Sunday, June 20, 2010

Government as Protector and Arbiter

The Left seems to think government can cure all ills, make injustice (whether real or percieved) just, right all wrongs and protect us from all consequences (Jill - Correct me if I'm missing something here). It amazes me that the Left is willing to give so much power to a central government in light of history both ancient and recent.

There are few cases of what the Left sees as "social justice" that are not injustices to others. "Affirmative Action" is clearly attempting to right wrongs, but what has been the price? We have wronged others. Contrary to what you may think, in order to give someone special consideration based on something other than their own merit harms not only those left out, but the recipient as well. Placing someone in a position for which they are not prepared only sets them up to fail.

As protector, smaller, less powerful governments have done a better job. We can't be protected from everything, not matter how hard government tries. There always seem to be those pesky, "unintended consequences" as well. Large powerful governments also trample their citizen's rights. Tell me one that hasn't. From the kingdoms and empires of the Old World, to the more modern social nanny state or People's Republic, all have trampled on their citizens. Stalin - on the order of 50 million killed. Mao - between 44.5 million and 72 million. Hitler - 6 million Jews and others, not to mention the millions killed in his war of conquest. Some estimate the total at 42 million. Kim - unknown, but thought to be many thousands. Mugabe, Amin, Castro, Chavez. All murder their political enemies and destroy the rights of their citizens. What do they have in common? They are all large, powerful central governments. Yes, dictators, but it has always been a short trip from republican or democratic rule to totalitarianism. Ask the Romans.

So, if any of you on the Left actually show up and read/comment, tell me how this road the United Stats is on will be different? How? Why? The "our guys are smarter" argument is no good. Tell me how power will not corrupt.


Ordinary Jill said...

You misunderstand the Left in this country. Most do not think that government can solve all problems or insulate us from all consequences. Most on the Left believe that carefully-crafted legislation can make things incrementally better. Unintended consequences may be inevitable, but as long as they are significantly less severe than the problems alleviated, they are worth it (like the side effects from life-saving chemotherapy).

Affirmative action is still needed in many areas. The reverse discrimination whiners focus on the handful of cases where a more qualified white man is passed over in favor of a woman or a minority and ignore the hundreds of cases in which a more qualified minority or woman is passed over (recent class action lawsuits against Cracker Barrel and Wal-Mart demonstrate that this is not a rare occurrence).

We do not yet live in a true meritocracy. If that were the case, there would not still be country clubs that bar Tiger Woods (arguably our nation's greatest golfer) from membership (for reasons that have nothing to do with his recent sex scandals).

Deekaman said...

40 years of unintended consequences harming others and there is still a need for affirmative action? I would call the policy an abject failure. And I disagree cpompletely with the premise that the Left does not want to eliminate all of life's consequences. Name one they have not tried to eliminate.