Information and Links
Join the fray by commenting, tracking what others have to say, or linking to it from your blog.
In Defense of Profit
Profit is inherently moral. Yes, you read that correctly. The shock and confusion you may be experiencing from that statement stems from our society’s consistent demonization of profiting. One congressman recently proposed that the government create a “Reasonable Profits Board” to determine when oil companies’ profits are “in excess.” Hillary Clinton recently said, “The other day, the oil companies reported the highest profits in the history of the world. I want to take those profits, and I want to put them into a strategic energy fund.”
Profit is not only moral, upright, just, and productive. It is the only way of procuring items that meets those criteria. Profit is inherently moral because it is the only one of three basic options for human subsistence that relies on voluntary and mutually beneficial exchange. Those three options are profiting, stealing, and begging. Profit is the product of the only inherently moral system of exchange: laissez-faire capitalism. Only this system truly relies on individuals voluntarily and symbiotically trading such that each party feels he will benefit from the trade.
Total independent subsistence is possible, but not generally desirable. Even primitive hunter gatherers traded, and therefore profited from their trades. Unless you can produce all your needs on your own, you have three essential means of procuring goods and services:
-Trade for them through mutually beneficial exchange: profit.
-Take them from others without their consent: steal.
-Ask for them from others and give others nothing in return: beg.
Whenever two people consensually agree to a transaction then no one, by definition, has been cheated. I trade one dollar for a candy bar because I value the utility of the candy bar more than the utility required to earn the dollar. Whenever you trade money for goods at the grocery store, you are doing so voluntarily because you have decided that the utility of your purchase will benefit you more than that of the dollars you trade for it. Even purchases that aren’t enjoyable such as a car repair, doctor’s bill, or insurance coverage are made because both parties value what they will receive from the transaction more than what they will sacrifice. Each party benefits, else he would not agree to the transaction.
I profit from my employer because they give me a paycheck. My employer profits from me because they don’t give me every dollar earned from my use. Our customers profit by receiving a product or service that is more beneficial to them than the money they paid for it. If customers did not believe this then they would not agree to the transaction. The entire system is actually a beautiful harmony of individuals making voluntary choices to further their individual goals.
All profiting is not pretty. A father deciding whether to use his remaining money to purchase a prescription for his child or a tank of gasoline to transport him to work is a sad affair indeed. Furthermore, I am not condemning begging or charity. Every person decides the terms of their consensual exchanges of money, goods, and services. However, the essential act of voluntary and mutually beneficial exchange must be preserved.
Some still argue that there are items vital to our society that are simply too expensive. Health care is a prime example. I respond that nothing is “too expensive.” First, the phrase “too expensive” assumes some overarching control of price that cannot exist in a free market. Second, by definition, if the product was too expensive then the purchaser would not purchase it. No one has a gun put to his head to purchase health insurance. The alternative choice is not desirable either, but we are not born with the right to be shielded from tough decisions. Furthermore, while we don’t enjoy purchasing health insurance, the utility we get is perceived to be worth the cost. If anyone purchases it then they do so by choice. Don’t confuse “choice” or “voluntary” with “something you’re excited about.”
Another example is critical surgery for a family member. None of us wish to be in a situation where we or our family members require an expensive surgical procedure. In this case even though I wish it wasn’t necessary and I wish it wasn’t so expensive, my wishing does not make it so, or give me a moral authority to claim that it should be so! My family member has the option to forego the surgery. Nobody will force them to get the operation. However, almost all of us would choose to make the purchase because we value the benefit more than the substantial sum of money required.
Nobody has an inherent right to any good or service they do not produce themselves. I have no right to health care. I have no right to force another human being to perform services that benefit me. You can argue the moral implications of not performing some services ad nauseum, but I am looking at it from the opposite perspective: the buyer’s perspective. What right is there to force another to give up his goods or services? We are not born with the right to enslave the labor of any man against his will. We have no rights to the productivity of others. That is why capitalism is so crucial to a free society. Wanting something desperately does not give me the right to have it at the price I would like it. Wishing this were so does not make it so! As Aristotle said, A = A. There is truth that we cannot change by virtue of wishing it were not true.
I challenge you: Discard any guilt you may harbor about profiting. Profit is the realization of human productivity. It is the only method of subsistence acceptable to a free society. Not only is it acceptable, but it is the only method of subsistence that preserves man’s inalienable right to pursue happiness and sovereignly guide his life.
Jeff,
Enjoyed the read!
David