Suppose you’re convinced by Peter Singer’s thought experiment, and believe that those of us in rich countries have a moral duty to help the global poor. How should we go about discharging that duty?
In my last video, I argued that one of the most effective ways of helping the world’s poor doesn’t involve trying to help them at all. Economic growth has done more to benefit the global poor than any anti-poverty program in the private or public sector. And so one of the most effective things we can do to help the world’s poor today is to preserve and expand the institutions that facilitate that growth.
But even a rising tide won’t lift all boats. The poor will always be with us, even in a world of rapidly expanding growth. And so there will always be plenty of opportunity for charitable assistance.
In my latest video, however, I argue that it makes a great deal of difference what kind of charitable assistance we give to the world’s poor. Specifically, there is a vital difference between the kind of top-down, paternalistic programs that characterize government (and some private) aid, and bottom-up programs that treat the world’s poor as autonomous individuals capable of acting in ways to improve their own lives.
Take a look at the video here, and let me know what you think!
Kim Davis, a county clerk in Rowan County, Kentucky, has refused to certify marriage certificates for same-sex couples. She has also forbidden her deputies from doing likewise. She requests an exemption from issuing these certifications on religious grounds. She’s not getting one. She’s in jail until she resigns or is removed from office.
Aaron and Melissa Klein, wedding cake bakers in Gresham, Oregon, refused to bake a wedding cake for a lesbian couple. They requested an exemption from Oregon anti-discrimination law on religious grounds. The state of Oregon denied the exemption. The Kleins were fined $135,000 as a result. They were fined $135,000 for doing so.
I think that the Kleins morally deserve an exemption but Davis does not. Here are five differences between the two that I think justify my judgment:
1. Kim Davis was elected to her position. The Kleins were not.
This distinction matters because the Kleins were genuinely minding their own business, whereas Davis was elected with the understanding that she would mind the public’s business as represented by the law.
2. Kim Davis is paid by the taxpayer. The Kleins are not.
Kim Davis’s salary is paid for by the public, including many same-sex couples who want marriage certificates. The Kleins make their money entirely voluntarily. This means that Davis simply lacks the right to use her office in ways that frustrate the wishes of her involuntary customers. The Kleins, on the other hand, have not benefited in any direct way from the resources of the lesbians they declined to serve.
3. Kim Davis harms gays and lesbians. The Kleins merely offend.
As John Stuart Mill taught us, any free society must distinguish between harms and offenses. We have trouble with that distinction, but it is critical for freedom. When Kim Davis refuses to certify a same-sex marriage, that couple can be denied the enormous benefits that come along with it. Davis sets back their interests. But the Kleins merely refused to bake someone a wedding cake; this action does not set back their core interests. Their actions may offend, but they do not harm the couple on any sensible understanding of harm.
4. Kim Davis swore an oath to uphold the law. The Kleins did not.
Kim Davis is breaking a legal vow that she made voluntarily. The Kleins swore no analogous oath.
5. Kim Davis refused to allow her willing deputies to serve gays and lesbians.
One of the most offensive features of the case is that Davis has refused to allow her deputies to certify same-sex marriages. I suppose she would defend this action by arguing that allowing them to do so would also constitute an endorsement of the marriage. This strains credulity, to say the least. Allowing her deputies to serve same-sex couples is not a way of being complicit in same-sex marriage.
Fortunately, in her absence, her deputies have disobeyed her.
Putting Davis in jail is overkill. She should instead be barred from going to work. But she does not deserve an exemption.
Be sure to like us on Facebook. We post interesting stories about “noxious” markets or markets in everything almost daily.
Summary
May you sell your vote? May you sell your kidney? May gay men pay surrogates to bear them children? May spouses pay each other to watch the kids, do the dishes, or have sex? Should we allow the rich to genetically engineer gifted, beautiful children? Should we allow betting markets on terrorist attacks and natural disasters?
Most people shudder at the thought. To put some goods and services for sale offends human dignity. If everything is commodified, then nothing is sacred. The market corrodes our character. Or so most people say.
In Markets without Limits, Jason Brennan and Peter Jaworski give markets a fair hearing. The market does not introduce wrongness where there was not any previously. Thus, the authors claim, the question of what rightfully may be bought and sold has a simple answer: if you may do it for free, you may do it for money. Contrary to the conservative consensus, they claim there are no inherent limits to what can be bought and sold, but only restrictions on how we buy and sell.
Back cover blurbs:
“There are many books on the morality of commerce and market commoditization, but this one is better than the others. It is better argued, penetrates into the issues more deeply, and most of all it is right.”
Tyler Cowen, George Mason University, USA
“What I found remarkable is their effort to consider, and answer, objections in a way that recognizes that many of the objections have considerable merit, at least on their own terms. But the answers are still persuasive. An indispensable volume for those interested in applied philosophy and policy.”
Michael C. Munger, Duke University, USA
“Brennan and Jaworski have produced the best and most straightforward critique of the ‘commodification’ critics and should be on every social science and humanities professor shelf.”
Peter Boettke, George Mason University, USA
Table of Contents:
Part I: Should Everything Be for Sale?
- Are There Some Things Money Should Not Buy?
- If You May Do It For Free, You May Do It For Money
- What the Debate Is and Is Not About
- It’s the How, Not the What
Part II: Do Markets Signal Disrespect?
- Semiotic Objections
- The Mere Commodity Objection
- The Wrong Signal and Wrong Currency Objections
- Objections: Semiotic Essentialism and Minding Our Manners
Part III: Do Markets Corrupt?
- The Corruption Objection
- How to Make a Sound Corruption Objection
- The Selfishness Objection
- The Crowding Out Objection
- The Immoral Preference Objection
- The Low Quality Objection
- The Civics Objection
Part IV: Exploitation, Harm to Self, and Misallocation
- Essential and Incidental Objections
- Line Up For Expensive Equality!
- Baby Buying
- Vote Buying
Part V: Debunking Intuitions
- Anti-Market Attitudes Are Resilient
- Where Do Anti-Market Attitudes Come From?
- The Pseudo-Morality of Disgust
- Postscript
Now that the book is in print, I’ll be blogging about the content over the next few weeks.
