Editorial
Compassion Cannot Be Forced
The great moral argument of the left is that the government policies they advocate create a fairer and more compassionate world. Everything they advocate flows from the overt assumption that if you want a fair and compassionate society, their policies of forced fairness and compassion are for you; and, conversely, if you don't support their policies, then you by that fact itself cannot want a fair and compassionate society.
That is the logic they present us with, and many on the left go to great lengths to prevent anybody from looking into whether or not those policies actually deliver on their stated goals.
We who value our founding principles of individual liberty often focus on the policies themselves and the people who support them, attacking the communists, the socialists, the fascists, the leftists, the progressives, or the liberals because their policies serve to undermine our freedom.
But doing this just plays right into their established story line – because to them, by our very argument we are obviously more concerned with ourselves, our own petty freedom than we are concerned about the needs of the less well-off, the needs of the poor, the needs of those without health insurance, or the greater needs of humanity.
I want to suggest that we start questioning, without apology, their fundamental assumption: The truth is, their policies do not lead to greater fairness or greater compassion (nor do they lead to greater prosperity, but this is an argument that the left has largely abandoned, like the fearsome warnings of global cooling a few decades ago).
In fact, their policies do just the opposite. The policies of the left disrupt the process of wealth creation so that there is less to go around for everybody, which pushes those who are less well off even closer to the financial edge than they otherwise would be.
But their belief is that they are changing society for the better and that over time we will be better people – in their judgment – because they will have legislated and regulated us into better people.
When our kids were very young, I can remember intervening in a fight between them and for some reason (I don't know – it seemed like a good idea at the time) coercing each of them to apologize for what they had done.
A short time later, one or the other – or both – of them would do the exact same thing that they had just been made to apologize for. What was the matter with these kids? I thought we had cleared up that whole issue. Hadn't they just learned my Very Important Moral Lesson?
No, they hadn't. All they had learned was that when they do things that hurt each other, Dad will make them say certain words that mean nothing to them but seem to matter a lot to him. Besides, it's kind of fun to see him react like that, don't you think? (At age three to six or so, believe me, kids get great entertainment value from such reactions... and it doesn't actually stop at that age. Think of the popularity of reality TV, for example).
On the other hand, our kids have also done things that have been very movingly empathetic and caring without the slightest prodding from their know-it-all father.
We want our kids to value empathy and compassion; saying so and doing things in the world that demonstrate the value of compassion to them does have an effect. Treating them personally with empathy, respect and compassion has an effect. Appreciating when they are kind and considerate has an effect. Their own good feeling when they empathize and care about what's going on in other people's lives has a very strong effect.
These are the things that matter. There is a place for scolding, nagging and unpleasant consequences for bad behavior with kids but teaching compassion is not one of them.
The truth is, along with all of the negative potentials in our very human nature, empathy and compassion are natural sentiments. We can build on those sentiments, encourage more of them as a culture but we cannot force them into existence.
We can force the behavior that looks like compassion and we can frighten people into doing all kinds of things with enough force; but we cannot force a person to feel compassion and to have their compassionate acts flow from their own integrity. We cannot force people to become genuinely compassionate.
Notice that there is a difference between advocating compassion by persuading people toward more compassionate acts and forcing them to act compassionate with serious threats of fines or imprisonment.
In Helping People versus Fixing Them, I referred to research showing the stark difference between the experiences of both the giver and the receiver of help, depending upon whether that help was given voluntarily or by force.
Forced giving resulted in a significant decrease in well-being for both the giver and the receiver, whereas voluntary giving resulted in a significant increase in well-being for both the giver and the receiver.
Of course, those, like Harry Reid, who say they believe that paying income taxes is actually a voluntary interaction may miss this distinction entirely. I guarantee you when I pay my taxes to these people, and consider where that money is going, I am not feeling compassionate at that moment no matter how much they tell me that it is my taxes that bring about a compassionate world; nor do I feel much of a sense of overall well-being. How about you?
I also suspect that those receiving their entitlement checks, from the welfare recipient to the government pensioner retired with full benefits at age 55 to the Solyndra and Goldman Sacks executives, do not feel much appreciation and gratitude to those of us paying our taxes for their benefit. They may have more stuff but they will not have increased their overall well-being or happiness as a result.
Those harping the loudest about our "materialistic, capitalistic system" are the most materialistic of all. Their compassion is measured only on a ledger and their fairness is that of Procrustes – the bandit of ancient Greek mythology who would abduct travelers and then force them to fit his bed by either stretching them out to lengthen their body or cutting off their legs to shorten them. One way or the other, all end up the identical length.
True fairness is not measured by a perfectly equal ledger; true fairness is measured in the value created and produced by a given individual. What's fair is for a highly creative and productive person to enjoy more wealth then a less creative and productive person. The vibrancy and innovation that springs from such fairness, and the exchange of ideas, goods and services resulting from it, creates such an abundance that even those who are the very least productive have better lives for it.
Compassion and fairness are, above all, individual qualities, expressed by free individuals toward other individuals who move them to compassion and inspire them to intervene on their behalf. These qualities increase with abundance, flourish in freedom,and multiply with volitional practice.
Compassion, above all, does not grow through force.
Joel F. Wade, Ph.D. is the author of Mastering Happiness.
|
You must be a site member to submit suggested edits or post feedback. In addition to submitting edit suggestions and posting feedback, your Free Membership to The Daily Bell gives you access to our Member Zone where you will discover a plethora of other member benefits. Want to learn more? click here |
|||||
|
|
||||
 |
Posted by davidnrobyn on 01/14/12 03:31 AM
Liberals like to identify themselves as either the Good Samaritan or Robin Hood. But the truth is otherwise. In the story of the Good Samaritan, there are three kinds of people the traveller encountered. They are:
"What's yours is mine"--the robbers;
"What's mine is mine"--the priest and the levite;
"What's mine is yours--the good Samaritan.
The first two can be characterized by two political groups. The robbers represent the left, and the priest and levite, the right. The third, represented by the Samaritan, is not represented by any political group but by individuals operating according to a Higher Order.
Robin Hood indeed robbed the rich and gave to the poor. But who were the rich? The sherriff of Nottingham and his henchmen! It was the political class, who had grown rich fleecing the sheep, which is precisely what the left proposes to do.
 |
Posted by taxesbyanyothername on 01/13/12 12:10 PM
Being about freedom, especially in thinking, libertarianism is more prone to splintering than just about any other movement. Several forms of anarchy are proposed by libertarians.
Normally power vacuums are filled quite quickly, in other words someone takes over control whether others want them to or not; that of course is the new government, whether it is something we would want to recognize as a government or not.
For the many forms of libertarianism to be comprehensible the wiki is as good a place as any to start. It is very diverse, many libertarians, such as Ron Paul, embrace Austrian Economics, which is almost synonymous with free market. Click to view link is a great resource for learning about this, as is Click to view link
 |
Posted by Agent Weebley on 01/12/12 08:58 PM
Hi Cat Writer,
If it's the Catherine Austin Fitts' "red button" concept, then this is what she said:
"In the summer of 2000, I asked a group of 100 people at a conference of spiritually committed people who would push a red button if it would immediately stop all narcotics trafficking in their neighborhood, city, state and country. Out of 100 people, 99 said they would not push such red button. When surveyed, they said they did not want their mutual funds to go down if the U.S. financial system suddenly stopped attracting an estimated $500 billion - $1 trillion a year in global money laundering. They did not want their government checks jeopardized or their taxes raised because of resulting problems financing the federal government deficit."
I tried to suggest that that topic be discussed further, but it was not to be. The "red button" concept is about compassion, and who's really in charge.
If your query is to the link to MetaPhoria post, then you would have to ask them there for a full explanation. I think it was a glimpse into the future. I am not there right now . . . I am stuck in a moment . . . in the Catherine Austin Fitts thread.
Click to view link
|
Posted by chad2 on 01/12/12 06:26 PM
"The truth is, along with all of the negative potentials in our very human nature, empathy and compassion are natural sentiments. We can build on those sentiments, encourage more of them as a culture but we cannot force them into existence"
Kinda like the big-bang theory. By chance we are compassionate? Really? I agree that compassion is the answer but how to arrive at it is the ultimate question. From which word of truth do we see the greatest compassion?
How about this, show me where this type of compassion can be out done:
"The fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, forbearance, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control. Against such things there is no law." The Bible.
Did you catch that last part!! You are in agreement with this, as there is no need of law if all are this compassionate and law actually works against these things as you stated. So Mr Author, please find me a greater way to be compassionate! Christ is the ultimate source of compassion. Perfect compassion that comes into man when he receives/trusts in Jesus.
 |
Posted by dotti on 01/12/12 05:13 PM
I'm just throwing this out as a question: how is anarchy different from libertarianism? anarchy is definitely a pejorative term. libertarianism, not so much.
Would it be fair to say that anarchy has always failed as well? Libertarianism?
I'm not trying to debate, just looking for informed opinions.
|
Posted by Libertarian Jerry on 01/12/12 04:25 PM
An excellent article Dr.Wade. Without a doubt Socialism is a gutter philosophy based on failed ideas,ideals and the immorality of theft. It springs forth on the assumptions and presumptions of dreamers,misfits,megalomaniacs and uneducated thugs. With that said I believe your making the wrong assumptions about our many Leftist opponents. You assume that these same leftists are sincere but misguided and uninformed in their conclusions. That,with a little reasoning and education they could be turned around to see things in a libertarian way. However I believe this misses the point. In reality Socialism is all about obtaining and keeping power. Socialists really want to rule over other men. That's their main reason for existence. Whether their socialism is called Fascism,Nazism,Communism,Liberalism,Progressive government or what ever,it still comes down to the love of and the grasping for power. This is what makes the situation so difficult. We are dealing with basically evil men who will use any tactic, including the rabble rousing of peoples emotions,terror and violence to achieve their aim. This is why you cannot compromise with or try to control or reason with socialists of any stripe. In the end,Socialism must be eradicated like the cancerous disease that it is. There is no other way.
|
Posted by NAPpy on 01/12/12 04:15 PM
The problem is the idea that government will limit itself, or that the government can be limited at all. Historically, every government, including the united states, has failed. Maybe it's time to redefine government in terms of individual sovereignty. Maybe it's time to admit that it is impossible to rule anyone other than yourself.
|
Posted by NAPpy on 01/12/12 04:12 PM
You forgot to type sarcasm off.
|
Posted by cat writer on 01/12/12 04:09 PM
I do not get it. Please explain further.
|
Posted by seer on 01/12/12 03:23 PM
We who value our founding principles of individual liberty often focus on the policies themselves and the people who support them, attacking the communists, the socialists, the fascists, the leftists, the progressives, or the liberals because their policies serve to undermine our freedom.
We must face realities first. The USA is in some ways a Plutocracy and practicing FASCIST state in other ways. I assume you then condemn the Patriot ACT and all other acts of late that have ignored the bill of rights. 2008 just demonstrates how much the USA has become a LEMON Socialist state: Privatization of Profits and Socialization of LOSSES.
|
Posted by taxesbyanyothername on 01/12/12 09:43 AM
Ouch! Dave jr, I think you've got the left figured quite well. Joel is correct, as usual, but the compassion bubble is about to deflate anyway. I think that was shown irrefutably by the NDAA vote. The American version of the brownshirts is on the horizon, and soon enough, they will be killed to make way for the blackshirts and the military. Of course there won't be much compassion left, it won't be spreadable any more.
|
Posted by Steve Campbell on 01/12/12 09:25 AM
Ha! A little sarcasm is nice.
The great thing about this article by Joel Wade is that it clarifies my thinking on this subject by bringing into view the theoretical and practical. The real life experiences he's had with his children brought to bear on the overall picture of human interaction, shows me the soundness of his thinking. Great work. Thank you.
|
Posted by Agent Weebley on 01/12/12 09:25 AM
I always love reading your articles, Joel . . .
Maybe one day, we will all press Catherine Austin Fitts' "red button" . . .
Click to view link
 |
Posted by DwightJohnson on 01/12/12 09:22 AM
This problem usually occurs when a person confuses government with society. They are not the same. Government is that part of society that uses coercion to accomplish its aims, while the rest of society is based on voluntary collaboration. If a libertarian rejects the contention that government is the best provider of compassionate aid, he is considered heartless. Nothing could be farther from the truth. Libertarians believe that government is the least capable part of society to provide compassionate aid. The non-coercive areas of society have always shown themselves better at this. The equation of libertarianism and a lack of compassion is completely false, as is the equation of government with the totality of human society. When a libertarian speaks of "limited government", he wants to restrict that part of society that operates using force so that the part of society that operates with the finer sentiments of humanity (creativity, humanity, generosity) can flourish. If we allow government to take over all of society, we become a people of violence, the core of what makes government government.
 |
Posted by dave jr on 01/12/12 08:52 AM
It is not fair that some are more compassionate than others. Those who greedily hog the compassion pie don't leave enough to go around, causing moral bankruptcy in others. We should force those who have so much compassion to give more until everyone is equal, or until there is no more compassion to spread.
|
Posted by dotti on 01/12/12 08:33 AM
When I was going through my divorce, one of my grown children wanted everything to be "equal". I used a phrase then that I don't remember hearing before (doesn't mean that I hadn't, just that I didn't remember it): equal is not always fair.
I realize this is not exactly where Dr. Wade is coming from, but I thought it close enough to mention.
I think many liberals are hooked on the "image of being compassionate". As much as Bill and Melinda Gates and the Buffets give to charities, I imagine that I donate more proportionately than either family. Just a guess. The super wealthy purchase prestige in various circles through their donations. They create the image of being compassionate. Same with Barbra Streisand. It's the image that they desire.
Also, the super wealthy do not want "restless natives". They want everyone to have enough to survive to avoid revolution. Two classes: them and everyone else.
Gee. Somehow I got off the topic, I think. And now I'm out of time.
Maybe someone can get something positive out of this post!
