Loading ...Reply to Chartmaster on Liberalism
(First .. I do commend the piece, and the ample replies attest to its value)
Chartmaster — my response
“I think the majority of Americans agree with the idea of equal opportunity. ..
However, leftists and Marxists think that equality of opportunity is not enough. ..
They think that there should also be equality of outcome…
This one delusion sits at the core of all Marxist thinking.
Equality of outcome is impossible because not all people are born equal. Some people are, frankly, born superior to others. Some people are born smarter. Some people are born stronger, taller and faster. Some people are born with innate musical or artistic talent. Some people are born with innate mathematical understanding. Some people are born extroverted and are good at making friends. Some people are born introverted and are better at self reflection and awareness. Some people are born to be basketball players and some are born to be engineers.
The psychological reality of mankind is that we are not born as blank slates; we are born with inherent qualities and the seeds of unique individual talents.”
THERE IS INDEED A LOT MISSING HERE.
Differences in OPPORTUNITY are huge and are both inherited genetically (as noted above) but also involve environmental factors.
People are not born with identical capabilities. No question.
But opportunity is far from equal, and differences in environment play a HUGE ROLE.
Start with pre natal education and nutrition. Some infants are NOT given the same OPPORTUNITY as infants born to parents that had the ability to provide good nutrition to their infant and child … Urban food deserts attest to that.
That continues through childhood …. live in a rural area and your mom has a garden and cooks from scratch … you may be poor but you eat well enough.
In the city, that’s difficult if not almost impossible.
Athletes … more and more you see great athletes being raised in families that were themselves great athletes, because they can provide exceptional in house training, beyond natural genetic gifts. They teach them based on their own knowledge, and can send their kids to camps for competition they might not see locally.
When my niece was in grade school, my sister and BIL moved specifically to a particular neighborhood where they knew there was a cluster of bright kids, where education was valued, and competition among the kids would propel most further than otherwise. That’s an environmental factor.
So what I hear is that some liberals wish to recognize the inherent unfairness of life … and compensate.
My problem, is that this screws up incentives …. and that’s MY issue with socialism. Dull incentives or reward failure, and you get less and worse.
Life is unfair, opportunity will never be the same, and the more you try to make amends, the more it corrodes the fundamental need for social progress to reward based on merit.
This thoughtful comment brings up many useful points. Before I begin, I repeat that the word “socialism”, like so many, has been bent and distorted so much that it means almost opposite things to different people, so we must be careful.
I would like to suggest, again, that conservative and far right perspectives often share more with far left perspectives than the ideologues of either like to admit to themselves or others. Authoritarian left with authoritarian right and libertarian left with libertarian right is one way of looking at things, but there are others.
The question of incentives and environment is important. Many schemes imagined or even put in place by leftist ideologues have the incentives problems outlined above. Worse, and actually much worse, the administrators of such a system tend to take on more and more power for themselves unless they somehow can be checked. Something like North Korea is an extreme example, but a seemingly benevolent system would probably have a tendency to have bureaucrats who would treat themselves — and their friends and children — better than others even if they pretended otherwise to themselves.
Yet the systems relying more on competition tend to have a complementary problem. The persons who get more money tend to have more power. They tend to be able to give out favors, even when they don’t think they do. Ever work for a family company gone to seed? If not the children then the grandchildren are likely to be entitled feeling spoiled brats, who get into all the fancy schools and don’t have to work. Rules and laws are made for those who amass. There are Trust Fund Babies who devote themselves excellently to science or literature (and not just modern day dumb stuff) or art. But many are lifelong Babies, and rather tyrannical about it at times. Perhaps, feeling they actually are associated with the word “merit”, they even fantasize about vaccines and changing humanity.
“Socialism” is the State controlling the means of production in the society. As such ALL property belongs to the State.
The sovereignty of the individual, and individual freedom to think and act, is removed.
This is a pretty back and white distinction.
Then again a lot of people go on to rise up from difficult situations and become very happy and successful.
My Father was one of 11 kids in a small town in Northern Ontario.
They all lived in a small home With their grandparents as well as the parents.
Grew up in the depression
All 11 were very successful in life and all lived to a ripe old age
NOBODY gave any of them anything !
Also many who are born with a silver spoon completely screw their lives up
Help less fortunates…yes thats achoice you can make…thats what individuals with charitable bent do and Church groups etc
But help them to become self sufficient …
Teach a man to fish