Is Honesty Enough For A Society To Succeed?

On my facebook, I frequently post a quote from a famous person or from an article I read or came across whose message, I THINK, is noteworthy to be remembered.

I posted this quote about 2 weeks ago from Alfred Whitney Griswold: "Certain things we cannot accomplish… by any process of government. We cannot legislate intelligence. We cannot legislate morality. No, and we cannot legislate loyalty, for loyalty is a kind of morality."

Probably in reaction to this, an indirect comment by a friend pointed out that relationships of people are best governed by honesty.

So to test the merits of the argument I responded with a question from a possible case-scenario.

“Suppose that I went to an ATM machine to do a transaction. I noticed that because it was late at night, there was nobody around the premises. So as I transacted with the machine, I noticed a 1,000 peso bill on the floor about a foot away from the ATM.

“Assuming that no one returned during the course of your transactions to claim the money, or after x minutes of wait.

“I have a set of options:

“1. ignore the money and leave the premises.

“2. pick up the money with the intent to give the money to the bank by daytime

“3. pick up the money and surrender it to the police station

“4. pick up the money and donate it to the church or to the mendicant at the next street corner

“5. pick up the money for myself

“Which of do you think among these options represent as honest which you recommend that I should take? And why?”

To my surprise two respondents made different choices on the above case. One chose 2 and the other chose 4.

This prompted me to make my reply and drive to the point.

“Going back to the issue, so what defines honesty? According to Dictionary.com, it is “truthfulness, sincerity, or frankness.” In my opinion, ‘truthfulness, sincerity, or frankness’ is rooted on upon the individual’s conscience or the moral or ethical values or principles. Simply said, the sense of right and wrong or the sense of justice that undergirds one’s thoughts and actions.

“So how do we arrive at our sense of right and wrong? We acquire these from an amalgam of factors: the teachings of our parents, the school, religion, culture, tradition, peers, what we read or watch, and the norms observed or practiced by the community.

“I would also presume that if this were to be an open survey, the answers by people will reflect on such diversity. In short, there will be NO universal single ‘honest’ answer.

“In addition, what some people will say and what they will do can differ in actual experience, as some people can be influenced by reputation, e.g. some don’t want to be seen “selfish”, or moods.

“This only illustrates that people can have different but honest opinions and intentions about how they interpret and judge specific events based on their sense of values at the time when such conditions emerge.

“Of course, lest be accused of framing, there are many alternative actions that can result from such a scenario (tearing up the money, burning the money etc.), but we will leave it to these selection to make it simple.

“The important question is, “can differences in “honesty” create conflict among people?” Unfortunately, the answer is yes.

“Here is an extension of my earlier example.

“Suppose that I have been undecided as to what to do with the money and thus brought it home, but shared this dilemma to my best friend Louie. Because of Louie’s excitement he went to tell the church, the police and the bank.

“The next day the lawyer of the bank emerges to claim the money, citing that their accountant reported that the ATM, where I transacted with, recorded a missing 1,000 pesos. The bank also cited that since the money I recovered was under their property premises, hence, it was rightfully theirs.

“[Of course, money lost by the ATM may not be the same money that I found; correlation does not imply causation.]

“A priest and the mendicant also appear on my front door to lay claim on the money. They priest cite “social justice”, which means redistribution of unowned property to the mendicant, as reasons why they deserved the money.

“A representative of the police and the central bank also surfaces. They argue that since money is a legal tender, therefore, having no claimant, the default ownership is with the government.

“On the other hand, I am thinking that since no one claimed the money, the “finders keepers” principle should apply, or the Lockean Proviso on claims to unowned resources. [‘enough as good’]

“As you can see four of us, could be honest and well-meaning, but have different opinions, divergent interpretations of truth, disparate justifications and antipodal interests. Does plain “honesty” then resolve our problem? Apparently not.

“With no fundamental parameters to rely on, our honest dispositions will only lead to an impasse.

“Why? Because the problem isn’t about honesty, but about ownership rights.

“In the above case, the worst part is for central bank through the police to arbitrarily confiscate the money I found under the threat of prosecution or under the barrel of the gun. This is called compassion (i.e. ‘honesty’) mixed with aggression, a violation of property rights.

“Bottom line: Honesty is an ideal but insufficient trait necessary for a well functioning society.

“Hence, honesty will benefit people but only under the strictures of the respect of ownership rights, the rule of law (and not the rule of men) and individual liberty from which the former two have been framed upon.

“We can all be honest under such existing conditions.

“Think of it, did honesty govern in communist Mao, or Soviet’s Stalin or North Korea’s Kim? Unfortunately, no; because people had NOT been permitted to be honest as they were treated as indentured servants deprived of ownership rights.

“[We must realize that voluntary exchange, e.g. what we buy and the services or products that we sell in exchange, are all based on property rights. Money, is essentially, about property rights, ergo medium of “exchange”-of properties.]

“In other words, “honesty” becomes an amorphous abstraction frequently used by politicians to bamboozle the public. Remember, the recent brouhaha over “I am not a thief?...sounds familiar?

The Lesson:

As Ludwig von Mises wrote, ``If history could prove and teach us anything, it would be that private ownership of the means of production is a necessary requisite of civilization and material well-being. . . . Only nations committed to the principle of private property have risen above penury and produced science, art and literature."