The road to hell

Do the ends justify the means?

This has long been the subject of intense debate among philosophers and ethicists.
 
We might never have an entirely satisfactory answer to that predicament, but modern liberals seem to have the reverse of the problem all figured out. It appears that to them, the means justify the ends.

To liberals, it doesn’t really matter what the effect of your policies or actions are, as long as your heart’s in the right place. So don’t worry about whether minimum-wage laws ultimately hurt more people than they help, primarily by driving up inflation and unemployment; as long as we’re considering the best interests of the lower class when we pass these regulations, that’s all that matters.

Don’t consider whether gun control saves any lives; if an unarmed citizen is unable to defend himself from an attacker with a gun, well, at least we did our best to restrict access to firearms.

It’s cold-hearted and selfish to question whether the War on Poverty might have actually made it more difficult to escape poverty, or whether our foreign-aid strategies are actually having any positive effect in impoverished countries. As long as the intentions are virtuous, it doesn’t matter if the results are disastrous. The means justify the ends.

German psychology professor and author Dietrich Dörner put it this way: “It is far from clear whether ‘good intentions plus stupidity’ or ‘evil intentions plus intelligence’ have wrought more harm in the world.” Couldn’t have said it better myself.

On Monday, the House of Representatives rejected a $700 billion bailout plan. Might this drastic measure to purchase the country’s most risky loans at taxpayers’ expense have been yet another well-intentioned policy, the effects of which had not been fully considered? After all, the bailout’s supporters were trying to avert a second Great Depression; I’d say it’s likely that for most of them, their heart was in the right place.

But I’m glad we had some leadership on Capitol Hill (largely from conservative members of the House) that demanded we not hastily sell our country’s capitalist soul in response to a sudden panic.

It’s true that without a bailout things might get worse before they get better. But as I am writing this on Tuesday morning, the markets are already starting to stabilize after Monday’s initial nosedive, suggesting that perhaps it’s OK to take a little time to think this thing through.

(By the way, does anyone find the timing of this “crisis” odd, given that we’re nearly a month away from Election Day? Is it possible that much of this is just capitalizing – pardon the pun – on a complicated problem to scare voters?)

Monday’s vote was a victory for free markets, and we should be thankful that somebody in Washington is thinking about long-term effects.

Perhaps we should consider reversing the interventionist policies that led to this situation rather than respond with another enormous intervention. We need more leaders with the courage to look beyond the urgent needs of “right now” to advocate long-term freedom and prosperity.