Nathan J. Robinson’s “Why We’re All Better Off Working For The Collective Good” from Current Affairs magazine wholly disregards our nation’s founding ideals. Robinson argues that fighting for the collective good of a society is the moral ideal we should strive for; that individual efficiency and effective profit-making motives are the true evils within our society today. Our nation’s fundamental, foundational principles are the Life, the Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness (in place of John Locke’s ‘property’). The Creator made us equally endowed with these unalienable rights that no man nor collection of men can take away. These ideas are so fundamental that every person regardless of race, class, gender, sexual orientation, etc. deserves these rights unconditionally.

These rights in their very nature appeal to an objective, moral lawgiver rather than human convention that might maximize some form of human pleasure one way or the other. It is only after we establish this truth as the foundation for our thinking that we can build a moral and political philosophy in which to govern an already presupposed, free people. So, as people with finite minds and flawed natures, it would be hard to define the good, the bad, the moral and much less the collective good (the collective good defined to maximize our collective or societal interests) without being a perfectly moral, all-knowing, infinite being, even less so when one makes no appeal to an objective moral standard. Robinson argues:

I think those who solely pursue their own material interests, even if they do so in a law-abiding and nonviolent manner, are bad people. But also, if we all followed this framework… we would produce a much worse society.

Free markets, therefore, are the result of an ordered society rooted in natural liberty. Advocating for working for the “collective good” when neither terms are defined is neither productive in the economic sense nor feasible practically, but rather highlights the hubris of man.

Nathan J. Robinson’s article appeals solely to his own sense of right and wrong as the basis of his ‘noisy socialist’ morality. In his article, Robinson claims that a truly moral society will aim for solidarity and avoid working selfishly. He argues that only in this manner can the “collective good,” which he never blatantly defines, be achieved. Because he does not appeal to a moral system that transcends his own self, like that which only the Creator himself can define, he can freely argue how working for the “collective good” is a righteous goal. In essence, Robinson appeals to his own subjective sense of morality, lest he appeal instead to evolutionary cooperation and/or brute facts of nature.

However, his analysis shows one of our biggest cultural issues: looking inwardly at one’s own subjective sense of morality. A focus on this type of moral thinking highlights some of the worst sentiments of humanity, namely narcissism and arrogance. Under this framework of thinking, we as mere persons know what the good is, not only for ourselves but for other people’s intricate lives, even though we know little-to-nothing about them. No amount of education or research would ever equip us to comprehend such practical knowledge of people’s everyday lives, but our own pride and arrogance might fool us to think that we do. How can one build a moral philosophy upon such immoral grounds? Robinson tries to justify it. He seems to caricature the idea of free markets by speaking to one side of economic transactions, mainly the supplier. Robinson states:

You hear this defense from business people every time someone grumbles about how the skewed distribution of resources seems a little unjust: “But,” they say, “I am a creator of jobs and wealth. I give people work, which they take because it benefits them. I sell goods, which people buy because they desire them. I force nobody to transact with me, therefore my transactions occur because they make other people better off.” If you believe this, you not only think that there’s nothing wrong with enriching yourself, but you may go so far as to think it’s downright benevolent!

I have no defense for immoral businessmen. As conservatives, we have always claimed that free markets and liberty should always be coupled with a high sense of virtue. If Robinson was arguing for more virtue, then we could agree, but that does not seem to be the case here.

Robinson continues on and uses the example of the butcher from Adam Smith’s Wealth of Nations to point out the belief that people do not need to care about each other in order to make non-violent transactions, and this is true. I do not need to have a deep care for the person I am gaining something from because that transaction benefits both of us.

However, for some reason, Robinson totally leaves out the consumer throughout his writing. Not that consumer needs to be attacked, but that the consumer is also trying to maximize their utility like everyone else. Why is one group targeted over another? It seems to stem from the lack of understanding that wealth is created and not just out in the ether distributed among those who play the game best and can take advantage of people less fortunate to be in their position. I’m sorry to say, but that is the game of politics not of market economics. Since people’s own money is at stake rather than some other person’s money that you took forcefully (i.e. governmental taxation), we find that people ration more effectively than any form of “benevolent” collective ever could.

Ironically, Robinson uses the “tragedy of the commons” to exemplify his argument. However, with a correct understanding of the argument, it seems like Robinson refutes his own assertion. He describes the analogy as where “resources owned in common will be destroyed by the operation of ‘rational self-interest.’” He continues by explaining that a herdsman will maximize his own interest and use up all of the common resources. Then, he suggests that the solution to which basic economics would suggest - the idea of privatization - is not one he would endorse, stating, “This turns out to be nonsense, as shown by an examination of successfully-managed commons that do not employ privatization.” And it does not stop there, he continues suggesting that ‘corporations’ and ‘militaries’ are “internally collectivist’ by “emphasiz[ing] teamwork, trust, and shared culture.”

Corporations are in no way a socialist idea since the entire means of production come from private investment, private contracts, and private people agreeing to work at that corporation. And the military, yes is actually a public institution, but should one look no further than the VA (Veterans’ Affairs). The institutions “collective” purpose is to care for the returning soldiers and veterans who served in our military to keep our people of this nation safe.  However, it has been riddled with corruption and inefficiencies due to the fact that collective administrators are constantly wanting more and more making their jobs more about bargaining rather than actually working. Since no one's private money is at stake, this cycle continues tirelessly. And in the end, our soldiers and veterans come to find long wait times and terrible service, a true injustice. I would just have to ask my uncle or several other friends who have been or currently serve in the military to find out my answer. They would say in unison: “No.” Robinson conflates the ideas of teamwork, trust, and shared culture as socialist ideas. Has he ever been to a church or synagogue? I am truly skeptical that he has.

We all know the dangers that collectivist ideologies can have on a society. Must we again remember the evils done by the anti-religious, totalitarian, collectivist regimes of the 20th century? The ones that killed hundreds of millions of people who were working for “collective good” and murdering those who stood in their way. Robinson is free to say “that a society of capitalists achieves worse outcomes than a society of socialists,” and we will always fight for his right to say it. However, morally repugnant ideas should be called what they are: evil. Fighting for ideas that only give more power to those with immoral ideologies like Robinson’s and replaces the government as a god rather than the Creator as God is exactly what caused the vast number of deaths in the 20th century.

These ideas are in no way consistent with our Constitution, which derives its power from the governed. Rather, Robinson’s idea assumes power for the greater collective good holds more weight and authority. I wish altruism and solidarity could solve our problems, but he has failed to understand man’s fallen nature to which no idea of man can solve. It would take something beyond any of us to achieve that. Furthermore, it is prideful for any of us to believe that our great ideas could solve that fallen nature. Only objective, individual virtue, and maximum freedom can propel us toward the good, repel us from the bad, and guide the misguided.