I've found my self in a few conversations with people on the Left and the Right since getting back to school. What has been really surprising to me is seeing how people view the role of government differently. Let me splain myself.
I studied sociology as an undergrad. I am at BYU, but the Soc. Dept is arguable the most most liberal place on this very conservative campus. I studied social injustice, inequality, class stratification, racial issues, poverty etc. And, frankly, it turned me into a bleeding heart. I would have argued with you about the merits of wealth redistribution, the evils of wealth stratification, the plight of poverty, and the corruption of corporate America. I was a pretty liberal person, in many respects.
Now I study the law. I still want to lift people out of poverty. I still think that large economic divides in classes is bad for America. I still think that racial issues are prescient and divisive. I am still a bleeding heart. In some ways, I am probably still pretty liberal. But I have also been studying the role of government. And that has, undoubtedly, made me very conservative (as a disclaimer, I don't think the Republican party is often conservative in the sense I mean it).
Listen carefully now. Gov't action is not benign. The government, as sovereign, has control over you by one, ultimate means: physical force and violence. Don't believe me? Go break a law and then try to not get arrested. Don't pay your taxes and then refuse to go to jail. See what happens, and then post a comment below. Rebels, like our Founding Fathers, were acutely aware of this. Checks, balances, limited government, democracy, etc. are all intended to ensure that this power is limited and restricted. I believe that distrust of your government is a patriotic duty.
And that is what is most frustrating about trying to talk to liberals. They see the government as both benign and a cure all. If only the government had more control, more resources, more liberal policies etc. then we could fix everything. No. NO. NO! It isn't a question about ENDS it is a question about MEANS! If nothing else, I consider liberals to be poor students of history (or even contemporary politics).
Problem: Some people suffer in poverty.
Liberal Solution: Use the force of Government (physical force and violence) to force people to share by taxing and redistributing.
Problem: Health Care is Expensive
Liberal Solution: Threaten to jail, physical restrain, or abuse (in other words, tax) people who can afford health care if they don't support those who can't.
Problem: People use guns to commit crimes.
Liberal Solution: We can use our guns to take away their guns!
I'm positive that with little effort I could conjure up equally shocking examples of the current Admins "solutions," but I really don't see this as a Republican v. Democrat issue, as I don't really see the Republicans as acting "conservative" most of the time. But that is a post for another day (Title: Why it is So Hard to be a Republican).
And, while I am up her on my soap box, the Liberal Solutions are LAZY! Employing the might of the government to solve such delicate, moral problems is a cop out! I understand how difficult it is to educate people and make them compassionate and giving. But I don't think the difficulty of that task, or even the enormity of the problem, justify using the force of the government to coerce people into "caring" about their fellow humans. You can see how using the governments force usually leads to resentment between groups, not understanding and compassion.
So what should the government do? Exactly what it was intended to do: Provide for the safety, security and freedom of its inhabitants. In other words, stop crime, prevent invasion, and maintain necessary infrastructure. How would the poor manage in such a world? Well, both by their own perspiration and the compassion of the fellow humans. And the deep irony (I think) is that my caring, compassionate, liberal friends don't seem to believe in the later; they prefer the power of Government.
You might notice I haven't even touched on the effectiveness (or lack there of) of Gov't programs. That's because I don't think it is necessary. Even if totally effective, wealth-redistribution is wrong. A totalitarian state can be very, very effective. This doesn't make it right. The truth is that America has taken our freedom very for granted - to the point were most of us (in some way) actively campaign for the Gov't to take some freedoms from us believing that it will make us more wealthy, more healthy, or more "equal." But, sorry, I'll cling to my freedoms, even if it costs me some of those previous things.
5 comments:
I totally agree. Other student families think we're so weird (or stupid) for not taking "advantage" of all the government welfare programs while we're poor and in school. There may really be people who benefit from them or really need it (although I'm still not totally sure it's the best thing), but I don't think we're in that category.
While watching Barack Obama's speech last night I kept thinking over and over, that's not the government's job! I'm all about self-reliance and people willingly helping each other when needed.
And once the programs are available, it is very difficult to advise someone not to take advantage. I mean, free cheese? And justifying it all is too easy. Hence, the giant momentum of government. Truthfully, I'm somewhat of a pessimist about turning things around. Maybe holding the line on the current level of government looting is the most we can hope for.
Have you read Atlas Shrugged? If not, read it. Natalie gave it to me sometime in high school. I've read it several times over the years. It's got some of the ideas from The Fountainhead, but is more economic and social-policy oriented. Although it may lack something in literary merit, its themes are conveyed powerfully.
Obama was mush on the issue last night, when he said,"Ours is a promise that says government cannot solve all our problems, but what it should do is that which we cannot do for ourselves - protect us from harm and provide every child a decent education; keep our water clean and our toys safe; invest in new schools and new roads and new science and technology."
There is nothing thing on that list that isn't being done by private enterprise, and yet he cites them all as things "that we cannot do for ourselves." Perhaps his entirely private education (from K through Harvard Law) failed him? Maybe we really do the government to provide it all for us! ;-)
I do have a hard time carrying my arguments to some of their logical conclusions. Like Ed. I do wonder if private ed could totally replace public ed, and ed is one of those sensitive areas with me.
But what does seem more and more obvious is that the smaller the form of gov't that gets to decide how to implement things that approach "infrastructure" (and I think ed might), the less onerous it is. States are clearly the best equipped to deal with something like that.
And this might be where I really show my libertarian colors. Suppose you don't like the way your state does public ed, say you disagree with your property taxes. I offer you two options (both with a straight face): 1. use the normal democratic chanels to change what you don't like or, 2. move to another state.
2 probably sounds somewhat unreasonable to lots of people. But that is exactly how (most of) the framers saw the issue. Don't like the State Church in Massachusetts? Well, lucky for your colonial-butt, there are 12 other, newly minted states each with a unique flavor and you are free to pick one! The 14th amendment makes us a pretty homogeneous country, in terms of political structure variance between states, but you still have options. And people already do this all the time, just talk to someone considering job offers in a couple states. They know all about the schools, tax rates, crime rates, cost of living, etc.
So Fed Gov't, feel free to butt out.
Auuggh! My mind is screaming!!! It is WAY to late to post something that won't sound like Howard Dean in New Hampshire circ. 2004. Rest assured that I will respond for the Obama crowd. To be continued...
Post a Comment