I’m more afraid of sanctimonious smart people than of stupid people

By David McElroy · August 1, 2012

For a long time, I’ve found myself wishing I could live on an island somewhere — or maybe even in a cave — to escape the stupid people who seem to be all around.

But when I think about it more seriously, I realize it’s not just stupid people who I want to escape. I want to escape from very bright people who insist that it’s their moral right to force me to obey their will.

There are some quite brilliant people — at least as measured by IQ — who have fallen for the civic religion that tells them it’s their moral right to make my decisions and take my money to use as they please. Most galling, perhaps, is their sanctimonious belief that I’m being “greedy” if I don’t want to obey them.

I watched an online discussion play out of Facebook Monday between siblings over the issue. One woman posted this graphic from the Bastiat Institute, which I had also posted Monday. It points out something that I’ve talked about before. If someone else claims a right to what you produce, you are a slave to that person or group to that extent.

After the woman posted the graphic, her two sisters disagreed with her, each for a different reason. It ended up mostly as a dialogue between the original poster and one of her sisters, who is a progressive left Democrat. They’re all three exceptionally intelligent women. But the leftist misses the moral point about the theft of property entirely. I think this part of the exchange was when I most wanted to bang my head against a wall:

You also miss the fact that many people don’t believe taxes are theft in the first place. It’s only “theft” if you happen to feel very strongly about wanting all your money for yourself, rather than viewing money as a necessary evil for keeping things running. The former viewpoint is also known as “greed,” the latter viewpoint means I’m less attached to having “my” green stuff and willing to let some of it float out there in the service of the greater good. You might be surprised how many people would pay taxes without a gun to their head.

This paragraph encapsulates so much of what the progressive left mindset is all about, so let’s look at it piece by piece.

She says that many people don’t believe taxes are theft. She’s right. Many people have been brainwashed into believing they have a moral obligation to obey people who give them orders. If those people would like to voluntarily pay the people who call themselves “government,” I have no objection. But how will they react when I opt out? And if this woman doesn’t believe it’s theft to take what belongs to someone else, would she mind if I come to her home and take what I please from her?

She next says that the only people who call taxation theft are those who don’t want to hand over their money. Well, duh. I feel the same way whenever my money is transferred to someone else. If I want the transaction to occur, it’s not theft. If I don’t want the transfer to occur, it is theft. That’s the very definition of theft. It’s the coercion involved that makes it theft.

Next, she pulls out the biggest weapon in the progressive arsenal. She says that anyone who wants to make his own decisions about his money — who doesn’t want it stolen — is greedy. So if a mugger holds a gun to you and demands your money, you’re greedy if you don’t happily hand it over. Right?

These people don’t understand what money is. They believe that money is some zero-sum game with a static supply of value. Instead, money is merely an abstract representation of little bits and pieces of your life that you’ve given to someone else in exchange for agreed-upon value. If someone pays me $500 for something, I’ve given something of value to someone else, either in the form of my time or my ideas or effort. (Usually a combination.) So when someone takes your money against your will, he’s taking bits and pieces of your life. He’s enslaving you.

This person argued that a moral person wants to give up his money in order to help others. I happen to know that the woman who posted the graphic is insanely generous with her money and effort, pouring untold dollars and untold hours into ministry efforts to improve other people’s lives. So it’s not that she objected to giving her money. She wasn’t trying to keep her money for herself. She wants it to be acknowledged that she has the right to decide for herself whether to give money and who to give the money to.

I ran across a quote from libertarian and comedian Penn Jillette Tuesday that makes this point very well:

It’s amazing to me how many people think that voting to have the government give poor people money is compassion. Helping poor and suffering people is compassion. Voting for our government to use guns to give money to help poor and suffering people is immoral self-righteous bullying laziness.

People need to be fed, medicated, educated, clothed and sheltered, and if we’re compassionate we’ll help them, but you get no moral credit for forcing other people to do what you think is right. There is great joy in helping people, but no joy in doing it at gunpoint.

If you want to be compassionate, give your money to help people. Get involved with ministries or non-profits that are in keeping with your beliefs. Do whatever you want to with your own money. You can even try to sell other people on the idea of voluntarily giving to the causes you believe in.

What you can’t morally do is demand that others make the same choices with their money that you do — and then use the power of a gun to take it from them if they decline to obey you.

Share on Social Networks

I’m seeing a lot of simplistic and dishonest explanations right now for the current rioting in France. Those on the populist far right claim it’s all about Muslim immigrants to France disrupting the culture. Their message is that this sort of thing is going to happen in the U.S. unless “we defend the border.” On the far left, socialists and their fellow travelers claim the riots are all about wealthy people in France not paying enough taxes, resulting in cuts to government services. The truth is far more complicated, but it’s rooted in the decline of population growth in Europe. There simply aren’t enough young workers paying into the tax system anymore, so cuts in social services were inevitable. There is genuine cultural tension as more and more people immigrate from other countries, but government cuts to education and other services are even more important to what’s happening. The situation is complicated, so don’t let dishonest people with U.S. political agendas tell you that it happens to support whatever they were already promoting for partisan reasons.

Here’s another reason to appreciate the cats in your life: New research involving 93 countries found that places with more cats per person also tended to have happier people. The researchers say the finding fits with previous evidence that living with pets can reduce loneliness and stress while providing companionship, emotional attachment and social support. The study doesn’t prove that cats cause greater happiness, but it certainly adds to the evidence that sharing your home — and your life — with a cat might be good for you.

The company that owns Facebook and Instagram is heavily promoting its new AI-based software assistant called Muse, but people who are using it as it was designed are incredibly foolish. An early adopter of the software discovered that a few days ago when he advertised an item for sale on Facebook Marketplace — and he inadvertently gave Muse full authority to act on his behalf. The software agreed to a lowball offer made by another Facebook user and then gave that man the home address of the man for whom he was an agent. The software told the buyer that the seller was home and waiting for him. When the buyer showed up and waited angrily, the would-be buyer left an angry review for the man. And this angry man had the seller’s home address. It was only well after that that the software reported what it had done and admitted it had made a mistake. I won’t be putting that much power into the hands of any software. I think anyone who agrees to such terms is a fool. And the software’s user agreement says you’re responsible for purchases the software makes in your name. Nope.

Meet my new girlfriend. Her name is Meg. And she’s my little sweetheart. A couple of months ago, a neighbor across the street told me about a new stray in the neighborhood that she and I were both soon feeding. The cat had been very skittish about contact and she had a lot of scabs and parasites in her fur, but a trip to the vet last week revealed that she was otherwise in good health. The vet estimates her to be 1 to 2 years old. I named her for Meg Murry, the 13-year-old protagonist of Madeleine L’Engle’s wonderful book, “A Wrinkle in Time.” (Please read the book. Don’t watch the horrible movie.) Since we lost Lucy almost a year ago, it seems appropriate that we finally have a new little girl to join the household. She’s already captured my heart, but Alex, Oliver and Sam aren’t there quite yet.

There’s nothing socially acceptable that’s as dangerous as drinking alcohol. Most people grow up being told to “drink responsibly” — and all of us see people abusing this drug in one way or another — but the truth is that drinking alcohol is always a terrible risk. The alcohol in these drinks is toxic and the human liver has to work hard to filter the toxins out. What most people don’t realize is that alcohol is classified as a known carcinogen by the World Health Organization — because of the well-established connection between imbibing and various cancers. Many people have taken refuge behind the idea that light or moderate drinking might be safe, but a new study shows that drinking even one drink a day increases the risks of 10 types of cancer. When I was a teen-ager, I looked around and saw the negative effects that this behavior had on a lot of people and decided not to start drinking, so I’ve never even tried this poison. The evidence keeps piling up that I was lucky to have come to that conclusion early.

Related Posts