This ought to be a rather controversial post, I imagine. As such, I am going to write it over the course of a few days to ensure that I have all of my ideas laid out as clearly as I can.
I tied these two ideas together into one post, since I believe that they are somewhat inextricably tied together. One cannot consider the ideas of liberalism versus conservativism without considering the arguments for and against big government.
In my experience, it seems to be that liberalism is often tied to idealism and conservativism is oft tied into realism. Each of those two go hand-in-hand.
The liberal movement wants to ensure that everyone is treated fairly, and that no one goes hungry or dies of illness or is cheated, stolen from, or lied to.
Oddly enough, the conservative movement has basically the same goal.
What is the difference then, you say? Well, it is in the application of said goal.
Liberals seek to force everyone to become equal by government intervention. This is commonly known as "Socialism". Socialism and Communism are great systems in theory, and I mean that in the truest sense of the word. However, the reality of it is... they simply don't work. These two systems of government rely on the fundamental truth that people are basically good (remember my post on idealism?). The problem, as has been displayed over and over again in history, is that people are not fundamentally good. People are lazy, selfish, cruel, heartless, arrogant, deceitful monsters unless acted upon by an outside force (ethics/religion/karma/law/God/etc). Therefore, when the power of the government (the power to redistribute resources and mediate justice) is placed in the hands of a few; they will, by nature, cheat the system. They will give themselves perks above all else and will seek to remain in power by whatever means possible. This is where big government versus small government comes in. The most assured method to guarantee the redistribution of wealth is to have the government control everything, such that they steal from the rich and give to the poor. Sounds flawless, eh? It's just like Robin Hood.
There are a couple of fundamental problems with this, once again, tied into human nature. First, people are lazy. A lazy person will not work more than he absolutely has to in order to achieve the results for his life that he wants. If you steal from the rich, you are thereby making the work (both manual and intellectual) that they perform worth the same as the work of a poor man in the name of "equality". The natural result of this will be the lowest common denominator effect. The rich man will not work as hard. No point in working so hard, if you are only going to get paid (whether by being actually paid less or by being 'stolen' from in any manner) as much as the next guy, no? The final pseudo-stable state of this type of government is the masses of enslaved poor ruled by an elite ruling class of government officials. This typically cannot be sustained, and eventually results in complete economic collapse via lack of productivity/depreciation of wages.
A quote by John Stuart Mill in The Principles of Political Economy (1848) reiterates the point above.
It is the common error of Socialists to overlook the natural indolence of mankind; their tendency to be passive, to be the slaves of habit, to persist indefinitely in a course once chosen. Let them once attain any state of existence which they consider tolerable, and the danger to be apprehended is that they will thenceforth stagnate; will not exert themselves to improve, and by letting their faculties rust, will lose even the energy required to preserve them from deterioration. Competition may not be the best conceivable stimulus, but it is at present a necessary one, and no one can foresee the time when it will not be indispensable to progress. - 1Second, as much the socialist individuals lack the incentive to grow and innovate, so also do the socialist systems as a whole. This lowest common denominator effect effuses itself throughout the entire system, including government, industry and education and inflicts a lack of incentive to develop new technologies and methodologies for accomplishing whatever task is at hand. The lack of ability or even desire to adapt and change to meet circumstantial demands is a severe detriment to the efficient operation of a system.
Third, as a function of the centrality of socialist systems, the central governing body will, by nature of limited vision, be unable to effectively gauge what elements a society will need in the near and far future, in terms of resources and production, and will thus be unable to plan the production accordingly. The feedback loop that typically naturally exists in a free-market capitalist system, that allows for not only self-regulation of the overall economy, induces some level of self-regulation of supply and demand. This is not to say that the government can simply wash their hands of the economy and leave it completely to the free-market to self govern themselves. I will address this a little later, however, in the section on "What is the role of the government?"
So, aside from the apparent threat of socialism, there are some other detrimental aspects of liberalism that I think will severely harm our nation and people.
First is the freedom from the truth. Truth is such a fundamental quantity that it is often overlooked as an 'out-dated' idea, and that social and moral relativism is the only way into the future. Such ideas are not only destructive to individuals, but when applied to society and governments they result in a complete and chaotic breakdown of civilization.
Truth is, by it's very nature, absolute and exclusive. For a certain idea to be true, all other incongruent ideas must, by default, be false. Social and moral relativism rely on the disintegration of truth and morality. Liberals seek to assert that, because truth does not exist, that any way of living is an acceptable way. However, as had been shown in the past, any way of living does not result in a peaceful and meaningful life. In fact, it imbues the exact opposite, creating chaos, confusion, sorrow and trouble. The sheer fact of the matter is that there are absolute truths and regardless of whether we may enjoy them or not, a civil life is not possibly executable without a foundation of absolute truths governing the foundation of law. One look at today's society will uncover the horror to which people's choices lead them when they hold fast to the morally relativistic lifestyle that they so adore. True equality cannot exist without a standard against which to measure, not only the law, but also every individual's actions.
In application it works like this; a liberal politician will campaign on an idealistic platform and promise anything that will get him elected. Often times, this politician believes that he can accomplish this, which is as simple as deceiving himself first. The goal of such a person going in may be to "change the world" or "clean out Congress"; but when granted resistance to their plans from reality, they quickly abandon them and either attempt to accomplish a more realistic goal, simply quit trying altogether and just bask in the benefits of the position, or will attempt to exert authoritarian control to force equality upon the people, which will result in the lowest common denominator effect again and eradicate democracy and the middle class in the process.
The breakdown of morality in society is the breakdown of law. When every person is unbound by any law, whether human or divine, they will degenerate to their base state, and drag the social fabric down with them as they go.
So, then how is conservativism any better?
The foundation of conservative thought begins with the assumption that men are evil. This evil must be brought into check in order to produce a civil society. The check includes a small, balanced government; a free-market economy, and an absolute system of law.
What is the role of the government then?
The purpose of government is three-fold. First, they protect and defend the population from external threats. This defense includes national borders and controlling the immigration and processes related therein Second, they maintain and execute the laws of the land. The laws of the land should be designed to limit individual and corporate behavior that is destructive to the civilization and is not naturally regulated by free-market capitalism and a republic government. Third, they create and maintain a nation's currency. The government is not responsible for providing food and/or shelter for anyone. They are not responsible for educating anyone. They are not responsible for providing health and well-being care. The provision of these should be on the people and institutions of a nation, not on the government. People who begin to rely on the government for every basic human need, sacrifice their liberty (oddly enough) to care for themselves, learn, and grow. The very government they look to provide for them is transformed into a lord over them. They willingly sacrifice the power to govern to a few politicians.
The end is thus, we must stop the slide into social liberalism. It has not worked in the past and; I assure you, it will not work in the future. If there is one thing I will bet on is that human nature remains corrupt. The people of our republican government still possess the power to change this venomous direction that the nation has turned down, if they will only wake up and smell reality.
1 - Mill, John Stuart. The Principles of Political Economy, Book IV, Chapter 7
No comments:
Post a Comment