Testing principles of pure self interest

In his article of March 11, Walter E. Williams asserts that the notion of Rights (such as a right for medical care for everyone) imposes an objectionable burden on those who would not need or benefit from such services but who would be required to contribute resources for their provision to others. In fact, Mr. Williams objects to talk of any sort of universal entitlements, the support of which he presumes would threaten his personal prosperity.

Mr. Williams references the Constitution as buttressing his view. My copy of that document begins with the words "We the people" and mentions providing for the "common defense" and promoting "the general welfare." The words I have emphasized here suggest an expansive, unifying purpose. Mr. Williams prefers a narrower, more transactional, go-it-alone meaning than was seemingly intended by the framers.

It is fortuitous that Mr. Williams should pen his article at this time in the midst of the coronavirus epidemic, for his idea that the value of social policy must be measured exclusively in terms of its personal impact on discrete individuals is about to be tested under extremely severe conditions: Will the self-interest of discrete individuals trump the larger interests of their aggregate communities? Stay tuned.

Jim D. Kinney

Vernon Hills