Staying morally inconsistent

John Stossel has an outstanding column up touching on an interview with Michael Moore. It focuses on a misconception that less government means a less compassionate society. Moore says to Stossel, “I gotta believe that, even though I know you’re very much for the individual determining his own destiny, you also have a heart.”

Moore thinks respecting others’ freedom means refusing to help the less fortunate. But where’s the connection? All it means is that the libertarian refuses to sanction the use of physical force (which is what government is) to help others. Peaceful methods — like voluntary charity — are the only morally consistent methods. I give about a quarter of my income to charities because I’ve seen that private charity helps the needy far better than government does.

The problem is Moore, and many others, don’t trust that individuals will make the correct choices in matters of compassion. And by “correct,” I mean, the choices he wants us to make. 

But building public policy around the notion of “having a heart” or “doing the right thing” is silly. (These platitudes are similar to the nanny state “for the children” arguments.) Lately, though, we have legislators calling budgets “moral documents” and Al Gore framing the politicized global warming question as a “moral issue.” The word moral is typically used, by both sides, to try and shut down the opposition. To be moral is to do the right thing. Now, obviously, there is government coercion on many levels — a fact, most of us have accepted. But the reasoning for it has become breathtakingly hypocritical. If we’re not interested in having James Dobson define our collective morality, then why would we be interested in Michael Moore, Al Gore or Jim Wallis doing it?