Let me tell you a little about my brother. He’s six feet tall and a solid 200 pounds. Has a wife and two kids. Works hard and plays hard, often outside in the winter.
Am I his keeper? Should I think of myself that way?
My brother is responsible, competent, and independent, and I know he takes pride, in his quiet, understated way, in being that way. I know I like thinking about him that way.
So when I think about it, I find that I have no desire to be his keeper. And it repulses me to think of him as a kept man.
Of course, if something came up and he needed help, I’d be there fast. If finances were tight, I’d be happy to loan him money or — if things were dire — to give it to him.
That’s not what the brother’s keeper people are talking about.
They’re talking, in the first place, about an attitude toward responsibility: we should not think of ourselves and others as self-responsible but as collectively responsible. “Brother” is used metaphorically, with the idea that the partially-collective ethic of the family should be extended across all of society.
And they’re talking, in the second place, about using compulsion to enforce their notion of collective responsibility. These “brother’s keeper” people did not pursue careers at voluntary charitable organizations where they could help those struggling to be responsible and independent.
Instead, they became politicians, which means they want to use the compulsory power of government — taxes, redistributions, prohibitions, backed up with the threats of fines and jail — to force all of us to do what they think is the right thing for us.
I want us to be self-responsible, competent, and mutually respectful of each others’ self-responsibility and competence.
They want us to think of ourselves as mutually kept, they want us to be kept, and they want to be the keepers.
Whose moral foundation is stronger here?
Spot on Stephen!
In “Let’s have some real change for a change” ( http://tinyurl.com/np77ot/ ) I point out that there is no positive morality where there is no choice. Even if one assumes that giving to the poor is an act of moral virtue, there is nothing virtuous about giving to the poor at the point of a gun. That is not sacrifice. It is being sacrificed. The morality of undertaking to be your brother’s keeper is irrelevant when you are forced to do it. So the left has no moral argument – none, none – upon which to base the government’s claim to your property to support the children, the poor, the sick, homeowners, the banks or anyone else.
John T. Marohn also replied to this post, re-affirming the need for a compulsory collectivism and criticizing “rabid” individualists. His comment can be found here: http://www.stephenhicks.org/2009/08/22/entrepreneurs-family-background-and-motivation/#comments
Good point, Gene. I agree that once one eliminates individual choice, one eliminates morality.
On the collectivist side, then, to retain their compulsory political methods, they are logically forced to adopt a collectivized view of our identity. There is no “I” on that view, only a “We.” So there’s no moral problem with forcing our collective self to compel recalcitrant individuals to do their part for the whole.
Hegel and Marx are the big guns here.