The Internet: Beneficent Commonwealth

The Philadelphia Syndicate ^ | January 1, 2004 | Ed Hertzog

[PHLSyndicate]

Libertarians hold that a moral society is a society based upon consensual behaviour. This principle is held in higher esteem than other principles, such as altruistic causes, including, but not limited to, disaster relief.

A libertarian critique of the present relief situation holds that, of course, it is both permissible, and even recommended, that we help our fellow human beings on the other side of the planet. For a libertarian, the problem arises when we utilise government as an instrument, using coerced tax funds, to perform the charity work.

Despite the moral ends of disaster aid, a libertarian holds fast in the belief that altruism, at the point of the gun, is anything but moral. Without the fully enforced consent of the helpers, the helped are but possessors of stolen property. This moral reasoning may be valid and true, although the people receiving aid only know they may live another day.

With or without a welfare state, natural disasters will occur and a greater number of us may wish to aid the less fortunate, unlucky and plum dumb. As it is now, government plays a very large, if not the largest, role in the effort of relief in the time of natural disasters and unplanned horrors. Few would argue that our tax dollars should not go towards the effort of relif, save we libertarians. And if you are that guy at the party trying to convince the host's wife's best friend that you are smarter than the UN or FEMA, you must be prepared to argue about more than long-winded accounts of entries in one's handbook on rational egoist slogans.

If we are to seek a society of consensual altruism, we must work to support civil institutions that will be tasked with relief efforts in the future. In short, consensual altruism requires action, not talk alone. This requires more than the expressions of perturbation over the world's perfidious complaints about our lack of generosity. It requires a pro-active approach.

In the past, civil instructions, mostly faith-based, organised efforts such as what we see today. In time, government has taken on the role of generous uncle. Our increasingly conservative social atmosphere in American has contributed to the conservative movement's support of faith-based institutions funded by government, as opposed to government techo-crats.

Although the momentum may be in favour of a decreased role of government in social welfare, to the delight of libertarians, the direction of that momentum is not favourable. Whether it be liberal sociologists receiving public funds and spending it on social programs or a religious institution receiving money to run a soup kitchen or drug clinic, we are still taking money from one person and giving it to another -- whether the person ”giving” the money has a say or not. Not only is the moral orientation on this ideological position identical to a liberal's ends-justifies-the means position, I find it far less desirable than our current social welfare safety net policies.

In a free society, control and management of churches and similar faith based institutions must be completely independent of all government functions. As any person who may have married up in class may find, a benefactor brings not freedom, but the continuous desire for the returned control of one's own self. I fear the churches of America may one day find themselves in that very position. [Note to Compassionate Conservatives: Once you give someone money to pursue their endeavours, you control them. Government support of faith-based institutions is more a Trojan horse than a blessing.]

The Iternet, a tool utilised by society not unlike government or churches, in many ways is a concrete expression of libertarianism and represents a chance at a third way. It is neither the liberal's government based-solutions nor the conservative’s reliance on religious institutions. It is the American way of Free Association and voluntarily granted beneficence. It is a mechanism, which facilitates and enhances the free flow of ideas and capital. As an active supporter of a consensual society, it is pleasing to see the spontaneous organisational role of the Internet in current tsunami relief efforts. Not only is the Internet capable of liberating speech and the ambition of traders and merchants, it is additionally commendable in its success of organising the presently generous.

And a moral one at that.