Sunday, October 23, 2005
Unfair Definitions of “Fairness”...and other weekly stuff
(This is a rather long stretch of material, but there's considerable variety and the post will remain up for a week. By all means scroll down and consider the subjects you may find interesting, provocative, or annoying -- at least check out the cartoon near the end.)
The "progressively" less Mainstream Media has got to be squirming now. It's impossible to sideline the fact that the butcher of Bagdad is currently on trial. Although I'm quite sure attempts will be made to work Abu Ghraib and "Bush's war for oil" into the reporting. The main issue -- that Saddam Hussein really is a bad guy on steroids -- will have to be confronted and made noteworthy. Of course, he and his lawyers can be expected to spin the case against the evil American and British liberators of Iraq and, no doubt, news sources like the Neo-Comm New York Times will give it their best to put the trial itself "on trial" rather than acknowledge the evils done by a National Socialist dictator. Remember, he hated America and he kept capitalism controlled beneath his thumb, and that’s all that really matters.
Oh yes, just a reminder; the bombs going off in Iraq are under direction of an international Islamic-fascist Jihad -- not George Bush or Tony Blair (that's not too clear to some people).
Last week's posts included a link to The People's Cube regarding their on-going trials with a less than honest leftist/capitalist business (not a new concept). The plot continues, and the folks at the People's Cube continue to be ever so brilliant. The image of Nick Nolte as a potential Che Guevara non-look-alike is hilarious and the retorts to Cafe Press sublime. Some very skillful and entertaining writing.
Tech Central Station has an excellent summary of the libertarian view:
“...Consider the following classification system for government regulations and programs.
(a) interventions that work so much better than private alternatives that we feel grateful for them
(b) interventions that are better than private alternatives in some ways and worse in others
(c) interventions that are mostly worse than private alternatives
(d) interventions that are evil”
“Libertarians look at government and see interventions that are mostly in categories (b), (c), and (d). I would put municipal fire departments in category (a), government water treatment in category (b), public education and Social Security in category (c), and protectionist trade measures such as the Byrd Amendment in category (d). Where the United States is really lucky compared with countries like Zimbabwe is that those other countries' government interventions are predominantly in category (d).”
“My sense is that non-libertarians view interventions as fitting mostly into categories (a) and (b), and they believe that the programs that they favor are all category (a). I believe that their attachment to government interventions owes more to wishful thinking than to a realistic assessment of results. My reading of history is that progressives tend to exaggerate both the need for government interventions and the likely results of such interventions..."
Some Marxists never die, but I wish they’d at least fade away.
The following comments refer to excerpts from an article I had read some time ago (the beginning of September).
During the media parade over Hurricane Katrina related issues (used by many in the media to press leftists talking points on race, poverty, and “class”), Global Viewpoint editor, Nathan Gardels, interviewed American civil rights personality and former U.N. ambassador, Andrew Young. The exchange was classic leftist caricature in overdrive. I have to comment on some of the blatantly absurd statements made by both the interviewer and his echo.
"Nathan Gardels: To what extent is the catastrophe in New Orleans a symptom — perhaps even a metaphor — of where America as a whole has gone wrong: A vast class gap has re-emerged as the spirit of the Great Society lapsed and policies over the past 25 years generally favored private wealth over public investment, both in physical infrastructure, like the levees, as well as in human capital." (Emphasis mine)
(My Comments) : The levee that broke in New Orleans was one that had actually been upgraded. The greatest catastrophe in the Katrina fiasco was local and state government’s incompetence and corruption, an issue that has yet to be even acknowledged by the “everything is Bush’s fault” crowd.
The language chosen in this “question” is classic Marxist class rant. First of all, there’s an automatic assumption that, “America has gone wrong.” Many would beg to differ, particularly in view of the fact that it’s still the strongest economy in the world with a rather low unemployment rate, crime figures on par with many European countries (in spite of urban myths that seek to indicate otherwise), continues to innovate and diversify while vast numbers of people from around the world keep wanting to become its citizens.
Gardels claims that some “class-gap” has “re-emerged,” something that the left has continually claimed to be occurring throughout history everywhere, except their favored caste-system dictatorships (“of the proletariat”). The “class-gap,” which is a fairly dynamic but narrowly fluctuating statistic in America, is a non-issue ultimately (please see link).
"Andrew Young: I agree...Americans prospered during the New Deal of Franklin Roosevelt when the old and weak were taken care of."
(My Comments) : God, ain’t this a load of crap (excuse my lack of decorum). Americans did not “prosper” during Roosevelt’s massive increase in central state authority, the great depression continued throughout his administration (largely due to his statist/anti-business policies). Even a secondary myth, that the Second World War ended the depression is not completely accurate. A war economy may be amped-up but is hardly a healthy economy. People are put to work making armaments, and guys going off to war can be said to be “employed” (I suppose), but a genuine economic rebound from the depression didn’t truly occur until war-time and Roosevelt-time controls were lifted from the economy during the 1950’s. Young’s additional fiction, “…when the old and weak were taken care of” seems to overlook the seven trillion dollars thus far spent by the federal government alone since the mid 60’s for “social programs.” In typical socialist illusion-land, instantly the poor and downtrodden have been cast aside because Bush is in the White House – this is absolute B.S. in high gear. Rest assured, there is still massive amounts of cash flowing to useless social service bureau-leeches (“the old and weak” – give me a break. Nice try).
"Gardels: Does this suggest that America needs what many other places in the world from Germany to South Korea already have — a stronger state?"
(My Comments) : Well, at least, now he’s getting to the point. With socialists, it’s never really about “the poor, weak, and oppressed.” It’s about feeding power to the state (to themselves and their “planning” philosophies). The U.S. federal government isn’t strong enough? (e.g. American’s are too free?). How can we demonstrate our “love and compassion” for fellow citizens in need? I’ve got it!...A stronger state, that’s what we need!
"Young: Private wealth is not always wise and rarely takes into account public responsibilities. But a creative, activist state can leverage that wealth."
(My Comments) : A new oxymoron; “creative…state.” If there’s one thing I admire about government offices and bureaucrats, it’s their “creativity.” …The usual disdain for “private wealth” and demand that free people perform their “responsibilities” (which will, of course be defined by people like young and other statist philosopher kings). This guy is too classic. Guess what Andrew? I don’t want to join your fasocialist commune. Call me, and people like me, “selfish”…then, leave us alone.
"Gardels: ...Back when you were with Dr. King, the big conflict was guns vs. butter, whether America could pay for both the Great Society and the Vietnam War. Can we now pay for rebuilding New Orleans and the Iraq war?"
(My Comments) : These guys are too much. As previously stated, the “Great Society” programs of the 1960’s (and continuing into today at greatly expanded cost) have cost over seven TRILLION dollars up to now – that’s some seriously expensive “butter.” I guess this fool’s either/or false predicament would prefer to see Islamo-fascists rule over Iraq and the greater middle east so the corrupt leaders of New Orleans could snag a new infusion of cash (which they’re going to get anyway!).
"Young: No, because I know how poor New Orleans is. I grew up there. Actually, I'm afraid of the opposite in the coming days and weeks. Because poor black people lived in the central city, they had access to public transportation to at least get to the Superdome or elsewhere, to get out where they were visible. I'm afraid the bodies they find around the suburbs will be largely white — poor people who didn't have access to public transportation or who stayed behind to watch their property while others in the family fled in their only car."
(My Comments) : There’s that phony diatribe again about the poor being abandoned, with the omission of exactly how that occurred through the negligence and incompetence of New Orleans’s black Mayor and Louisiana’s Democrat governor. (Remember the photo of flooded school busses left abandoned by the city’s mayor
Neither the interviewer nor his kindred echo in the above polemic can be called full-blown Stalinists, but their cliché talking points are classic commarxist worldview delusions.
The bottom line in the whole rant/"interview" is that an already powerful central government should be made more powerful and it should control its citizen's freedom for the sake of some contrived concern for the poor on the part of two intellectual elitists. I realize that fervent “name-calling” isn’t the hallmark of good debate, but these two clowns are nothing less than typical fasocialists and – I’ve got to say it – a__holes.
(The following essay was originally posted at this site last year)
In appraising daily events among people, one need not even consider politics to hold impressions as to what is, “fair” or “unfair.” When such values are extrapolated into the political sphere they are often embellished with common cries like, “It’s not fair…!” or, “It wouldn’t be fair if…!”
Anyone who has ever made a work schedule (I used to manage restaurants) realizes the power they hold to reward, punish, or acknowledge an employee by the shifts and hours they assign to them. When such employees take issue with their scheduling fate they inevitably argue the “fairness” of satisfying their personal interest in the matter. “I have more seniority than…” “I should get the good shifts and best hours…” “Why does X have off Saturday, I’ve worked here longer?” Of course seniority is a worthy consideration between employees of similar ability and application, but should a hard working, responsible, or superior worker be given a worse schedule at the expense of a less effective or committed employee who “has seniority?” Is there even such a thing as a “superior” employee, who deserves superior consideration? Similar mundane predicaments arise daily everywhere. Such issues can be extrapolated into the most complex social/political circumstance. Some economic systems clearly reward intelligence or initiative or even tolerate “luck” more than others. Some actually reward or tolerate apathy, sloth, and failure. In my college Teacher Education School, one fellow student once protested that in her classroom all students will get “A’s” because they all have equal potential and any shortcoming on the part of a student must be the teacher’s fault. (By saying this she was of course also suggesting that she was an “A” producing teacher in general). If everyone is “special” doesn’t that ultimately mean that no one is? (This insightful question was asked by a character in the recent movie, “The Incredibles”).
Is it fair when one sacrifices a dollar to buy a lottery ticket and wins two dollars…or thousands? Is it unfair when they “win” nothing and are a dollar poorer? Should one person be punished for winning or another rewarded for losing? Of course the typical left-minded political idealist would compel such people to “share” the win or the loss. If they didn’t “share” (relinquish) they’d be seen as “selfish” (e.g. “unfair”) and, in the ideal leftist system, probably publicly chastised and punished.
It’s ironic that some who see possession of wealth as unfair also see theft of wealth as…fair!
The entire socialist perspective is ultimately based on the idea of redistribution of wealth as a means of establishing “equality” and by default, “fairness.” To achieve such a “fair and equal” system always necessitates conformity and submission to an arbitrary authority (e.g. the state). Is being forced into such submission fair? Those of us on the right -- classical liberals -- don’t think so.
In the rarified realms of ideal philosophy and religion one can of course speak of everyone as being equal “in the end,” or equal “before the law” or “before God” etc. These ideal values hold little practical significance when genuine standards are applied in appraising the differences among us. In honest contexts, some people are "better" than others (though many people hate hearing that). Certainly some are more honest, thrifty, original, ambitious, or prone to take risks. None are “equal.” There isn’t a molecule in existence that is truly “equal” to another considering factors of time, location, or other contextual status. One can claim it to be unfair to lose a loved one to a natural disaster. Would it be fairer for it to be someone else?
Definitions of fairness always assume that one’s self or groups favored by one’s self should be on the receiving end of such fairness. Then there’s the argument that, “I want a system that is fair to everyone…so give me your money” (a paradox, indeed).
The same obsessions that some have regarding fairness toward individuals or groups are often applied to differences among nations as well.
In the United Nations, random members each get a turn leading its “Human Rights Commission.” This includes unelected dictatorships known for their serious lack of basic human rights – another bizarre manifestation of left-wing “fairness.”
It is often said that America’s wealth and success is unfair in a world where some nations are seen as unfairly poor. Zimbabwe is poor. North Korea is poor. Is this fair? I think it would be more honest and accurate to ask if it’s fair that the citizens of such countries live under authority that deprives them the freedom to pursue wealth and good fortune, but this is never much an issue of concern to those who sympathize with collectivism and the tyranny required to implement it. Robert Mugabe – in classic Marxist style – seized land from white farmers who he decided had owned it unfairly, and gave it to the blacks of Zimbabwe to farm. The result has been that the socialist definition of fairness has once again turned a “bread basket” into a region wrought with famine. Now some would claim that it’s not fair that some countries have so much food and Zimbabwe doesn’t. The socialist solution would no doubt be, to let them continue their stupid Marxist “agrarian reform” and give them food -- or seize it -- from the free market countries that produce surpluses.
In the left’s pathetically simple view; the US is wealthy, North Korea and Zimbabwe are poor, therefore citizens of the US should give their wealth to North Korea, – “We should all learn to share.” Usually the demand is made in a more roundabout way, “We need to do the things required to create a more just and equal order among nations.” How about supporting the concept of giving all citizens the freedom to create, buy, and sell freely, and allowing them to keep the wealth they obtain from such interactions? – Well, no, that’s not quite what they have in mind when calling for socialist "fairness."
One’s sympathy or support for capitalism or communism ultimately arises from the stance one takes in considering what is “fair” in a natural world that takes no sides. To classical liberals, communism -- the seizing of personal property, wealth, and values -- is unfair; to the left and its varieties of socialism, capitalism is unfair because free agents and actions will skew society considerably from a cherished “equality.” To them, it’s simply not fair that life isn’t fair (e.g. doesn’t give them automatic access to conditions as they want them to be).
Self-interest of course enters the picture when considering the motivations that draw one to a side of the political spectrum. First one must acknowledge the existence of self-interest in the first place. The Left prefers the word, “selfish” and thinks the concept is “socially constructed,” but that’s a whole other issue in the dichotomies that separate right from left.
Operating a large company for profit is no more an act of self-interest than imposing state authority over such an industry to placate one’s philosophical yearnings. Is it not an act of self-interest to want one’s own philosophy to be the standard upon which society operates?
Related to the issue of “what is fair” is the often-arbitrary appraisal of what one “deserves.” If someone works hard, is ambitious, makes sacrifices, bides their time, and achieves their goals, I would say they “deserve” the rewards of their actions – monetary or otherwise. To many on the left, however, a person’s mere possession of wealth is in itself cause to claim they “don’t deserve it” and it should be given to people who “deserve it more” (another one of the lefts’ more common and groundless assertions).
Those of us who value our individuality and have faith in our capacity to achieve our goals when unhindered will always see it as unfair when others seek to restrain our free thought and action or deprive us of what we seek or what we have gained. There will also be those who feel their own lower status can only be the result of victim hood at the hands of unfairness. One side of the issue will always favor individuality and freedom, the other, “equality” (of outcome) and coerced “redistribution.” Both sides will be arguing from a standpoint of self-interest. While a belief in self-interest and individual freedom certainly drives the philosophy of the right, the left is no less motivated by self-interest.
When the Right seeks to make the case for what it sees as fair to its own self-interest and values, it need only say, “Leave me alone.” The Left’s case is always stated as a variation on, “Give me your stuff” and, “Do what I tell you to do.” What could be a more unfair definition of fairness?
A Comic Commentary from Promethean Visions:
Clulelessness in oppressed times...
Promethean Quote from The Promethean Observer:
"Reading the favored tomes of the left (i.e. Marx and Chomsky) doesn’t make one 'well-informed,' as so many leftists would insist; it merely makes one well informed of the left’s biased perceptions. What’s so impressive about that?"
