Shots Across The Bow

Liberalism Revisited

Awhile back, I wrote a piece on liberalism, and its flaws called Liberalism: The Lie at Its Heart

I need to revisit that topic, and revise it abit, so as to not offend my two liberal readers. It's not a lie, really, more of an exaggeration.

First, truth in advertising requires that I mention that most of what follows (OK, all of it) comes from a comment I just wrote over at SKBubba's place, but I was planning to write it here anyway; it just dovetailed nicely into a discussion I was having over there, and why write it twice when cut and paste works so nice?

I'm a libertarian conservative, favoring a limited role for the government, a role in line with the original boundaries set forth in the Constitution. Neither Party today gives a rat's ass about the Constitution, so I'm not a supporter of either. On the one hand, I oppose abortion, confiscatory taxation, progressive taxation, income taxation, federally funded social engineering, and Bob Dylan.

On the other, I'm in favor of fiscal conservatism, and social liberalism. I favor gay marriage, drug legalization, lowering the drinking age to the age of consent (since the two activities involved are so often linked anyway), full recognition of the bill of rights, including the individual right to keep and bear arms, and in general keeping the federal government out of our lives to the maximum extent practical.

So why am I constantly challenging liberalism?

I'm not a liberal, because I have a problem with any philosophy that starts with the assumption that the world owes me anything, and liberalism is based on the principle that every human being has the right to expect their government to meet their basic needs, if, for any reason, they are unable or unwilling to do it themselves.

The world simply doesn't work that way. There Ain't No Such Thing as a Free Lunch isn't just a saying, it's a natural law, as inexorable as gravity and any philosophy that fails to acknowledge this is headed for trouble. Modern liberalism flatly contradicts it. Without getting too deep into it, a society works only when its members produce as much or more than they consume. To the extent that they produce more, they have the opportunity, not the obligation, to use the surplus to help members who come up short. Enlightened self interest (reciprocal altruism for you behavioral evolutionists and Randians) may even dictate that such sharing creates a benefit to the society as a whole.

But it isn't a right; it's a privilege that comes from living in a wealthy society.

Now here is where it gets tricky; if sharing the surplus produces a benefit to the society, then shouldn't the society have the right to require it? That, in a nutshell is the rationale behind progressive taxation; that society as a whole benefits when those who have the most pay more than the rest, in order to help those who need it, preventing them from becoming a drain on society.

Unfortunately, charity can have a corrosive or addictive effect; people come to expect it, then believe they are owed it, forgetting that it's not a right, but a privilege. On the other side of the equation, those who are paying more than their fair (ie proportionate to income) share begin to resent having the benefits of their work taken away from them. People on both sides of the equation lose the incentive to work. I'm sure you're familiar with the Tragedy of the Commons, which is closely related to this problem. In order to get the benefit of sharing the surplus, we must firmly maintain that it is not a right, but a privilege; in that way we can avoid the ToC. Means testing or payback programs are a couple of ways to achieve this.

It becomes a question of balance; how much assistance is enough to obtain the maximum benefit to society while minimizing the attendant negatives and disincentives? As long as liberals and conservatives continue to refuse to recognize any validity to the other side, we won't find that balance. Instead of a scale, we'll be the rope in a tug of war.

However, for the sake of argument, let's assume that the liberal philosophy is correct, and conservatives are completely wrong. Society does have a responsibility to make sure that all members have their basic needs met to the maximum extent practical, including housing, food, clothing, education, health care, and retirement income. And, to make things easier, let's also assume that we can do so without overburdening the wealth creators with overly punitive taxes, so that they continue to work hard, invest their earnings, and create wealth.

There's still a problem.

Responsibility brings with it authority. The two are inextricably linked. If you give away one, the other goes with it. We're talking about making the government responsible for every facet of our lives, which, in the long run, means we're also giving the government authority over every facet of our lives.

You don't believe me? Take a look at your state budget sometime and see how much of it comes from the federal government. But the fed wouldn't use that for financial blackmail, would they? Well, Jimmy Carter did.

Remember the good old days of the double nickel speed limit. Speed limits are set by the states, but Carter put out the word that any state that didn't lower their speed limit would lose their highway funding.

Guess what? Double nickels it was from coast to coast. More recently, Ronald Reagan did the same thing when he forced the states to raise the drinking age to 21 in 1984. This is not a partisan thing; it's inherent in the nature of government. If it's their responsibility, you can bet they'll regulate it whether they're reps, dems, or independents.

So now consider health care. If the gov't is going to guarantee you get health care, it would only be prudent for them to protect their investment by "encouraging" people to live healthier lives. How would you like for the Center for Science in the Public Interest to become an official branch of the FDA? Say goodby to Chinese food, Mexican food, popcorn, and god forbid you should eat a hamburger. Hell, they'd even come after Bubba's scotch, which might even be enough to get him to vote republican!*grin*

I've seen how the feds "encourage" co-operation, and I'll pass on it.

(How much you want to bet that Bubba puts a word limit on comments after this baby? Don't worry; for anybody still reading this, I'm almost done.)

Like I said above, we need to find a working balance between liberal and conservative principles because both are valid and both are vital for a properly functioning society. Work must bring a reward proportionate to the effort and risk involved and we are all better off if we can help those who are less able or less fortunate to help themselves. We need to retain the values that made America strong, independence, self sufficiency, innovation, and hard work, while embracing newer values that can make us even stronger, like tolerance, and acceptance of those who are different. We need both sides of the coin, the yin and the yang, if we are going to continue to thrive. If we lose that balance, no matter which side we tilt to, we'll lose everything.

Or, it could be that it's 2:34 in the am and I'm completely full of shit. It's hard to tell.

Goodnight.

PS: I was only kiding about Bob Dylan. Bob Denver, on the other hand...

Posted by Rich at July 29, 2004 2:45 AM | TrackBack