by Brian Schwartz
The last ³Point-Counterpoint² in The Phoenix (March 7, 1996) was on the topic of whether Congress should change the welfare system. The views presented are typical of those of Republicans and Democrats today: Neither position defended individual rights.
Matthew Howard and Tobie Barton claim that the ³Republican plan would end Aid to Families with Dependents Children, taking away the right to federal aid.² I question Howard and Bartonıs notion of rights, which is shared by many people in this country, both liberal and conservative. The root of this view is that oneıs need is an automatic moral claim on the wealth of another person. My response to this, coined by Objectivist Roger Donway, is NINACOW: Need is not a claim on anotherıs wealth!
We have TANSTAAFL: There ainıt no such thing as a free lunch. Well, people do not realize that, either. But it is time to go beyond it with NINACOW.
Consider the following true state of affairs: There is a shortage of blood in the American Red Crossıs blood banks. There is a blood shortage. There are people in need of blood. Now, would you consider, as a solution to this problem, that the government make a law requiring that those who have blood donate, say, two pints a year? To me, this sounds like a gross violation of human rights. Making it mandatory for those who earn money to donate it to those who need it as just as gross a violation of human rights.
I am not against charity or helping people. I am against people using force, or threatening the use of force, to motivate other people to do what they want. If people have ³a right² to federal aid, they must have a right to the products of someone elseıs labor: the source of government funding. If need entails a right, then the laborers of this country, the tax payers, have no choice but to fulfill this right. If the needy have a right to the product of a personıs effort without this his consent, this person is a slave. NINACOW!
Rights translate principles guiding an individualıs actions to principles of proper relationships with other people. The one fundamental right is a one's right to his own life: to engage in self-sustaining and self-generated action. They are rights to action, not things. They are not a guarantee of any object to anyone, as life, by its nature, is not guaranteed. These rights impose a negative obligation on others to abstain from violating one's rights. The alleged rights to a ³living wage² enslaves others to leave this right unviolated.
I do not understand how people can have right to something that another person produces. If people have a right to high-tech health care, was this right violated before such health care existed? Or is it that once a person creates, the product belongs to everyone else, and people can vote to determine where the fruits of anotherıs labor goes.
Property rights derive the right to life. One's freedom to think manifests itself in her freedom to pursue and create values. Without the right to the product of her efforts, he neither sustain her life, nor have to right to it.
In terms of relationships with other people, as person has the right to what he agrees to in the relationship. For example, an employee has a right to what the contract he signs with the employer stipulates his pay and benefits to be. The employer has a right to what the mutually agreed upon contract stipulates the employer will do as part of his job.
No tax-payer agreed to his relationship with the government. But did he not ³agree to be a part of this society by living in it...and hence must play by the rules?² No. The government does not own the country. It does not stand outside of it and create the market. Countries are not country clubs. Governments are not administrators of the club.
The idea of a ³living wage² puts the government in a position of being a parent. Howard and Barton appear to think that people are entitled to things just for being alive. They think people deserve the unearned that those who produce have a duty to serve those in need and that it is OK to use force to redistribute wealth that is not even theirs. Again: NINACOW!
Now I will comment on Neena Shenaiıs counterpoint. She advocates that ³our great country² should be a welfare state people who are ³genuinely between jobs² should be guaranteed some form of ³public security which is guaranteed by the government.²
Is it possible to provide such security without such coercive measures? Does she realize that what she advocates is that people be threatened with force if they do not comply with what she wants? Is there another way do achieve such security? Is it possible that people would save more money if our government did not pay people not to work and tax people more if the more money they make?
Donıt insurance companies serve as safety nets? People can choose to share the risk of unemployment. Such non-coercive institutions can replace Social Security, too. The governmentıs providing a safety net frees people of the responsibility of planning for the future. Such coercion keeps people at a childıs mentality, with the government a sa parent. People stop thinking about what they can do to ensure a good future, as the government, they think, will take care of it for them.
Where does the government get money to ³guarantee² services? How can the government ³guarantee it²? It gets money from tax payers, and it gets it using threat power. Is that right? Is it right for a person to rob, steal or rape? Then is it different if a bunch of people vote for representatives who will rob and steal for them?
Social engineering is not practical. Rationality is a prerequisite for creativity. At the point of a gun, humans can not flourish by their nature as rational animals. They are forced to act not according to their own reasoning, but to that of the gun-wielder: the government. To paraphrase Ayn Rand: To try to deal with people by force is as impractical as to try to deal with nature by persuasion.
Consider the means to which the governmnet achives ends. If you want a ³safety net,² or ³art,² or education for everyone, or scientific research, or people who do not offend you, does that mean it is OK for the government to force all the tax payers to fund what you want? Is that what the government is for? To get you what you want, by any means possible?
Nor is social engineering a responsible way to achieve oneıs ends. Asking the government to raise money for your purposes bypasses having to make your goals sound worthwhile to others. Why go out and try to get people to work with you voluntarily when the government can get them to comply by making it illegal for them not to? Is it better to approach people, hat in hand, and attempt to show how your goals are worthwhile for them to pursue? Or would you shrug off the responsibility to the government and have them achieve your goals with gun in hand?
Self responsible people realize that they are they owner of their own lives, and that others are not on this Earth to serve them. Self-responsible people realize that their need is not a claim on the wealth of others, and that they are not entitled to things just for living. They also realize that they are accountable to achieve their own goals, and that mom, dad, the government are not there to get things done for them.
The government for protecting individual rights so no one can force others to do what they want them to do so each individual can pursue his notion of ³the good life² without being forced to follow that of another?
People with visions of ³redistributing the wealth,² mistakenly think it is theirs, or the governmentıs, to redistribute. People have rights. The government does not ³legislates what rights we have² no more than physicists can legislate the acceleration of gravity. Rights are to be discovered and protected, not invented and distorted for oneıs own ends.