Believers in aristocracy and socialism share a faith in centralized rule, in rule by command rather than by voluntary cooperation. They differ in who should rule: whether an elite determined by birth or experts supposedly chosen on merit. Both proclaim, no doubt sincerely, that they wish to promote the well-being of the "general public," that they know what is in the "public interest" and how to obtain it better than the ordinary person. Both, therefore, profess a paternalistic philosophy.
You know what, I don't want anybody but me looking out for me. Don't need some knucklehead that's a good test taker (and doesn't know squat about real life) taking my money and telling me what I should do with my life. I don't want anybody but me and my friends and family looking out for me and my family. I don't want anybody but regular ordinary people looking out for regular ordinary people. I truly believe in the the collective intelligence of people. What we have now are the successful test takers passing out privilege and preferences to whatever preferred group they want. If you have the right racial, sexual or social orientation, you get special preferences enforced by law. If you're an ordinary citizen, not belonging to a preferred group, well hey...tough, too bad so sad. Instead of preferences set by those in power, perhaps we can apply "content of his character" and "all men created equal". Preferences enforced by the believers in aristocracy and socialism, deciding which group gets what, denies liberty. It denies choice. People caring for each other provides choices, liberty and abundance. People don't starve because of lack of food, people starve because of the decisions the believers in aristocracy and socialism make.
Who benefits? The man or woman that works his/her way out of poverty, or takes preference money from the the power elite? Who benefits? Who benefits from the thousands of pages of tax code. The middle class worker, or the who-do-ya-know-to-give-you-a-tax-break preferred group, or the member of a preferred group?
There's these guys, Richard Thaler and Cass Sunstein, and they think, as 'social scientists', they can "design choice environments that make it easier for people to choose what is best for themselves, their families, and their society". The want to give you only the choices they, and their fellow believers in aristocracy and socialism, think you should have. I got my degree in social science, and Comte was the guy...social science applied will do best by humanity. Don't know about you, but I'd rather decide for myself what I should have.
What's your choice? Be Pavlov's dog? Or Liberty?
No comments:
Post a Comment