Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
A Moral Case for Capitalism
Free markets are based on “natural” or “negative” rights, while socialism and communism are based on “positive” rights. Negative rights are rights that we have that don’t require any action on anyone else’s part to provide. Rather, others must not act in order for us to enjoy these rights. For example, my right to life only obliges other people not to kill me. My right to religion obliges others not to burn down my place of worship. My right to free speech requires that others not silence me. Property rights obliges us not to take what isn’t ours.
Positive rights, by contrast, place a burden on others. For example, if Mr. Jones claims to have a right to free health care, then someone is obliged to provide that health care to him, and to bear the cost of providing it. Forcing some people to provide goods and services to others used to be called “slavery.”
Slavery, however, is no longer a popular form of coercion. The form of coercion currently in vogue is to force Mr. Rich to pay Dr. Smith to treat Mr. Jones. In practice, however, Ms. Not-so-Rich and Mr. Downright Poor are also usually forced to help pay Dr. Smith. All these people are required to pay for Jones’ health care even if they are poorer than Jones.
Positive rights also have practical consequences. Perhaps the biggest is that they create political conflict between people as they all try to live at each other’s expense. Also, positive rights have no limiting principle. Anything can be, and nearly everything has been, declared to be a “fundamental” human right.
Published in General
I think it may be more correct to say that natural rights may be incumbent on others’ inaction in order to be enjoyed to the full, and are self-evident by the fact that no action on any others’ part make them exist, but the rights don’t oblige others to do anything, as people have the natural right of free will. To oblige others is the function of positive rights, as in your example.
“Fundamental”- something that’s so fun, da mental conclusion is it must be right
Side note:
This post made me think of this “Are property rights natural or a simply a legal construct for a harmonious society?”
Perfectly suited to both class warfare and identity politics.
Outstanding post.
What the good Dr. just said! Great post.
Excellent post and I like the framing of negative vs positive rights. Put me in mind of the Forgotten Man quote, which I’m sure has been quoted here many times but here it is again:
“As soon as A observes something which seems to him wrong, from which X is suffering, A talks it over with B, and A and B then propose to get a law passed to remedy the evil and help X. Their law always proposes to determine what C shall do for X, or, in better case, what A, B, and C shall do for X… What I want to do is to look up C. I want to show you what manner of man he is. I call him the Forgotten Man. perhaps the appellation is not strictly correct. he is the man who never is thought of…. I call him the forgotten man… He works, he votes, generally he prays—but he always pays…” -WG Sumner
This is known as “social justice.”
Great post! But now they’re going to accuse us of negative thinking . . .
I suppose one can define words as the Queen did, as whatever she wants them to mean. Positive right is a Queen’s word and ultimately justifies chopping off whatever head she chooses. To avoid that pernicious and ultimately totalitarian temptation, we defined some of our rights and made clear that the purpose of government was to defend those and other natural rights most especially from government itself.
I’m thinking foot massages. I deserve them. Doesn’t everyone agree with me?
The challenge I have run into putting forth this type of case is that too many people do not see taxation of Mr. Rich (to pay Dr. Smith to treat Mr. Jones) as taking Mr. Rich’s labor and thus partially enslaving Mr. Rich. They see the burden on Mr. Rich as incidental.
People I have tried this reason on follow the point that they recognize that forcing Dr. Smith to treat Mr. Jones for free is Mr. Jones enslaving Dr. Smith.
They sometimes may also see that forcing Mr. Rich to pay Dr. Smith directly to treat Mr. Jones is Mr. Rich becoming a slave to Mr. Jones. They don’t all make the connection, as I run into a surprising number of people who do not see that income and property are tangible manifestations of someone’s labor.
Very few people are able or willing to recognize that forcing Mr. Rich to send money to the government to pay Dr. Smith so that Mr. Jones receives his right to free medical care is nothing more than an indirect way for Mr. Jones to require Mr. Rich to expend some of Mr. Rich’s labor for Mr. Jones’ benefit (i.e., Mr. Jones is enslaving Mr. Rich). The usual answer I get is (assuming an income tax basis) that Mr. Rich has the option of not working at all, so he is not paying taxes and therefore not required to work for Mr. Jones. My response about that not being much of a freedom for Mr. Rich generally falls on deaf ears.
Might I ask the author where this discussion of negative and positive rights intercedes with morals. I have not seen any mention of an actual moral theory in the article.
As I read the post, I start with the presumption that it is immoral for one person to impose a burden or obligation on another person to satisfy the “rights” of the first person. If Mr. Jones has a positive right to receive medical care, Mr. Jones then has the ability to conscript someone to work to provide Mr. Jones with that positive right. One person having the ability to conscript another person in such a manner is immoral.
Well… we could ask @titustechera ;-P
‘He can afford it.’ – people who never save money.
I think it is this way: Morals can intercede to keep people from violating another’s natural rights. Oddly enough, the “positive” rights that don’t come from pure desire are often pushed as being moral, but only when focusing on the end result. It is “morally right” for the government to provide health care for everyone as we should “Do unto others…” The problem with this view is that it ignores, or discards, the immoral actions, e.g. trampling on natural rights, that might be needed to attain that end. Remove “for the government” as the means to that end, and you stand a better chance of 1) a moral solution to the issue, 2) actually achieving the goal , and 3) preserving the rights of all.
That’s where capitalism, as an interaction between individuals invokes morality. I’ve been listening to @jonahgoldberg book junket interviews. One of the points he makes is that good morality in business dealings in a capitalist environment, besides being right in and of themselves, turns out to be good for business. To me that means allowing people to greater enjoy their natural rights.
(EDITED because I hit comment too soon)
I subtly pointed out that positive rights require involuntary servitude. We’ve established that that’s immoral, though it took a civil war to do it.
It’s also worth noting that the champions of involuntary servitude back then are the champions of involuntary servitude today.
Took a Civil War to establish that involuntary servitude is wrong? So having a stance and enforcing it with violence makes an action moral or not? The last I checked most moral theories do not assert that violence is necessary in their cause for reasoning.
Perhaps I can rephrase the question. Your title is “a moral case for capitalism”, that implies you have laid out a moral theory and that within it capitalism is a moral good at best or permissible at worst. You, however, do not outline a moral theory in this article. Nor do you outline any morally good actions.
You outline actions you believe to be morally wrong, like the involuntary servititude or burning down someone’s place of worship. So the cause of morally right is not even explained, and to be honest morally wrong’s cause is a little fuzzy. This does not equate to a moral theory.
To give examples of moral theories there are: Virtue Ethics, Deontological Ethics, Utilitarian (Rule and Act) Ethics, Egoism Ethics, etc.. Perhaps you could fit in your negative and positive rights into one of them but right now you have not made an argument for why capitalism is a morally good idea.
It’s not like there is a philosophy professor that frequents Ricochet right? @saintaugustine
My worst nightmare has come true. @CouldBeAnyone turns out to be my humorless Jr High philosophy teacher, Aristophanes Plato Gilhooley. It’s finals and I don’t know my tautological from my scatological. @saintaugustine please come and salvage the hash I’ve made!
Thou shalt not steal would seem to presuppose property rights.
I prefer Aristotle. He doesn’t make wack analogies between individuals and cities, and all that entails, when discussing justice. Although at least Plato would make an argument for his position rather than complaining about positive rights or his critics. After all I come to Ricochet for thoughtful discussion.
Does it really take a philosophy professor to make the moral case for voluntary exchange?
I am not the one who made that original suggestion, MFR did. Although I have yet to see someone make the affirmative case yet. Maybe it is that hard. Also that quote is not from me.
Flunked again. Damn.
I’m really losing the point you are trying to make with this argument. There are plenty of free market and capitalist thinkers (see, for instance, Adam Smith & Hayek), who do not see taxation or government programs (at least at some level) as in conflict with capitalism. Nor would the Founders who created a Constitution which allowed the new Federal government to regulate commerce among the states.
Also, I almost stopped reading when you brought up slavery, and I’m on your side. Good luck with that argument if you are actually trying to persuade someone who does not already agree with you.
Paging Ayn Rand. Paging Ayn Rand.
We appear to be talking past each other. Systems based on positive rights require coerced services. I think that’s immoral.
@couldbeanyone, you reply that that’s not a moral argument for free markets. Fair enough. Is it at least a moral argument against socialism? If not, why not? Can it be salvaged? If so, how?
@gumbymark, you seem offended by my assertion that taxing people to provide positive rights to others is a form of coerced service (aka slavery). Why do you disagree with my assertion? Can my point be made in a way that doesn’t offend you?
Among these are:
Systems based on negative rights also require coerced services. Our notion of the purpose of government being to protect our rights, it costs money. Military, police, courts, recorders of deeds, so on and so forth. That was Adam Smith’s argument for progressive tax schemes–the rich should pay more because they, having more property, benefit more from the police powers of government’s protection of property rights.
Other people paying for things you can perfectly well pay for yourself is another issue. Not so much moral, in my view, as a just plain dumb way of running the railroad.