The world’s woes may have been greater and more numerous in 1850 than now. But, if they were, my grandfather as a young man was unaware of them. There were no radios, TVs, or telephones. Isolated in backwoods country, he had no newspaper, not even a magazine. All the troubles of mankind, so far as he knew, were those which fell within a distance he could walk or ride horseback; and they were minor problems, few and far between. In brief, grandfather had no social problems except grandfather-size ones.
But today! There is hardly a disaster or a social mess on the face of the earth that isn’t immediately dinned into our ears or emblazoned in glaring headlines. News! And unless one is instinctively or rationally immune to this calamity barrage, he will incline toward the untenable belief that every ill of mankind is his problem. Thus misled, he is an easy victim of the fallacious notion that the solution of all of these is his “social responsibility.”
True, each of us is at once a social and an individualistic being and, therefore, each does in fact have a social responsibility. However, we should know what that responsibility is, and what it is not, else we will work against rather than in harmony with our fellow men.
The grandfather-size problem, as it turns out, is about the maximum size any of us is able to cope with. When we get it into our heads that other people’s problems are our responsibility to solve, we “rise” to a level of utter incompetence. However good our intentions, our meddling makes matters worse rather than better.
To illustrate: I am a writer of sorts. It must be obvious to you, whoever you are, that I cannot solve your problems. Elect me to Congress and I remain as I am, my competence not improved one whit by reason of this change in occupation. Nor will it upgrade my competence to place me in the highest political office in the land, or to make me the head of A.T. & T.!
Business to the Whipping Post
Before considering how we can become true benefactors, that is, how we can soundly discharge our social responsibilities, let’s reflect on the mischief done in the belief that social responsibility requires everybody to solve everybody else’s problems.
For example, take business firms, especially those with the most customers, workers, and investors. They are today’s “whipping boys.” Such firms are picked on by politicians, muckrakers, and those millions who can be sold any nonsense—if it is repeated often enough. Pied Pipers with enormous followings are everlastingly insisting that these corporations assume their “social responsibility,” such as training and hiring the so-called hard core unemployed.
So beset are many executives with these widespread collectivistic notions that they tend to neglect their proper functions of hiring the most competent personnel, turning out better products at lower prices, and making larger profits; they concentrate instead on preserving the corporate image. These outpourings draw businessmen into a popularity contest for which they have no competence, and cause them to de-emphasize their skills in production and exchange, the skills that brought them to the top. Instead of serving as spokesmen for free entry and competition and how the market economy best serves everyone, they drop into a defensive role. They shift from portraying what is true to denouncing what is not true. Or they may succumb altogether to these unrealistic notions, in which event they apologize for profits and become parties to the growing collectivism.
This is a mischievous trend. If continued, it will prove disastrous not only to investors and workers but to the very customers many of whom are doing the condemning. When the emphasis is on the image rather than the performance, not only will the performance deteriorate but so will the image. And everyone involved must bear a share of the inevitable failure.
Public policy, it seems to me, should be geared to consumer interest—that’s all of us. And as a consumer, I cringe when business executives behave as if theirs is first and foremost—or, even secondarily—the job of looking out for pockets of poverty or the level of employment or the general welfare or any other so-called social goal. These men will serve us best in every way—including alleviation of our poverty and so on—when they stick to their own knitting!
Born a shoemaker, stay a shoemaker was, by and large, the lot of the masses until the idea of opening the market to competition was recently discovered—about seven generations ago. What a revolution that brought about! Open opportunity for masses of people and the most successful war on poverty in the history of mankind!
Adam Smith and J. S. Mill
John Stuart Mill, gifted with insight, was among the numerous men to grasp the pursuit of self-interest as an efficacious way of life:
The only freedom which deserves the name is that of pursuing our own good in our own way, so long as we do not attempt to deprive others of theirs, or impede their efforts to obtain it.
Earlier, Adam Smith had observed that:
…by directing that industry in such a manner as its produce may be of the greatest value, [the individual ] intends only his own gain, and he is in this, as in many other cases, led by an invisible hand to promote an end which was no part of his intention. Nor is it always the worse for society that it was no part of it. By pursuing his own interest he frequently promotes that of the society more effectually than when he really intends to promote it. I have never known much good done by those who affected to trade for the public good. It is an affectation….
If “to trade for the public good” is at best an affectation, one must then conclude that he should trade for his own good, which is to say that each of us should observe the rules and pursue his own self-interest. Thus will he best serve others and fulfill his social responsibility. What a switch from current thinking! But events of the past 200 years, if I read them aright, confirm this view—absolutely!
There is in this thesis, however, a presupposition that an individual knows what is to his best interest. There’s the rub; few have this knowledge; no one has it perfectly.
This presupposition may explain why the brilliant and cautious Adam Smith inserted that word “frequently” into his famous paragraph. Every now and then—frequently—there are individuals who more or less intelligently perceive their self-interest; and in these cases the ardent pursuit of that interest promotes the interests of society—contributes to the public good.
The pursuit of self-interest as one’s objective is not widely applauded. Generally, such action is associated with greed, avarice, selfishness. Low-brows! This only demonstrates the extent of the confusion.
Motivation and Interpretation
Self-interest is the motivator of human action. Regardless of pretensions to the contrary, a communist is as much motivated by self-interest as am I. In this sense, everyone is self-centered; self-interest is the ultimate given. And to be purely selfless is to be dead.
There are two main variables in this matter. The first relates to the motivating power of self-interest. In some people it is a feeble force, often too low to be recognized. Such people sometimes think of themselves as selfless, and they nearly are. In others, self-interest is a powerful motivator of action.
The second variable is the one at issue; it has to do with how intelligently self-interest is interpreted. For instance, the thief thinks of his interest as best served by stealing from others. This is an interpretation so narrow and antisocial that the more it is pursued, the more is the public good subverted. There are, on the other hand, those who so intelligently interpret their self-interest that they would never think of trying to pursue their own good by depriving others of the same right, or in any way impeding the efforts of others to obtain their own good.
What this amounts to in the final analysis is serving or observing the self-interest of others in order to best serve one’s self. This is an interpretation so intelligent that the more it is pursued, the more is the public good served. To repeat, it is the frequent appearance of these enlightened individuals that led Adam Smith to an obscure truth: “… he [man in pursuit of his own interest] frequently promotes that of the society more effectually than when he really intends to promote it.”
The ardent pursuit of self-interest is the way to social felicity or the public good, presuming that individuals are not allowed (by government) or do not allow themselves to act at cross purposes with the freedom of others, thereby damaging their own interests. To my way of thinking, this is the way; and the more powerfully the individual is motivated to pursue his enlightened interests, the better. If this is the right way, then we should not lightly abandon it simply because we find only a few among us who are intelligent interpreters of self-interest. Stick to the right way and concentrate on increasing an enlightened self-interest. This is the only procedure that makes sense.
Beware the Selfless
Consider the alternative. Suppose each individual were to abandon his own interests whenever he observes others misinterpreting theirs.
What are some of these misinterpretations of self-interest? All will agree that theft is wrong. But of the millions who wouldn’t personally steal from any other, what about those who will, without the slightest qualm, get the government to feather their own nests at the expense of others? What, really, is the difference? Were all to do this, all would perish. If this isn’t a mistake, pray tell, what is! The list, of course, is long and must include every individual who does unto others that which he would not have them do unto him.¹
And to be included, also, are the muckraking critics of producers who are trying their best to outdo competitors, to profit by best serving consumers. To make “whipping boys” out of those who serve us most efficiently is to display an ignorance of our own interests.
What, then, is the alternative to the pursuit of self-interest? It is that these people who do not even know their own interests should pursue your and my good—the public weal! This is to compound ignorance in society. For, surely, an individual who does not know his own interest cannot remotely know mine, let alone the countless interests of millions.
Social Responsibility
Now to the final question: How best can I become a benefactor to mankind? By assuming my social responsibility. Of what does this consist? There are three steps.
Number one is to do all in my power not to interfere with the business of others.
The danger of minding other people’s business is twofold. First, there is the danger that a man may leave his business unattended to; and, second, there is the danger of an impertinent interference with another’s affairs. The “friends of humanity” almost always run into both dangers.
Number two is to mind my own business.
Every man and woman in society has one big duty. That is, to take care of his or her own self. This is a social duty. For, fortunately, the matter stands so that the duty of making the best of one’s self individually is not a separate thing from the duty of filling one’s place in society, but the two are one, and the latter is accomplished when the former is done.2
Number three is implicit in minding my own business: practicing, as best I can, the difficult and sensitive Judeo-Christian philosophy of charity.³
Minding one’s own business is the doctrine of liberty. Admittedly, this has no glamour for the “friends of humanity,” the social architects, the one’s who would mind other people’s business. To rule out their masterminding of others is to deny their peculiar pursuit of happiness.
Minding one’s own business, on the other hand, serves self by serving others and is a task of a size to fit the individual—big or little. This can be life’s most fascinating venture—self-interest in its most intelligent conception, benefaction at its very best.
For an instructive and inspirational book on this subject, see Magnificent Obsession, a novel by Lloyd Douglas.
***
A Code for Survival
Everyone is familiar with the intense struggle for existence that is carried on among the trees of a forest. It is asserted that the struggle is so intense, and the issue of life and death so sharply drawn among the young pines of a thicket, that the cutting of an inch from the top of one of them will doom it to ultimate extinction….
Fortunately, or unfortunately as the case may be, the issue of life and death is seldom so clearly and sharply drawn among human beings as it is among trees, but in the long run the results appear to be much the same. If that be true, it follows that the religion which best enables men to conform to the laws of the Universe (God’s laws) and to survive in life’s struggle, will eventually be left in possession of the world.
THOMAS NIXON CARVER, The Religion Worth Having
Foot Notes
1 See my Readiness Is All, a pamphlet. Copy on request.
2 This and the previous quote from the chapter, “On Minding One’s Own Business,” in What Social Classes Owe To Each Other by William Graham Sumner.
3 See “What Shall It Profit a Man?” in my Deeper Than You Think (Irving‑ton-on-Hudson, N. Y.: The Foundation for Economic Education, 1967) pp. 1081¹7.
For an instructive and inspirational book on this subject, see Magnificent Obsession, a novel by Lloyd Douglas.
