Why I'm Not a Liberal...
Oct. 8th, 2005 04:19 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
redneckgaijin(bringing a political discussion out of someone else's LJ into mine)
The liberal social agenda sounds wonderful, on first listen. "We all have an obligation to take care of one another." As a personal philosophy, I would wholeheartedly approve.
As a political agenda, however, this liberal philosophy is the antithesis of freedom. "We all have an obligation to take care of one another... and we'll lock you up if we think you're not giving enough. Oh, and you don't get to decide how much is enough, or who it goes to. We know better."
To me, the only difference between economic liberals, socialists, and communists is thus:
Communist: The people compose the state. The state owns and controls everything, NOW.
Socialist: The people compose the state. The state will own and control everything soon.
Liberal: The people compose the state. The state will own and control everything someday.
It doesn't matter that the ends desired- that all people be provided for- are quite noble. The ends do not justify the means, and the means are, put politely, the abolition of private ownership of any property. The liberal agenda of increased redistribution of wealth, higher taxation, and vastly expanded social programs mean that only the most wealthy of all will be able to provide for themselves. The poor and working-class will be utterly dependent upon a government which, contrary to the ideals of liberals, doesn't give a rat's ass about any particular person or their unique needs.
Anyone who believes in the inherent nobility and compassion of the People's Government needs to take a good long look at aid for victims of Katrina and Rita. The first aid, and the most aid, has come from PRIVATE sources. Not only has federal aid required massive jumping through hoops and massive delays... but most of the money is going not to those who have lost everything, but megacorporations who have ties to the party currently in power. Even in a liberal world, such things will continue; corruption is endemic in government, and bureaucracy is nothing more than a means of doing something by establishing rules and procedures designed to prevent that something from being done.
That said, after Katrina and Rita I've gone a bit off of my Libertarian stance. There needs to be some emergency response on the part of government when disaster takes everything people have. However, I don't believe in redistribution of wealth or living-standard stipends, because I believe establishing "economic justice" is impossible; you can only commit economic INjustice by trying.
I support disaster relief NOT because of any view that we are all obliged to help one another, or that we should all be dependent upon one another. I have a different reason. I've heard Bastiat's notion that a broken window stimulates the economy repeated to me several times in the past two months. Bastiat's premise- that destruction puts money into circulation and thus gives a boost to the economy- works only if the money spent was not going to be spent on other things.
Government spending only stimulates the economy if the tax money was only going to be hoarded otherwise.
If your window is broken, and you have to eat mac & cheese rather than hamburgers to afford the replacement window, the economy is not boosted.
In both cases, the person who has to spend money on things other than what they wished is made the poorer for it.
If enough people are made poorer in this way, the economy as a whole suffers- no matter how much government money you dump into it.
That's why there must be an emergency system to replace the money lost to disasters such as earthquake, flood, fire, etc. As it stands, New Orleans' economy will be crippled for years to come, and the economies of southwestern Louisiana and eastern Texas have been maimed for at least the short term. It is not government's responsibility to make all these losses good- if it were, that would be as much as saying that government owns everything and what we have is only on loan from our generous Congresscritters. It's merely the most efficient way to shore up an economy after a potent blow.
I could understand, with reluctance, taxes intended as insurance against such disasters.
But I cannot and will not accept a government which attempts to force morality upon me- whether it be the anti-sex morality of the Right or the anti-wealth morality of the Left. If I choose to give to my fellow man, that should be my business and no one else's- including the amount. I believe that any system which forces people to pay charity, and determines how much an individual does or doesn't need to have, is a system which has rendered its citizens slaves to, and dependents of, the government.
And here we come full circle. The Liberal economic mantra, that we are all morally obligated to help our fellow man, is a MORAL edict. As an individual philosophy, which can be accepted or rejected freely, it is excellent, and I encourage others to take it up for themselves. The world would be much better if more people followed this tenet- VOLUNTARILY.
If (and when) this moral edict is given the force of law, however, it is just as odious to me as laws mandating church attendance, or laws against gay marriage, or laws against sexual communications. In fact, economic redistribution is even worse than any of these, because it strikes at the foundation of any person's independence- the ability to provide for oneself, both for now and for the unforseeable future.
And when you consider that government attracts, as a matter of nature, the most corrupt and least empathic in humanity, you should understand why I can never trust government to redistribute wealth in anything like a just, even-handed and equitable fashion...
The liberal social agenda sounds wonderful, on first listen. "We all have an obligation to take care of one another." As a personal philosophy, I would wholeheartedly approve.
As a political agenda, however, this liberal philosophy is the antithesis of freedom. "We all have an obligation to take care of one another... and we'll lock you up if we think you're not giving enough. Oh, and you don't get to decide how much is enough, or who it goes to. We know better."
To me, the only difference between economic liberals, socialists, and communists is thus:
Communist: The people compose the state. The state owns and controls everything, NOW.
Socialist: The people compose the state. The state will own and control everything soon.
Liberal: The people compose the state. The state will own and control everything someday.
It doesn't matter that the ends desired- that all people be provided for- are quite noble. The ends do not justify the means, and the means are, put politely, the abolition of private ownership of any property. The liberal agenda of increased redistribution of wealth, higher taxation, and vastly expanded social programs mean that only the most wealthy of all will be able to provide for themselves. The poor and working-class will be utterly dependent upon a government which, contrary to the ideals of liberals, doesn't give a rat's ass about any particular person or their unique needs.
Anyone who believes in the inherent nobility and compassion of the People's Government needs to take a good long look at aid for victims of Katrina and Rita. The first aid, and the most aid, has come from PRIVATE sources. Not only has federal aid required massive jumping through hoops and massive delays... but most of the money is going not to those who have lost everything, but megacorporations who have ties to the party currently in power. Even in a liberal world, such things will continue; corruption is endemic in government, and bureaucracy is nothing more than a means of doing something by establishing rules and procedures designed to prevent that something from being done.
That said, after Katrina and Rita I've gone a bit off of my Libertarian stance. There needs to be some emergency response on the part of government when disaster takes everything people have. However, I don't believe in redistribution of wealth or living-standard stipends, because I believe establishing "economic justice" is impossible; you can only commit economic INjustice by trying.
I support disaster relief NOT because of any view that we are all obliged to help one another, or that we should all be dependent upon one another. I have a different reason. I've heard Bastiat's notion that a broken window stimulates the economy repeated to me several times in the past two months. Bastiat's premise- that destruction puts money into circulation and thus gives a boost to the economy- works only if the money spent was not going to be spent on other things.
Government spending only stimulates the economy if the tax money was only going to be hoarded otherwise.
If your window is broken, and you have to eat mac & cheese rather than hamburgers to afford the replacement window, the economy is not boosted.
In both cases, the person who has to spend money on things other than what they wished is made the poorer for it.
If enough people are made poorer in this way, the economy as a whole suffers- no matter how much government money you dump into it.
That's why there must be an emergency system to replace the money lost to disasters such as earthquake, flood, fire, etc. As it stands, New Orleans' economy will be crippled for years to come, and the economies of southwestern Louisiana and eastern Texas have been maimed for at least the short term. It is not government's responsibility to make all these losses good- if it were, that would be as much as saying that government owns everything and what we have is only on loan from our generous Congresscritters. It's merely the most efficient way to shore up an economy after a potent blow.
I could understand, with reluctance, taxes intended as insurance against such disasters.
But I cannot and will not accept a government which attempts to force morality upon me- whether it be the anti-sex morality of the Right or the anti-wealth morality of the Left. If I choose to give to my fellow man, that should be my business and no one else's- including the amount. I believe that any system which forces people to pay charity, and determines how much an individual does or doesn't need to have, is a system which has rendered its citizens slaves to, and dependents of, the government.
And here we come full circle. The Liberal economic mantra, that we are all morally obligated to help our fellow man, is a MORAL edict. As an individual philosophy, which can be accepted or rejected freely, it is excellent, and I encourage others to take it up for themselves. The world would be much better if more people followed this tenet- VOLUNTARILY.
If (and when) this moral edict is given the force of law, however, it is just as odious to me as laws mandating church attendance, or laws against gay marriage, or laws against sexual communications. In fact, economic redistribution is even worse than any of these, because it strikes at the foundation of any person's independence- the ability to provide for oneself, both for now and for the unforseeable future.
And when you consider that government attracts, as a matter of nature, the most corrupt and least empathic in humanity, you should understand why I can never trust government to redistribute wealth in anything like a just, even-handed and equitable fashion...
