame reason, if I live in a primitive society where medicine isunknown, then I have no right to medical care. The content ofwelfare rights is relative to the level of economic wealth and productivecapacity in a given society. Correspondingly, the obligationof individuals to satisfy the needs of others is dependent on theirability to do so. I cannot be blamed as an individual for failingto provide others with something I cannot produce for myself.Suppose I can produce it and simply choose not to? SupposeI am capable of earning a much larger income than I do, thetaxes on which would support a person who will otherwise gohungry. Am I obliged to work harder, to earn more, for the sakeof that person? I do not know any philosopher of welfare whowould say that I am. The moral claim imposed on me by anotherperson’s need is contingent not only on my ability but also onmy willingness to produce.And this tells us something important about the ethical focusof welfarism. It does not assert an obligation to pursue the satisfactionof human needs, much less the obligation to succeed indoing so. The obligation, rather, is conditional: those who dosucceed in creating wealth may do so only on condition thatothers are allowed to share the wealth. The goal is not so muchto benefit the needy as to bind the able. The implicit assumptionis that a person’s ability and initiative are social assets, whichmay be exercised only on condition that they are aimed at theservice of others.74
Page 2 and 3:
The Morality of CapitalismWhat Your
Page 4 and 5:
ContentsIntroduction: The Morality
Page 6 and 7:
Introduction: The Morality of Capit
Page 8 and 9:
China, Morocco, the United States,
Page 10 and 11:
in a friendly sense.” 9 The word
Page 12 and 13:
Marx saw the “bourgeoisie” as i
Page 14 and 15:
usinesses rising and falling more r
Page 16 and 17:
and one an economist, and an interv
Page 18:
Section IThe Virtues ofEntrepreneur
Page 21 and 22:
is why I was mentioning the sophomo
Page 23 and 24:
our society are motivated by purpos
Page 25 and 26:
promote microfinance in poor countr
Page 27 and 28: ownership of wealth, was highly str
Page 29 and 30: in the world for a couple of hundre
Page 31 and 32: without a strong business sector th
Page 34 and 35: lightning rod and Watt’s steam en
Page 36 and 37: Competition and CooperationBy David
Page 38 and 39: advocates of “back to nature”
Page 40 and 41: that the associations within civil
Page 42 and 43: For-Profit Medicine and the Compass
Page 44: Profit and CompassionThat’s too s
Page 48 and 49: The Paradox of MoralityBy Mao Yushi
Page 50 and 51: after assessing the situation, sett
Page 52 and 53: efrigerators and color TVs, are onl
Page 54 and 55: epair trade are crowded out by the
Page 56 and 57: person, followed the principle of e
Page 58 and 59: if in return for A taking the bigge
Page 60 and 61: The Moral Logic of Equality and Ine
Page 62 and 63: equality in exchange is economicall
Page 64 and 65: eliminate or to establish inequalit
Page 66 and 67: earned by the poorest 10% of the po
Page 68 and 69: Adam Smith and the Myth of GreedBy
Page 70 and 71: them to lobby the state to create c
Page 72 and 73: strangers, but when we haggle for t
Page 74 and 75: Ayn Rand and Capitalism: The Moral
Page 76 and 77: the welfare state, which redistribu
Page 80 and 81: Egalitarianism: “Fair” Distribu
Page 82 and 83: A worker is hired because of the an
Page 84 and 85: To live by reason we must accept in
Page 86 and 87: Economic outcomes in the market—t
Page 88: is a social asset is incompatible w
Page 92 and 93: The Market Economy and the Distribu
Page 94 and 95: no unfavorable, economic results. O
Page 96 and 97: owner, actual or potential, reflect
Page 98 and 99: losses prompted by the chance of, o
Page 100 and 101: We are not saying, of course, that
Page 102 and 103: well-being reflects a potentially c
Page 104: discrepancies. The difference was c
Page 108 and 109: Global Capitalism and JusticeBy Jun
Page 110 and 111: preferences, and infrastructure. It
Page 112 and 113: Human Betterment through Globalizat
Page 114 and 115: any particular sophistication. Afte
Page 116 and 117: These young people are returning be
Page 118 and 119: etterment through exchange and the
Page 120 and 121: of diverse cultures. In this manner
Page 122 and 123: primitive magical-religious communi
Page 124 and 125: to censure, repression, and margina
Page 126 and 127: That is why the best defense of our
Page 128 and 129:
A Little Further Reading for Fun an
Page 130 and 131:
Dr. Tom G. Palmer is executive vice
Page 132 and 133:
14 Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels,
Page 134 and 135:
Index of Proper Names(Chinese names
Page 139 and 140:
The Pierre F. and Enid Goodrich Fou
Page 141 and 142:
Students For LibertyA Free Academy,
Page 143 and 144:
Additional Resources for LibertyThe
Page 145:
“We need to change the narrative
show all

The-Morality-of-Capitalism-PDF

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?