First Principles

“Of all tyrannies a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victim may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron’s cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated, but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.”

— C. S. Lewis

Last week I got my copy of the University of Washington School of Law’s alumni magazine, a 66 page full color publication which asks for donations to the school, presumably so they can afford to keep sending out 66 page full color alumni magazines on a regular basis.

What always catches my attention when I get one of these, though, is my alma mater’s new mission statement:

“Leaders for the Global Common Good”

I frankly find it creepy.  More than that, though, it illustrates a rather disturbing disconnect between America’s founding legal philosophy and what is taught in modern law schools.

~~~

Let’s look at the last two words:  “Common Good.”  I actually hear this (or some similar version) all the time at every level of political discussions, and it always irritates me.  You see letters to the editor in the paper constantly lamenting that Republicans and Democrats need to quit their squabbling and just “do what’s right for all Nevadans,” or that people need to “put ideology aside” and “just do the ‘right thing’.”

But no matter how you phrase it, the underlying assumption is flawed.  And it starts with one question – “Who decides what the “Common Good” is?”

For liberals, the answer to this question always comes down to some small, hopefully benevolent group of “leaders” treating the rest of society as children, forcing them to act in certain ways, and taking property from one group or individual and giving it to another in a never-ending attempt to engineer a more perfect utopia on earth. And tellingly, no one using this phrase will ever be specific about it until they’re controlling every last nuance of your life.

Too many people eating unhealthy food?  That’s not helping “the Common Good!”  The wrong sort of books/video games/websites?  Can’t have that!  Buying beer on the Lord’s day?  Not in our community, by God!  Thank goodness we have leaders looking out for the “Common Good!”

And it also requires/justifies acting against some individuals’ or groups’ obvious interests.  “Sorry – we know you earned that money you have, and it’s not fair to you for us to take it and give it to the guy who didn’t earn it, but we have the common good to think about.  You understand.”

How about letting us “little people” decide what’s in our own interests?  Isn’t that what a free society is supposed to be about?

~~~

This is Professor Louis Wolcher, an avowed Marxist who just was invited to Iran to give a speech on "Human Rights and Cultural Diversity" at the "First International Conference on Human Rights and Cultures: Cultures in Support of Humanity". Yes, in IRAN. If this guy is defining the "Common Good"...

When you get “Global,” it’s even scarier. There are a tremendous number of people in the world who think we’d all be better off if we worshiped a single God, and all the infidels were dead.  Plenty would love to see a planet free of the Jews or Tutsis or Kurds or Sudanese Christians.  Plenty more think having more than one political party is “inefficient,” and it wasn’t all that long ago that eugenics was widely accepted (even here in the USA) as a way of “perfecting” society.

And when you get “Global,” the question of “who decides” becomes even more relevant.  Global organizations like the UN may carry the trappings of democracy, but they have nothing to do with public accountability.  Think of it this way – if you don’t like the Secretary-General of the UN, where do you go to vote him out?  If his vision of the “global common good” is different than mine or even a majority of my countrymen, to whom is he accountable?  Which electorate?

It works the other way, too.  Even if the faculty of the University of Washington School of Law is the most enlightened body on the planet (they’re not), a benevolent tyranny is still a tyranny.  Who has chosen these people as leaders anywhere on the globe?  Who has decided these people are the final arbiters of just what the “Global Common Good” is or should be?

It doesn’t take a genius to see how quickly and immediately such a nebulous goal can lead to incredibly frighting oppression.  And indeed, such has been the norm throughout the history of human civilization.

~~~

The only way for any government to maximize the “good” of a majority of society without brutal and constant control is to limit the mission of government to the maximization of individual liberty.  You need police and roads and firefighters to act as an umbrella of safety, but beyond that, stay out of the way.  Let people start businesses as easily as possible, and let those companies rise or fall on their own merits.  Let people make use of natural resources if they can.  Make way for people to succeed – and to fail.  There will be inequality and hardship along the way, but it beats all being equal at the breadline every time.

This isn’t just the cultural foundation of our country, but it’s the legal foundation.  The legitimate role of government and the laws it creates and enforces is to protect our lives, liberty, and property – as individuals, and against others, not ourselves.  It’s a frightening thing indeed that this American law school (and trust me, it is not unique) is willing not just to stray from that foundation, but seems to reject it entirely.

~~~

So I think I’ll probably pass on the donation to my esteemed school.  The harder it is for any one small groupto attempt to implement their vision of the “Common Good,” the better off us “common” folk will be!