Federalism, localism, ordo amoris: all of this, rather than the crusading ideologies of world perfectionism that in practice turn out to be genocidal and totalitarian, generate far better results, and are much more in accord with our natures as human beings.
J.D. Vance somehow managed to scandalize the left-liberal intelligentsia when he pointed out one of the most obvious moral truths in the world: you have a greater obligation to those who are close to you than you do to a random person on the other side of the globe. All normal people act with these natural obligations in mind, and with a few exceptions (more on that in a minute) we recoil at people who disregard it. Nobody in his right mind would hold up as a moral exemplar the execrable Jean-Jacques Rousseau, who was all tears and pity about the earthquake in Lisbon, but who abandoned his own children to a foundling asylum. Or for that matter John Lennon, who was just so darn concerned about world peace, but who went years neglecting his son from his first marriage. If your child is hospitalized and terminally ill, you could either visit him or you could make hospital visits in the far corners of the globe instead, spreading good cheer among random strangers. But if you chose to do the latter, anyone in his right mind would think there was something wrong with you. Vance's critics are pretty sure they read in the Bible somewhere that you're supposed to be nice to people, and they are taking this to mean that we are to have no hierarchy of love and concern at all. None of them live that way -- e.g., "hey, buddy, I'd love to help you move this weekend but total strangers have an equal claim to my time" -- but they consider themselves morally superior for urging it upon the rest of us. Vance responded by suggesting that people look up the term "ordo amoris," since his critics seem a little bit unfamiliar with the mainstream of Christian social thought. We read in 1 Tim. 5:8: "But if any man have not care of his own, and especially of those of his house, he hath denied the faith, and is worse than an infidel." Augustine and Thomas Aquinas, in turn, expounded on the obvious wisdom of that verse: our capacity to love is finite, and should proceed outward in a series of concentric circles according to the closeness of the people in question to us. When a mendicant friar left all earthly cares behind in order to help faraway strangers, this was called a supererogatory work, not binding on the mass of mankind -- because, for one thing, its universal adoption would destroy society. In his famous debate with Daniel Webster in 1830, South Carolina senator Robert Hayne described the kind of person who criticizes Vance on this issue:J.D. Vance somehow managed to scandalize the left-liberal intelligentsia when he pointed out one of the most obvious moral truths in the world: you have a greater obligation to those who are close to you than you do to a random person on the other side of the globe.
— Tom Woods (@ThomasEWoods) February 3, 2025
All normal…
Their first principle of action is to leave their own affairs, and neglect their own duties, to regulate the affairs and the duties of others. Theirs is the task to feed the hungry and clothe the naked, of other lands, whilst they thrust the naked, famished, and shivering beggar from their own doors; to instruct the heathen, while their own children want the bread of life. When this spirit infuses itself into the bosom of a statesman (if one so possessed can be called a statesman), it converts him at once into a visionary enthusiast.
Then it is that he indulges in golden dreams of national greatness and prosperity. He discovers that “liberty is power”; and not content with vast schemes of improvement at home, which it would bankrupt the treasury of the world to execute, he flies to foreign lands, to fulfill obligations to “the human race,” by inculcating the principles of “political and religious liberty,” and promoting the “general welfare” of the whole human race.Bernard Williams was an atheist philosopher who, in 1981, posed the following question:
You observe two people drowning: your wife, and a complete stranger. You can save only one. What do you do?He said you could stand there and consider what Kantian ethics might tell you about what to do, or contrariwise what utilitarianism might say. But he concludes:
anyone who stands there and deliberates is morally defective. That is your wife, and that is the only thought you should have.
So yes, charity does begin at home, because we have finite hearts and finite resources -- and that's without even getting into the problems of government "charity."
"Development aid" has been a boondoggle from its origins through today. I saw someone arguing that the only problem with USAID is that it needs to allocate its resources toward worthier projects.
This is what the development aid hucksters have been telling us for over 40 years: this stuff works, honest, but we just need to fine-tune where the money goes! If we're still having this conversation today, then it obviously can't be done.
It's not like it isn't obvious by now what needs to happen to elevate developing countries to developed status: private property, freedom of commerce, rule of law. An idiot could do it.
Federalism, localism, ordo amoris: all of this, rather than the crusading ideologies of world perfectionism that in practice turn out to be genocidal and totalitarian, generate far better results, and are much more in accord with our natures as human beings.
