Greed is a much maligned word. It’s one of the seven deadly sins. It’s something we are taught not to be from a young age. It’s something we reflexively dislike in others. It’s a self-contained pejorative i.e. no embellishment is needed when someone is called “greedy.” It’s a timeless assault against the wealthy, the ambitious, against anyone that has more than others do. It’s the centerpiece of Gordon Gekko’s famous Greed is Good speech from the movie Wall Street – a movie whose message was that, no, it isn’t.
Consider, though, how much you remember of that Gordon Gekko speech. Very likely, many if not most only remember the three words I quoted above, and if you’re predisposed to consider greed a sin and a bad thing, consider the speech the selfish and dishonest pontificating of a bad, greedy and selfish man. That’s a shame, because the speech is quite short, and it includes this sentence: “Greed, in all of its forms — greed for life, for money, for love, knowledge — has marked the upward surge of mankind.” Use the word ambition or the word aspiration or the word passion in place of greed, and the validity of the sentiment is self-evident.
A thesaurus search on the word “greed” puts forth two types of synonyms. First, the benign. Eagerness, avidity, hunger, longing… such words are not usually associated with negative, malicious or nefarious intent. They’re positive qualities or emotional expressions. Then, the not-so-benign. Avarice, excess, gluttony, selfishness, covetousness, rapacity, piggishness, voracity… these words all carry a connotation that the greedy person wants too much, wants more than is right or fair or justifiable. Thence the issue many have with “greed.” The subtext is that the greedy person seeks more than what is right.
There’s a mighty big value judgment in that subtext, and that value judgment breaks into two parts. The first – who gets to make that judgment – carries the implication that (some, not all) people uninvolved in the greedy person’s greed have the moral authority to pass and possibly enforce that judgment. The second – what standing do the judgers have to pass judgment – lies at the heart of the statism/libertarianism divide. Accusations of greed often come with presumptions that the accused has crossed a line from having or wanting “enough” to having or wanting “too much.” Consider the subtext of those accusations, and you’ll sometimes find the true affront is gluttony rather than greed. Scratch below the surface of those accusations and you’ll often find the true motivation is envy. Each is a Deadly Sin, but each is viewed very differently. Unlike greed, a trait that many people feel entitled to forcibly intervene against by demanding government involvement, gluttony seems to be deemed a weakness that’s excused and tolerated, and envy seems to be perfectly acceptable if one is a member of certain economic or demographic groups. Greed doesn’t get any such free pass.
It is both too simple and insufficient to declare greed good or bad, though. The aforementioned thesaurus search gives us different versions of greed, but those aren’t the real varieties of greed. They’re just value judgments and presumed mind-reading. They are rooted in intent – intent that isn’t declared or vetted by objective dispassion. No, the assessment of the “goodness” or “badness” of greed is not rooted in motivation, need, intent or any other intangible measure. The real way to differentiate good greed from bad greed is in its implementation.
A person, unsatisfied with his level of income quits his day job and opens a business with the hope of earning more money. He offers up goods or services to others, and hopes that what he offers is of sufficient interest to those others to entice them to give him money in exchange. He is motivated by greed, and he acts on his motivation.
A second person, unsatisfied with his level of income walks into a bank with a gun and demands money. He is motivated by greed and uses direct force or the threat of force to act on his motivation.
A third person, unsatisfied with his level of income votes for a politician who promises to bestow government largesse upon him by taking from others. He is motivated by greed and uses indirect force – the coercive power of government – to act on his motivation.
A fourth person, unsatisfied with others’ levels of income votes for a politician who promises to bestow government largesse upon those others by taking from still others. He believes he is motivated by altruism and by a higher moral sense of social justice and uses indirect force – the coercive power of government – to act on his motivation.
Three examples of greed and one of purported altruism. We are taught that the first person isn’t really greedy, that he’s ambitious and industrious and thus operating from good moral high ground instead of base selfishness and rapacity. But, we will witness that, should that person become “too successful,” that presumption flips on its head. He has “more than he needs,” and we (the aggregate “we” of current society) no longer like him.
The second person is obviously wrong. But – is he so very different from the third person? The type of force used is different, but it is still force. The subjects being forced are different, but they’re still being forced. Both motives are the same: personal gain. One uses a middle man, the other skips the middle man. One seems âgentler’ than the other, and it might be argued that the third person is condoned by the other voters who supported the redistributionist politician. Yet an injustice condoned by society remains an injustice, and the motivation for the use of force remains the same. The only real difference is that the second person is violent and the third is parasitic.
The fourth person’s altruism is simply greed of a different sort. The greed isn’t about material things, it’s about self-satisfaction. Why do the altruists and social justice warriors act as they do? They perceive an injustice and use force to correct it out of a sense of moral obligation or superiority, but they don’t consider the injustice of force or the injustice done to those from whom they take in their morality calculations and value judgments. If questioned, they might offer a presumption of malfeasance and ill intent on the part of the “haves” from whom they seek to redistribute. They might simply declare that they are using force to counter other people’s greed. The latter might carry some weight if their targets were individuals. They are not – the redistributionists’ efforts are broad and universal, and rooted in a presumption of guilt. If you’ve succeeded, your success is due to greed, and greed is bad, therefore it’s OK to take from your success.
As for the politicians themselves, the people who effect the force that some demand? I’ll simply paraphrase Milton Friedman: who is greedier than a politician?
Greed is a fundamental element of human psyche. People act in their self interests, they always have. It is both a byproduct of evolution and a core survival trait. It cannot be educated out of people, nor should it. Greed is good, when it is the sort of greed that doesn’t involve the initiation of force. It is the combination of greed and force that turns greed bad, and in that we find the true Bad Thing: the initiation of force. If your greed motivates you to work harder, to create wealth for yourself via free exchange with others in society, your greed works for both you and for society. If, however, your greed motivates you to bend others to your will, you do harm to society. If you somehow convince yourself that your greed ennobles you, that your indulging in greed by another name is good and right and just and not only permissible but obligatory, then you’ve gone to the ugly side.
Loading ...
Active Comment Threads
Most Commented Posts
Universal Background Checks – A Back Door to Universal Registration
COVID Mask Follies
When Everything Is Illegal…
An Anti-Vax Inflection Point?
“Not In My Name”
The Great Social Media Crackup
War Comes Through The Overton Window
The First Rule of Italian Driving
Most Active Commenters