|
Is there anyone among us who doesn't agree the practice of kidnapping is evil? While America has its own issues with this disgusting act, this problem is particularly rampant in developing countries; it has even developed to a scale of industry. The kidnappers execute the risky task because they know that they will get benefits in return of the freedom of victim. They understand that as long as victim and his family compromises with the kidnappers, they will flourish. Now suppose that victim and his family refuse to compromise with the kidnappers even at the cost of life of victim. Suppose that everyone takes a stance of no appeasement with the kidnappers. What will happen then?
After some initial pains, the whole industry of kidnapping will come crashing down. Kidnapping will end as long as policy of no compromise is followed. But in reality, compromise happens and in poor sections of developing countries, this problem continues.
Like most rational people, I believe it is evil to force any person to do something against his wishes, be it kidnapping, stealing, or paying certain kinds of taxes.
What these evil acts have in common is that each can be traced back to compromise.
Since acquiring an interest in politics, I have always tried to think how certain government regulations and taxes were able to exist when they clearly are unfair and harmful to an economy. How can citizens sit back and watch their freedom erode with each government intervention? Why with more than a century of facts, have not government officials and economists not comprehend the dangers of socialism and advantages of capitalism? And more importantly, why do businessmen fall silent as the number of government regulations grows?
The flaw lies with politically reclusive businessmen who accept a moral code that says any legislative action taken must be valid and just because government works for the people – a moral code in which needs supersede justice; which supports altruism and vilifies selfishness.
Let's imagine what will happen if businessmen, the producers, stop accepting this moral code and refuse to continue with unfair laws of government. Let's imagine that they stop paying taxes and refuse to consent with their regulatory laws. First, the government will have to show its real source of power, which is the use of force. And then what? The government and its laws will be helpless and useless for their will be no victims. What will the laws distribute if producers refuse to produce?
I am not implying that this is the only moral and practical option left for honest and upright businessmen. What I am trying to stress is the evil of the kind of compromise that is leading to slow socialization of the American economy. In a previous article, it was noted that Wal-Mart should boycott Maryland for a totally unfair law that they had passed. But the truth is that they won't. And after some time, we will hear of yet another regulatory law that will be passed and Wal-Mart (and all of America) will bear the brunt. If Wal-Mart did boycott Maryland, no state will ever try to pass such kind of law again. But Wal-Mart is ready to carry along the extra burden. In short, it's ready to compromise
Heads of oil companies had to appear at hearings to explain the reason behind their rising profits. Note that profit is a measure of how much good an individual or a company has done to others. In this case, the CEOs of these organizations would have been better to boycott this stupid drama – perhaps not in terms of public image, but in ethics and morality.
When some major companies sued Microsoft for antitrust, fault lies not with those who made antitrust but with the companies for not recognizing that these laws will harm them in the long run – for not recognizing that while it's the consumer who should penalize companies for being efficient or inefficient, not federal regulation.
These companies are willing to be victims; to grant government the moral authority to dictate their actions. They are willing to compromise with their enemies knowing well that through these laws money goes from hands of efficient and honest to inefficient. Milton Friedman calls it the “businessman's suicidal impulse.”
The businessman is willing to bear the extra burden imposed on him. He is willing give sanction. He compromises because he is at the wrong end of the government pistol. Behind every explanation and reasoning of government lies the threat of force, which is what really makes the law successful.
Evil wins because there can be no compromise of basic principles. Compromise means a middle path between two extremes, which automatically means that it is taking two opposing ideas and statements in account. It implies that compromise means contradiction. This contradiction has harmful effects on economy, on the country, and on our lives.
Most necessary condition for the socialization of America, more necessary than presence of supporting intellectuals or intentions of government, is the compromise by their victims. The success of socialism depends on the producers' consent for its own survival. The prevailing moral premises advocates that “money is evil” or “the poor are exploited” so as to make producers seem guilty and, therefore, cede ground.
Businessmen need to remember that all of society – including liberals, socialists, communists, environmentalists, and animal right activists – depend on producers and capitalists for their own survival. Hence, if they are victims, it is because they agreed to be so.
|
