The President of the United States has repeatedly taken time out to castigate the “greed” of Wall Street and the business community. But shouldn’t we pause to consider the pleasing side of greed? Ok, the dictionary says greed is an “excessive desire to acquire or possess, as wealth or power, beyond what one needs or deserves.” Being good Aristoteleans at heart, we all balk at anything excessive, but what about the promptings of what Tocqueville called “self-interest rightly understood”? I think there is a lot to be said for it–as did Tocqueville:
The principle of self-interest rightly understood produces no great acts of self-sacrifice, but it suggests daily small acts of self-denial. By itself it cannot suffice to make a man virtuous; but it disciplines a number of persons in habits of regularity, temperance, moderation, foresight, self- command; and if it does not lead men straight to virtue by the will, it gradually draws them in that direction by their habits. If the principle of interest rightly understood were to sway the whole moral world, extraordinary virtues would doubtless be more rare; but I think that gross depravity would then also be less common. The principle of interest rightly understood perhaps prevents men from rising far above the level of mankind, but a great number of other men, who were falling far below it, are caught and restrained by it. Observe some few individuals, they are lowered by it; survey mankind, they are raised.
I am not afraid to say that the principle of self-interest rightly understood appears to me the best suited of all philosophical theories to the wants of the men of our time, and that I regard it as their chief remaining security against themselves. Towards it, therefore, the minds of the moralists of our age should turn; even should they judge it to be incomplete, it must nevertheless be adopted as necessary.
Advertisement
It’s worth keeping Tocqueville’s words in mind as we listen to the scolding prigs inveigh against greed and capitalism. Just last week, in a perfect illustration of the principle that a government that is big enough to give everything is big enough to take it away, the President capped executive salaries of some entities receiving taxpayer-funded bailouts. A prudent move to limit taxpayer loses? Or a bit of political theater designed to appeal to the resentful socialist base of the Democratic party? One thing is for sure, it stands as a vivid reminder of the sort of strings government “largess” comes with.
If you don’t watch anything else this week, watch Milton Friedman slice, dice, and eviscerate a pompous, moralistic interviewer who tried to make him feel guilty about the world’s poor and greedy capitalism
(Hat tip, Instapundit, which also has a refreshing snippet from Satruday Night Live on Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi):
Love the clip. For those who do not know. the “pompous, moralistic interviewer” resides in a multi million dollar oceanfront estate in Greens Farms Connecticut. I can recall the publib uproar when Mr. Pompous purchased and then bulldozed the estate next door to his own as that estate was very important, architecturally. But Mr. Pompous’ desire for privacy was stronger than his respect of architectural history.
Oh, and Mr. Pompous knew exactly what Milton Friedman was speaking about as it was his own (late) father-in-law, Danny Thomas, who founded St. Jude’s hospital for children.
I guess Greed is Good, as long as its government Greed
i’ll never forget the first (and last) time i saw Oprah on television. i only watched for a few minutes, but i remember thinking to myself, “byyyye, byyyye Phil.”
I didn’t watch the clip (Internet runs too slow for that). Your argument could make perfect sense if I do watch it. But I just want to see if I have your argument from the written part down:
- We’re not out to praise greed, but rather the “promptings of self-interest rightly understood.” So ok, you’re taking “greed” and turning it down a notch, into “self-interest.” That’s kinda tricky to do, because each phenomenon might have different bases (“greed” could be some kind of insecurity, “self-interest” might derive from reason. It could be unreasonable or irrational to ignore self-interest, independent of the coinage “enlightened self-interest”).
- “Self-interest rightly understood…suggests daily small acts of self-denial.” The habits it cultivates have to do with consistency and control. These may turn out to be virtuous – the “many” are “raised” because the standards for good action are lowered. I mean, seriously, that’s what he says – people are “caught and restrained,” and this is the closest the populace can come to using their freedom responsibly.
- After this, you say that we should keep this in mind while what is most likely manipulative political theater plays out, and you say that we might interpret the capping of salaries as a “prudent move to limit taxpayer losses.”
I guess the way the argument adds up is the consistent move to moderation in each part of it. But here’s the problem: if it reads like it doesn’t quite hold together, it’s because it doesn’t. Moderation has been used three different times in your piece – at first, as an attempt to be reasonable (we can’t praise greed). Second, as something that is less than virtue or reason but more or less governed by the same forces that might produce what Tocqueville calls the “tyranny of the majority.” Third, as a criterion for accepting losses from money already given up to the Republic.
This isn’t a logical argument. It’s easier to say all this nonsense by Obama and co. is manipulative political theater, and that the problem is that we’re self-interested and we do get carried away by it. Seriously, while I want a more entrepreneurial economy and a freer academy, that “self-interest” you point to isn’t doing all of us on the Right many favors atm. We could have used something more like “unity” during the election, and we could use something more like “generosity” by Americans concerned for the state of discourse in this nation to keep conservative and alternative media – which, for all the MSM’s troubles, isn’t getting to nearly enough Americans – afloat.
I make no money blogging. I don’t write because of “self-interest rightly understood.” It’s another notion of self-interest – the pursuit of Truth to make my life and the lives of those around me better – that animates my work. “Self-interest rightly understood” may not ultimately have a substantial defense against collapsing into greed; it is contrasted with debased self-interest, which is merely cutting others down. Tocqueville says the meritocracy will produce the new aristocracy, the ones that’ll take money based on capitalist principles and then work to deny easy entry and easy access not just into markets, but anything else.
Edit: Tocqueville doesn’t quite say that last part. He does say the meritocracy will be like an aristocracy.
The rest I assert to be self-evident.
I believe that this Milton Friedman video, far from making a good, moral argument for capitalism, makes the notion disreputable. His argument can be summed up by the question, “Can you think of anything better?”
If capitalism and freedom are to win the war of ideas, what is required is a moral and principled defense of capitalism that goes necessarily beyond merely ‘it is the best we can do.’ As much as some people may not want to hear it, Ayn Rand provides that argument.
Per No. 6′s comment….try reading Lord Acton.
I guess it wasn’t greed when candidate Obama reneged on his promise to accept public financing once he realized how much more he could rake in through contributions, which turned out to be 1) far more than anyone before and 2) by some reports, upwards of $150M more than he needed. Funny that, huh?