- Progressive: The problem that we face is the suffering of the weak. Effectively all other problems are subordinate to the primary problem of protecting the weak. This needs fixed.
- Libertarian: The problem that we face is insufficient autonomy. Effectively all other problems are subordinate to the primary problem of decreasing government control. This needs fixed.
- Conservative: The problem that we face is folks trying to fix problems. Effectively all other problems are subordinate to the primary problem of meddling and making things worse. This needs stopped.
Of course, I count myself now as a Hayekian, who recognizes the value of all three. Meddling, especially from central authority usually/always makes things worse. The primary social goal is to protect the poor/weak. And decreasing government giveaways to the rich is usually the best way to do so. Yes, there are conflicts between the three visions. But not acknowledging all three as powerful and important is a big mistake.
Posts
1 comments:
Progressives: increasing autonomy may protect the weak better than anything you've proposed. Let's try it, shall we?
The weak may already be about as protected as they can be. If that turns out to be true, can you accept it? By which test do you propose to prove that we haven't already pegged the meter?
Libertarians: autonomy may already be at the practical maximum. Can you accept that, if it turns out to be true? Do you know how to test whether autonomy can be increased or not?
Increasing autonomy may cause essentially a holocaust among the weakest members of our society. If this occurs, is increasing autonomy still worthwhile to you?
Conservatives: meddling, contrary to history, does not need to be performed on entire countries at once. It should have been possible to try communism in one or two towns, rather than murdering the Romanovs.
If some small-scale, limited meddling would show that you were unnecessarily oppressing the weak all this time, would you allow society to stop? Or would you oppose it to avoid admitting you were wrong?
If some small-scale, limited meddling would show that you were pointlessly oppressing average individuals, could you accept the results, or would it be necessary to force you to stop coercing?
If it turns out that what you were proposing or doing was meaninglessly harming the weak, wilfully oppressing regular folk, or causing pointless chaos, could you really admit it to yourself? Could you live with yourself afterward?
How do you propose to prove that you're not?
I should not have to ask these questions. You should have already asked them of yourselves and shouted the answers from the rooftops. Or: contempt for those showing compassion for the suffering is not a good sign.
This alone makes me think that, in general, protecting the weak, upholding autonomy, and conserving the good are at best fronts, to hide ulterior motives from scrutiny. At worst, calculated strategies designed to promote actions against one's own self interest.
Or: indifference to testing whether your actions in fact lead to the supposed outcome is a very, very, very bad sign.
Post a Comment