To illustrate, let's look at two people. One is a good doctor, the other is the notorious do-gooder, President Barack Obama.
The doctor does good by engaging in a rigorous, demanding profession that rewards him with financial gain. He looks after me for two reasons: first because he can make money from me, and second because he is concerned about my well-being. These two motives are intertwined. If I am not well, I cannot pay. The doctor's incentive is to keep me alive so that I can work and pay his bill. The doctor also takes a risk. The payment he is expecting could be lost unexpectedly when I am hit by a passing car.
The President, like all do-gooders, does not know me. But he knows what he thinks, and his thinking must be the best for me. If I disagree, he will overrule my objections and tell me it is for my own good. He will give unsolicited advice, recommend unwanted courses of action, and when anything goes wrong will blame me for not following his advice more carefully. He takes no risk. His satisfaction can only come from one thing: his ability to either influence or control my behavior.
I trust the doctor more because we enter into a mutually beneficial relationship. If I stop seeing benefit, I stop seeing and paying the doctor. With the President, if I stop seeing benefit, he doesn't stop helping me. In fact, I can't get away from him without leaving the country.
The profit motive of the doctor is more noble than the do-gooder motive of the President. At least the doctor does not pretend that his actions are motivated entirely for my own well-being.
Henry David Thoreau said it best:
If I knew for a certainty that a man was coming to my house with the conscious design of doing me good, I should run for my life, … for fear that I should get some of his good done to me,—some of its virus mingled with my blood.
No comments:
Post a Comment