RALEIGH – If you base your political views on the assumption that people don’t tend to act in their self-interest, you are dooming yourself to chronic disappointment.
That’s not to say that most people are venal, evil, or contemptuous of the rights and interests of others. They aspire to serve their fellow human beings and care about their welfare. Some live heroic lives of sacrifice – in roles ranging from missionary to Marine – while most others combine traditional careers with community service and personal acts of charity.
But self-interest is a powerful motivating force in human action. Understood broadly, to include a commitment to family and an ethic of self-reliance and personal achievement, it is not just an unavoidable human impulse but can indeed be harnessed to promote human progress.
If you have trouble stomaching the idea that human beings are hard-wired to prioritize the self, the familial, and the local above the collective, the foreign, and the faraway, run this simple thought experiment. Imagine that two events occurred today. First, you heard on the radio that 78 people died in a natural disaster in Burma. Second, while chopping vegetables for your lunch, you accidentally cut off your little finger. Which event would cause you greater distress, motivate you to spend resources in response, and have the greatest long-term effect on your life?
Unless you are a saint, and probably even then, the honest answer would be that the loss of the finger was the more significant event of your day. What if the Burmese death toll was 780, or 7,800, or (as actually seems to be the case) 78,000? At what point would you say that the loss of your finger would truly pale in comparison to the overseas tragedy? Or would you ever say that?
Notice that I stacked the deck against the primacy of self-interest by choosing just one little finger. Imagine that you suffered the tragic death of a child or other close family member. Virtually no one could honestly say that quantity would trump familiarity in such an instance.
Of course, few truly believe that the lives of tens of thousands of foreigners aren’t morally worth as much as a finger, or the life of a single child. As a matter of fact, there are heroic people who risk life and limb every day to save others, or proudly support their children who do the same acting as firefighters, overseas aid workers, or soldiers. Such sacrifice is noble. My point is simply that it rarely comes naturally. Most of the time, human beings make decisions on the basis of what best meets their needs and those of their families and close friends. Most people (particularly if they believe in God) are charitable, but they don’t give away the majority of their incomes. And when they are charitable, they tend to focus on causes closer to home, often with institutions or individuals with which they have a personal familiarity.
For example, most Americans who give to anti-poverty programs steer their dollars to institutions that primarily serve the needs of disadvantaged Americans. But poverty in the U.S., while certainly painful and worthy of redress, isn’t remotely comparable to the grinding poverty prevalent in, say, Africa or South Asia. The average American poor person is far healthier and safer than the average poor Bangladeshi or Zimbabwean. Objectively, the need for assistance is far greater overseas than within the U.S. Yet few Americans, of any religion or political persuasion, deploy their time and money accordingly.
These are immutable facts of human nature. Rage against them all you want to. It won’t change them.
As I have written elsewhere, American conservatism – the political philosophy that used to be called liberalism, and still is in many other countries – begins with the principle that true progress begins with an acceptance of reality. The reality here is that most people act with regard to their self-interest most of the time. They work in order to feed, clothe, house, and otherwise take care of themselves and their families. They’ll also gladly give of their time and money to causes they deem worthy, but that’s not their primary motivation to work, save, and invest.
Fortunately, another reality to accept is that intentions don’t determine results. When governments use coercion to force people to act contrary to their personal choices, the results are often disappointing regardless of how well-intended the government program may have been. And in a market economy, individuals freely transacting business to mutual advantage tend to advance the common interest by promoting innovation, lower prices, better service, and economic opportunity.
Don’t take my word for it. Some dudes named John Locke and Adam Smith made this point a while back.
Hood is president of the John Locke Foundation.