Moral imperatives and freedom

Via Instapundit I came across a very interesting post by John Stossel, Keep Your Laws Off My Body.  Mr. Stossel makes a very compelling argument for personal freedom but it was his quote from Albert Camus that caught my eye, "The welfare of humanity is always the alibi of tyrants."  That pretty much sums it up, doesn't it?

In my previous post, Paul Krugman is quoted saying, "Today, Democrats and Republicans live in different universes, both intellectually and morally."  More plainly put, Krugman believes that Democrats are intellectually and morally superior to Republicans and as such, Democrats know what is good for society.  In Krugman's overreaching smugness he is advocating tyranny for our own good.

Health care and Cap & Trade are two examples of the Left trying to impose their world view on the rest of us.  If you listen to their arguments it always comes back to we know what is best for you.  Everything is a moral imperative.  But their advanced thought capabilities aside, the Left has been wrong at every turn.  They have been wrong because they wouldn't know a moral imperative if it flew up their fascist tailpipes.

Freedom, self sufficiency and self determination are moral imperatives-dependency on government is not.  In fact, when the Left advocates for government interference rather than personal liberty, their position is immoral.

The truth is, those of us of average intelligence have managed to navigate through life quite well.  We rise to a level of success commiserate with our own efforts.  Our welfare is our own and we neither need nor want the false security of tyranny.

Absorb this

pjMom posting a comment at Potluck:

Imagine your family’s finances if you spent and borrowed like Washington: you’d owe $60 in credit-card loans for every $100 of income. Every month you’d pay back a little but borrow even more. In 10 years, you’d owe $87 for every $100 you made. At some point you’d hand off the debt to your kids. If they worked until 2035, they’d owe more than $180 for every $100 they earned. In 2050, your grandkids would owe more than $320. By 2080 they’d owe seven times their earnings. Of course, lenders would cut them off well before then, and your family would be ruined. But this is the path your government is on right now.

–Rep. Paul Ryan in Newsweek.

In 2050 my grandchildren will be 46 and 49 years old.  I imagine they will have children that they are trying to put through college.  How can we possibly saddle them and their generation with that kind of debt?  It is nothing less than immoral.

Of Morality and Mortgages

Is doing the right thing passé?  Consider the following passages from Walk Away From Your Mortgage! that encourages borrowers to default on their mortgages even if they can afford to pay (all emphasis added);

There are two reasons why so-called strategic defaults have been considered antisocial and perhaps amoral. One is that foreclosures depress the neighborhood and drive down prices. But in a market society, since when are people responsible for the economic effects of their actions? Every oil speculator helps to drive up gasoline prices. Every hedge fund that speculated against a bank by purchasing credit-default swaps on its bonds signaled skepticism about the bank’s creditworthiness and helped to make it more costly for the bank to borrow, and thus to issue loans. We are all economic pinballs, insensibly colliding for better or worse.

The other reason is that default (supposedly) debases the character of the borrower. Once, perhaps, when bankers held onto mortgages for 30 years, they occupied a moral high ground. These days, lenders typically unload mortgages within days (or minutes). And not just in mortgage finance, but in virtually every realm of our transaction-obsessed society, the message is that enduring relationships count for less than the value put on assets for sale.

First, there is a certain logic to loan pricing.  The interest rate is lower for a primary residence than investment property because it is believed that when financial problems hit the borrower is more likely to continue to pay for the roof over their head then the property they bought as an investment.  This logic filters through the entire consumer loan pricing structure-ie., the interest rate on vehicle a consumer uses to drive back and forth to work is lower than the interest rate on the jet ski they use a few weekends a year.  Certainly, if the moral obligation to pay ceases to exist the increased risk will be reflected in interest rates being increased across the board.  However, this does not speak to the main reason why consumers should not "walk away" from their obligations.

The article implies that morality is passé.  I was raised that a person is only worth as much as their word.  Making a commitment and keeping it is intrinsic to moral behavior.  We've long been told to corporations exhibit the lowest of all behaviors-greed, ruthlessness, immorality, and yet, the article sets up the corporation as the model that we should follow.

I would argue that standing by one's obligations is necessary to social cohesion.Throughout the social spectrum the person who meets their obligations to themselves, their family, their community and yes, to their financial institution adds value to society  whereas those who walk away from their obligations debase society as a whole. 

Our society will collapse without morality.  It is a simple concept that the New York Times, as evidenced by this article, does not grasp.