Part 17 (1/2)
The term ”luxury good” implies scarcity and high unit value. Having a high unit value, such a good is easily portable; for instance, an ounce of gold is worth a half-ton of pig iron....
Under the gold standard, a free banking system stands as the protector of an economy's stability and balanced growth.
In the absence of the gold standard, there is no way to protect savings from confiscation through inflation. There is no safe store of value. If there were, the government would have to make its holding illegal, as was done in the case of gold....
The financial policy of the welfare state requires that there be no way for the owners of wealth to protect themselves.
This is the shabby secret of the welfare statists' tirades against gold. Deficit spending is simply a scheme for the ”hidden” confiscation of wealth. Gold stands in the way of this insidious process. It stands as a protector of property rights. If one grasps this, one has no difficulty in understanding the statists' antagonism toward the gold standard.
[Alan Greenspan, ”Gold and Economic Freedom,” CUI, 96.]
See also DEFICIT FINANCING; FREEDOM; INFLATION; MONEY; PROPERTY RIGHTS; SAVINGS; WELFARE STATE.
Good, the. All that which is proper to the life of a rational being is the good; all that which destroys it is the evil.
[GS, FNI, 149; pb 122.]
For centuries, the battle of morality was fought between those who claimed that your life belongs to G.o.d and those who claimed that it belongs to your neighbors-between those who preached that the good is self-sacrifice for the sake of ghosts in heaven and those who preached that the good is self-sacrifice for the sake of incompetents on earth. And no one came to say that your life belongs to you and that the good is to live it.
[Ibid.. 145; pb 120.]
There are, in essence, three schools of thought on the nature of the good: the intrinsic, the subjective, and the objective. The intrinsic theory holds that the good is inherent in certain things or actions as such, regardless of their context and consequences, regardless of any benefit or injury they may cause to the actors and subjects involved. It is a theory that divorces the concept of ”good” from beneficiaries, and the concept of ”value” from valuer and purpose-claiming that the good is good in, by, and of itself.
The subjectivist theory holds that the good bears no relation to the facts of reality, that it is the product of a man's consciousness, created by his feelings, desires, ”intuitions,” or whims, and that it is merely an ”arbitrary postulate” or an ”emotional commitment.”
The intrinsic theory holds that the good resides in some sort of reality, independent of man's consciousness; the subjectivist theory holds that the good resides in man's consciousness, independent of reality.
The objective theory holds that the good is neither an attribute of ”things in themselves” nor of man's emotional states, but an evaluation of the facts of reality by man's consciousness according to a rational standard of value. (Rational, in this context, means: derived from the facts of reality and validated by a process of reason.) The objective theory holds that the good is an aspect of reality in relation to man-and that it must be discovered, not invented, by man. Fundamental to an objective theory of values is the question: Of value to whom and for what? An objective theory does not permit context-dropping or ”concept-stealing”; it does not permit the separation of ”value” from ”purpose,” of the good from beneficiaries, and of man's actions from reason.
[”What Is Capitalism?” CUI, 21.]
See also EVIL; INTRINSIC THEORY of ETHICS; LIFE; MORALITY; MYSTICAL ETHICS; SOCIAL THEORY of ETHICS; STANDARD of VALUE; SUBJECTIVISM.
Government. A government is an inst.i.tution that holds the exclusive power to enforce certain rules of social conduct in a given geographical area.
[”The Nature of Government,” VOS, 144; pb 107.]
If physical force is to be barred from social relations.h.i.+ps, men need an inst.i.tution charged with the task of protecting their rights under an objective code of rules.
This is the task of a government-of a proper government-its basic task, its only moral justification and the reason why men do need a government.
A government is the means of placing the retaliatory use of physical force under objertive control-i.e.. under objectively defined laws.
[Ibid., 147; pb 109.]
The only proper purpose of a government is to protect man's rights, which means: to protect him from physical violence. A proper government is only a policeman, acting as an agent of man's self-defense, and, as such, may resort to force only against those who start the use of force. The only proper functions of a government are: the police, to protect you from criminals; the army, to protect you from foreign invaders; and the courts, to protect your property and contracts from breach or fraud by others, to settle disputes by rational rules, according to objective law. But a government that initiates the employment of force against men who had forced no one, the employment of armed compulsion against disarmed victims, is a nightmare infernal machine designed to annihilate morality: such a government reverses its only moral purpose and switches from the role of protector to the role of man's deadliest enemy, from the role of policeman to the role of a criminal vested with the right to the wielding of violence against victims deprived of the right of self-defense. Such a government subst.i.tutes for morality the following rule of social conduct: you may do whatever you please to your neighbor, provided your gang is bigger than his.
[GS, FNI, 231; pb 183.]
The source of the government's authority is ”the consent of the governed.” This means that the government is not the ruler, but the servant or agent of the citizens; it means that the government as such has no rights except the rights delegated to it by the citizens for a specific purpose.
[”The Nature of Government,” VOS, 149; pb 110.]
The difference between political power and any other kind of social ”power,” between a government and any private organization, is the fact that a government holds a legal monopoly on the use of physical force. This distinction is so important and so seldom recognized today that I must urge you to keep it in mind. Let me repeat it: a government holds a legal monopoly on the use of physical force.
No individual or private group or private organization has the legal power to initiate the use of physical force against other individuals or groups and to compel them to act against their own voluntary choice. Only a government holds that power. The nature of governmental action is: coercive action. The nature of political power is: the power to force obedience under threat of physical injury-the threat of property expropriation, imprisonment, or death.
[”America's Persecuted Minority: Big Business,” CUI, 46.]
The fundamental difference between private action and governmental action-a difference thoroughly ignored and evaded today-lies in the fact that a government holds a monopoly on the legal use of physical force. It has to hold such a monopoly, since it is the agent of restraining and combating the use of force; and for that very same reason, its actions have to be rigidly defined, delimited and circ.u.mscribed; no touch of whim or caprice should be permitted in its performance; it should be an impersonal robot, with the laws as its only motive power. If a society is to be free, its government has to be controlled.
Under a proper social system, a private individual is legally free to take any action he pleases (so long as he does not violate the rights of others), while a government official is bound by law in his every official act. A private individual may do anything except that which is legally forbidden; a government official may do nothing except that which is legally permitted.
This is the means of subordinating ”might” to ”right.” This is the American concept of ”a government of laws and not of men.”
[”The Nature of Government,” VOS, 148; pb 109.]
See also ANARCHISM; CAPITALISM; CUNSt.i.tUTION; DICTATORs.h.i.+P; ECONOMIC POWER vs. POLITICAL POWER; FREEDOM; INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS; LAW, OBJECTIVE and NON-OBJECTIVE; PACIFISM; PHYSICAL FORCE; PROPERTY RIGHTS; RETALIATORY FORCE; SELF-DEFENSE; STATISM; WAR.
Government Grants and Scholars.h.i.+ps. The fundamental evil of government grants is the fact that men are forced to pay for the support of ideas diametrically opposed to their own. This is a profound violation of an individual's integrity and conscience. It is viciously wrong to take the money of rational men for the support of B.F. Skinner-or vice versa. The Const.i.tution forbids a governmental establishment of religion, properly regarding it as a violation of individual rights. Since a man's beliefs are protected from the intrusion of force, the same principle should protect his reasoned convictions and forbid governmental establishments in the field of thought.
[”The Establis.h.i.+ng of an Establishment,” PWNI, 204; pb 168.]
How would Was.h.i.+ngton bureaucrats-or Congressmen, for that matter-know which scientist to encourage, particularly in so controversial a field as social science? The safest method is to choose men who have achieved some sort of reputation. Whether their reputation is deserved or not, whether their achievements are valid or not, whether they rose by merit, pull, publicity or accident, are questions which the awarders do not and cannot consider. When personal judgment is inoperative (or forbidden), men's first concern is not how to choose, but how to justify their choice. This will necessarily prompt committee members, bureaucrats and politicians to gravitate toward ”prestigious names.” The result is to help establish those already established-i.e., to entrench the status quo.
The worst part of it is the fact that this method of selection is not confined to the cowardly or the corrupt, that the honest official is obliged to use it. The method is forced on him by the terms of the situation. To pa.s.s an informed, independent judgment on the value of every applicant or project in every field of science, an official would have to be a universal scholar. If he consults ”experts” in the field, the dilemma remains: either he has to be a scholar who knows which experts to consult-or he has to surrender his judgment to men trained by the very professors he is supposed to judge. The awarding of grants to famous ”leaders,” therefore, appears to him as the only fair policy-on the premise that ”somebody made them famous, somebody knows, even if I don't.”
(If the officials attempted to by-pa.s.s the ”leaders” and give grants to promising beginners, the injustice and irrationality of the situation would be so much worse that most of them have the good sense not to attempt it. If universal scholars.h.i.+p is required to judge the value of the actual in every field, nothing short of omniscience would be required to judge the value of the potentiat-as various privately sponsored contests to discover future talent, even in limited fields, have amply demonstrated.) Furthermore, the terms of the situation actually forbid an honest official to use his own judgment. He is supposed to be ”impartial” and ”fair”-white considering awards in the social sciences. An official who does not have some knowledge and some convictions in this field, has no moral right to be a public official. Yet the kind of ”fairness” demanded of him means that he must suspend, ignore or evade his own convictions (these would be challenged as ”prejudices” or ”censors.h.i.+p”) and proceed to dispose of large sums of public money, with incalculable consequences for the future of the country-without judging the nature of the recipients' ideas, i.e., without using any judgment whatever.
The awarders may hide behind the notion that, in choosing recognized ”leaders,” they are acting ”democratically” and rewarding men chosen by the public. But there is no ”democracy” in this field. Science and the mind do not work by vote or by consensus. The best-known is not necessarily the best (nor is the least-known, for that matter). Since no rational standards are applicable, the awarders' method leads to concern with personalities, not ideas; pull, not merit; ”prestige,” not truth. The result is: rule by press agents.
[Ibid., 202; pb 166.]
Many students of Objectivism ate troubled by a certain kind of moral dilemma confronting them in today's society. We are frequently asked the questions: ”Is it morally proper to accept scholars.h.i.+ps, private or public?” and: ”Is it morally proper for an advocate of capitalism to accept a government research grant or a government job?”
I shall hasten to answer: ”Yes”-then proceed to explain and qualify it. There are many confusions on these issues, created by the influence and implications of the altruist morality.
There is nothing wrong in accepting private scholars.h.i.+ps. The fact that a man has no claim on others (i.e., that it is not their moral duty to help him and that he cannot demand their help as his right) does not preclude or prohibit good will among men and does not make it immoral to offer or to accept voluntary, non-sacrificial a.s.sistance.
A different principle and different considerations are involved in the case of public (i.e., governmental) scholars.h.i.+ps. The right to accept them rests on the right of the victims to the property (or some part of it) which was taken from them by force.
The recipient of a public scholars.h.i.+p is morally justified only so long as he regards it as rest.i.tution and opposes all forms of welfare statism. Those who advocate public scholars.h.i.+ps, have no right to them; those who oppose them, have. If this sounds like a paradox, the fault lies in the moral contradictions of welfare statism, not in its victims.
Since there is no such thing as the right of some men to vote away the rights of others, and no such thing as the right of the government to seize the property of some men for the unearned benefit of others-the advocates and supporters of the welfare state are morally guilty of robbing their opponents, and the fact that the robbery is legalized makes it morally worse, not better. The victims do not have to add self-inflicted martyrdom to the injury done to them by others; they do not have to let the looters profit doubly, by letting them distribute the money exclusively to the parasites who clamored for it. Whenever the welfare-state laws offer them some small rest.i.tution, the victims should take it....
The same moral principles and considerations apply to the issue of accepting social security, unemployment insurance or other payments of that kind. It is obvious, in such cases, that a man receives his own money which was taken from him by force, directly and specifically, without his consent, against his own choice. Those who advocated such laws are morally guilty, since they a.s.sumed the ”right” to force employers and unwilling co-workers. But the victims, who opposed such laws, have a clear right to any refund of their own money-and they would not advance the cause of freedom if they left their money, unclaimed, for the benefit of the welfare-state administration.
The same moral principles and considerations apply to the issue of government research grants.
The growth of the welfare state is approaching the stage where virtually the only money available for scientific research will be government money. (The disastrous effects of this situation and the disgraceful state of government-sponsored science are apparent already, but that is a different subject. We are concerned here only with the moral dilemma of scientists.) Taxation is destroying private resources, while government money is flooding and taking over the field of research.