I could take this time to write a brief post on the "Green New Deal", of recent acclaim and criticism...
But I want to devote the time instead to examining what seems to be the goal of the GND: prosperity.
I mean this in the sense that the proponents of the deal mean it: economic prosperity, as measured by equality between citizens and the abolition of classes.
Now, we can quibble (correctly) that prosperity is not, in this sense, the real word for it. A better word may be "degradation" or "impoverishment".
That is the actual aim, not the named goal. The only way to make everyone equal is not to provide maximum opportunity, but instead, maximum control.
Take away the rights of an individual to make their own way in life and they will only be of value to a grand scheme - and to the schemer.
Ultimately, this is why socialism is immoral: it shows a shocking, horrifying lack of regard for the individual.
The goal of socialism (and specifically, of the GND) is to mobilize the economy to complete "national" aims. Who is the nation? The creators of the deal? We have to expect they get something out of the deal; what might that be?
Consider this: who will be controlling and directing resources, under socialism? Who has historically done so? The ideals that socialists put forward are "the society", "the collective", "the masses". In Venezuela, the masses were represented by Nicolas Maduro. In the USSR, by a line of dictators beginning with Josef Stalin.
Do not be persuaded these were misguided attempts. These were vicious opportunists who saw that a system without individual rights was ripe for keen and immoral actors. This was conscious aiming for an ideal of prosperity, in which a country's citizens (excluding the dictator and his pals) would be equal. Equal in degradation, equal in poverty, equal in misery.
Human nature is inherent in all valuable social systems. It is not human nature to be the same in every way. It is human nature to be unequal. Inequality is not evil or undesirable; its a foundation of a moral society.
Prosperity, in short, comes from the most unfettered possible access to opportunity, not the incessant intervening of actors who want to control outcome.
But I want to devote the time instead to examining what seems to be the goal of the GND: prosperity.
I mean this in the sense that the proponents of the deal mean it: economic prosperity, as measured by equality between citizens and the abolition of classes.
Now, we can quibble (correctly) that prosperity is not, in this sense, the real word for it. A better word may be "degradation" or "impoverishment".
That is the actual aim, not the named goal. The only way to make everyone equal is not to provide maximum opportunity, but instead, maximum control.
Take away the rights of an individual to make their own way in life and they will only be of value to a grand scheme - and to the schemer.
Ultimately, this is why socialism is immoral: it shows a shocking, horrifying lack of regard for the individual.
The goal of socialism (and specifically, of the GND) is to mobilize the economy to complete "national" aims. Who is the nation? The creators of the deal? We have to expect they get something out of the deal; what might that be?
Consider this: who will be controlling and directing resources, under socialism? Who has historically done so? The ideals that socialists put forward are "the society", "the collective", "the masses". In Venezuela, the masses were represented by Nicolas Maduro. In the USSR, by a line of dictators beginning with Josef Stalin.
Do not be persuaded these were misguided attempts. These were vicious opportunists who saw that a system without individual rights was ripe for keen and immoral actors. This was conscious aiming for an ideal of prosperity, in which a country's citizens (excluding the dictator and his pals) would be equal. Equal in degradation, equal in poverty, equal in misery.
Human nature is inherent in all valuable social systems. It is not human nature to be the same in every way. It is human nature to be unequal. Inequality is not evil or undesirable; its a foundation of a moral society.
Prosperity, in short, comes from the most unfettered possible access to opportunity, not the incessant intervening of actors who want to control outcome.
Comments
Post a Comment