Common sense indicates from any serious student of human nature and history that, while a benevolent dictator is the most efficient of government, it's really only efficient for whom the dictator is benevolent to and, most importantly, transition of power is a nightmare.
I've covered that in previous posts, but what I want to point out is yet another example of cognitive dissonance in any American libertarian and conservative philosophies...
Libcon Posit:
1) Federalism is good.
2) Local Control keeps too much power from the central government.
3) Defense and other key critical areas by the central government is good and allows for defense against other large alliances.
Guess what? I agree.
I also like small governments. The government which governs least, governs best.
Where we radically disagree is on the fundamental nature of the state and of human nature.
Honest Libcons (As compared to greedy people who just want more), basically ascribe to the theory of Natural Rights. The problem with this, isn't the actual idea, but basically the same problem with the Communist Manifesto in that the Communist Manifesto was largely a reaction to the excesses of industry and as such goes on and on about class. Wheras Natural Rights was a reaction to Monarchy and so goes on and out about about rights as endowed by the creator and puts heavy emphasis on the individual.
Side Note -
This video is very popular among Libertarians because it highlights their mighty struggle against the State or the uncaring collective will of the we.
So instead of moderate clap trap, which simply seeks the middle of everything, I'm going to reaxiom the reaxiomation
libcons love to pull so much and simply call this radical idea "Rejectionism."
It rejects the idea that we need to reduce the world to this tiny little struggle between the individualism and capitalism or any ism of any kind whilst at the same time avoiding Anarchy.
I might build up on this, but I think the central tenet of Rejectionism is the rejection of Isms including the absense of the necessity of political philosophy.
Or in other words Posit 1) Don't go fucking nuts in any particular political direction.
Which must be followed by posit 2
2) Lack of a political direction is worse than no direction at all.
We've seen that from moderates and being Chaff just makes you a road hazard.
This might seem like a distraction but by defining and establishing political shorthand, it lets us reference it later.
-End Side Note
Specifically, I think with Rejectionism, another point has to be that there are a finite number of ways to do things. Which means that as awesome as the idea of keeping power in the form of the government in check by dispersing it among local governments, why in the name of all that is holy would you not do the same with individuals?
This obsession on the individual vs the collective makes libcons blind to the very facet of human nature that seeks to enslave them in government. There are greedy people in the world. Smart greedy people understand this and agree that government can hold other greedy people in check so everyone can profit, and dumb greedy people just want to be in charge or just want the government to get the hell out of the way so they can do whatever they want.
But the assumption of natural rights that the individual comes first and interferance should be as minimal as possible (and I agree with this) ignores the fact that since there will be as many opinions of what 'minimum as possible' is as there are people, then the PRACTICAL reality of what that means is that the rule of the majority should ultimately apply, if you accept that a sentient being capable of participating in society has equal value on a base level to all others.
That's a tough question...after all, the weak, children, the impaired, the insane etc, should be afforded protection by the majority, but are they truly citizens? They have rights in advanced society...so if you define citizenship as 'having rights' then yes, but if you define citizenship as 'the ability to participate at the base level of power' then 'er...maybe' applies because CHILDREN DON'T VOTE.
My point in this is, natural rights as a concept were fine but we've moved on since then and we're going to move a lot farther as our concepts of what it means to be human chance as we unlock the mind and link it to technology and unlock the genome and splinter as a species....
These are questions we would be wise to answer ahead of time and my answer is that any being capable of communicating with other beings and recognizing its worth and their worth and establish and negotiate terms for mutual benefice between the two should constitute a participating empowered citizen. The base line upon which the majority is constituted.
But the point is...if a balance between centralized and localized power in institutions is needed, then in no society should it ever be acceptable for power to accrue in that of individuals vs the majority such that the majority cannot check it.
In practical terms, that means that power is power and to separate government power from economic power is ludicrous. You do not need communism or even socialism to have societal mechanisms in place to prevent the accrual of wealth too high from the baseline, because since money is time and power and the abstraction thereof, possession of too much by such indivduals should be intolerable to society.
Because too much power in the hands of one unless in a situation with unlimited space and unlimited resources, inherirently will result in reduced power for the many.
Because the MANY is comprised of INDIVIDUALS. The 'collective' of collectivists ARE ALSO INDIVIDUALS thus making the entirity of the libertarian position ludicrous on its head. The very individuals they seek to break against are individuals themselve and they are imposing a tyranny of the minority and a tyranny of inaction due to their concept of natural rights, acting as if natural rights as a concept has abrigated since the foundation of the species, which it has not.
Its silly, and it has to stop.
No comments:
Post a Comment