The Road to Freedom and The Right

[Valin]

Ricochet:

Ben Domenech

5/16/12

 

Arthur Brooks opens the third chapter of his book about free enterprise with a story adapted from Jonathan Haidt, of The Righteous Mind, about a family dog. The children want a dog desperately, and implore their mother for one. The father is unconvinced, and so a period of bargaining follows. Eventually, he gives in. But his worries are swept away by the loving pet, who they name Muffin. Muffin is not a hassle after all, and is soon beloved by all. But then, tragedy: a squirrel across the road, an oncoming car, and smack, Muffin is gone. The family is horrified and aghast, distraught at the loss. So upon consideration, they gather the dog’s lifeless form up, take it inside the house, to cook and eat it.

 

What? Did you recoil as I did? Why? It’s perfectly legal. Heck, in other countries, who knows what goes on! But Brooks’ point is: what’s wrong with that story? The reaction you’re having right now is one of basic deeply ingrained morality – only after a few minutes have passed do you shift to making an argument based on a logical basis. Brooks uses this story, along with heaps of social science data, to emphasize the power of moral arguments over logical, data-based arguments when it comes to evaluating what has the most impact on the human mind. He then connects this to the vast maw of emptiness on the right when it comes to advancing the moral argument for free enterprise, tackling issues of income inequality, fairness, and a true understanding of earned success. So long as those on the right are making their case primarily with charts and graphs, and not arguments based on essential moral truths, they are losing.

 

 

The quarrel, as he sees it, is between redistributive fairness ("It is fair to equalize rewards. Inequality is inherently unfair.") and meritocratic fairness ("Fairness means matching reward to merit. Forced equality is inherently unfair.") Brooks rejects the idea that fairness is an inherently subjective issue, and draws a distinction between the attitudes people have towards rewards they view as unearned (entitlements) and rewards they view as earned (such as better salaries for better workers in the same job). He writes: “If individual opportunity is a sham - if the system is fixed and some people get the breaks only by virtue of luck or birth or skin color - then inequality isn't fair at all. We should redistribute wealth the same way we should redistribute unearned candy. But if America is an opportunity society - if, in fact, people have the chance to work harder, get more education, and innovate - then rewarding merit is fair, and for some people to make more money than others is good and just.”

 

(Snip)

 

 

Bonus Vid