I'd like to share with you a few quotes from Henry Cabot Lodge, in his book "The Democracy of the Constitution". I was startled when I was reading this last night to see how much his comments relate to current events. This book was published in 1915.
"[The Constitution] has disappointed the expectations of those who opposed it, convinced those who doubted, and won a success beyond the most glowing hopes of those who put faith in it. Such a work is not to be lightly cast down or set aside, or, which would be still worse, remade by crude thinkers and by men who live only to serve and flatter in their own interest the emotion of the moment."
In my opinion, this describes exactly the efforts of the Congress to expand Federal powers. Talk about the emotion of the moment!
"It is the fashion...to speak of socialism as if it were something new, a radiant discovery of our own time which is to wipe away all tears. The truth is that it is very old, as old in essence as human nature, for it appeals to the strong desire in every man to get something for nothing, and to have someone else bear his burdens and do his work for him."
I have nothing to add to that. How can I put it more clearly than he? Last quote, and my personal favorite:
"To argue from results seems just now out of fashion. Actual accomplishment, it would appear, is nothing. According to the new dispensation our decision must be made on what is promised for the future, not on what has been done in the past. Under this novel doctrine, as I have observed it, we are to be guided chiefly by envy and discontent and are to act on the general principle that whatever is is wrong." (emphasis added by me)
So there you have it. People today are caught up in the belief that change for change's sake must be good. These days, as in 1915, socialism seems a new answer...that the government can fix everything. But history (and even recent experiences!) have proven that adding layers of bureaucratic control does nothing but complicate programs, and open them to corruption. How could making anything more complicated also reduce costs? Think about that for a minute.
The logic behind keeping government out of as much business as possible is a basic capitalist principle, but Ayn Rand does a fantastic job of explaining the morality and the philosophy behind allowing men to think and work for themselves. Give this interview of hers a read if you'd like to learn more about her argument. It changed my life and my perception of the world around me--gave me confidence in my own ability and purpose.
http://www.ellensplace.net/ar_pboy.html
[Editor's note: I just read through that particular version of her interview, it must be the full one, so it covers a LOT more of her philosophy as a whole, not just the political part of it that I read in "The Libertarian Reader". It's still great, it's just a lot longer and a lot more to take in all at once. So try not to be overwhelmed, haha]
Stay tuned for the Series post #2...
I'm going to go out on a limb and do something that I rarely do, which is to disagree thoroughly with something written by a friend who is clearly passionate about the subject.
ReplyDeleteI find a few key points in the world where this critique of socialism seems to break down.
First, I object to the premise that society is at its best when they cannot "get something for nothing." This assumes, as Ms. Rand assumes, that all people are capable of acting by her definition of rationality and focused purpose. The chief counter-example I see to this is with the extremely high rate of schizophrenia and substance abuse in the homeless population. Both conditions are heavily biologically based (rather than exclusively psychological, in the sense that they have their origin and cure rooted in managing cognitions, an argument that could be made for depression). In addition, schizophrenia in particular is sometimes completely unmanageable even with medications - or intermittently unmanageable, as medications lose their efficacy. These medications can return some people to a point of rational functionality, but without getting these medications "for nothing," how on Earth would the population even be able to function in these highly rational, focused terms?
Second, I do not think of socialism as new (not now, nor in 1915), nor a cure for all ills. It is not even a thing that one can say has never been present in the world. All societies have their institutions for taking care of those unable to meet their needs. Societies used to be so much smaller and so much more socially (and literally) incestuous, that the belief that one has an obligation to one's family is adequate to ensure those powerless to help themselves. As towns and villages merged to form cities and cities to form city-states and city-states to form countries and empires, as human mobility increases to a global scale, how are the most vulnerable to be cared for without the state being involved? Are these people simply irrelevant to the functioning of society? Are their potential contributions inherently useless?
...Of course, if you accept objectivism as a premise, then the subjective experiences of living as a woman, person of color, or other minority becomes utterly irrelevant to this discussion. And if that premise holds for you in other areas, I have nothing that can disagree with it within that framework.
ReplyDeleteFinally, I object deeply and personally to the idea that I support socially supportive programming because "it appeals to the strong desire in every man to get something for nothing, and to have someone else bear his burdens and do his work for him." It does not appeal to a strong desire I have to get something for nothing and have others bear the burdens for me. It appeals to my strong desire to bear burdens for people who are unable to do so. It appeals to my strong desire that people not bear burdens alone which I have already endured alone. It appeals to my desire to have as many amazing minds in this country as possible contribute their unique gifts to it. I want people who are currently hamstrung by financial hardship and class divides to contribute to this world that I love - and by more than participating at the bottom rung of our economy, perpetually struggling just to survive.
It appeals, in short, to my empathy, my understanding of what certain struggles are like. Even more so, it appeals to my understanding that I have never gone truly hungry, I have never faced violence which I could not escape, I have never faced a choice between putting shoes on my children so that they can attend school and remain in my home, or paying for my diabetes medications so that I can stay alive. I do not know and I will never know because my life circumstances have privileged me so that I never will have to.
May we all be so lucky.
You're right, there are plenty of people out there who need help to survive. And like you, I LIKE helping people. I thoroughly encourage participation in local community programs, or donations to charities, however you prefer to help.
ReplyDeleteBut my key objection is that it's YOUR choice to help people, and YOU get to decide where your money goes and for what purpose. I refuse to believe that the government has the right to take my money and decide how to spend it for me. Or anyone else's money, for that matter.
I read a great article called "The Tendrils of Community" by Charles Murray, that I highly recommend to you. It's not very long, and does an excellent job of explaining why it is our duty as individuals to help our fellow man, and not the government's.