Thursday, November 19, 2015

The Liberal Syllabus of Errors

What with ISIS and the slow death of Obamacare, not to mention the mess in education and the White Death of the white working class, it's a good time to take a look at the pile-up of errors committed by our liberal friends. What went wrong, and why?

As you may know, my conceit is that I have developed a strategic view of the modern politics and government. I argue that politics is violence (real or threatened) and government is force. Put another way, politics comes down to the mob threatening someone with a "peaceful protest" or actual street riot, and government always comes down to men with guns.

The corollary (or whatever you want to call it) of this argument is that political activists and government re like sharks; they must keep moving on some project that threatens violence, or needs force, or they will die.

In the good old days government concentrated on two things. The first thing was the domestic threat to its rule, usually from barons and marcher lords. The second thing was the foreign threat from evil foreigners and/or barbarians. This was all natural and physical, because there can only be one ruler in a territory, and as land and its food was life, the survival of the group, or clan, or nation, depended on keeping other people away from the sacred food that grew on our sacred land.

But capitalism changed all that. Natural resources, including food, were still important, but you didn't have to sit on them; you could always buy them.

So it was natural that a movement should arise that took a stand against the old "hit them before they hit us" approach to foreign policy. People started to ask what armies and borders were all about, when all we needed to do was buy the things we needed. Arms are for hugging; war is not the answer. That is what they said then and they still do today.

But if the foreign threat had dissipated and the old marcher lords had been replaced by corporate barons that fought for market share rather than territory, what need of government?

Good question, senator.

The answer is that advanced people came to realize that all was not well with the world after all. They discovered that the most frightful exploitations were being perpetrated against the workers, the people that toiled in factories in the early industrial revolution. Something must be done, they cried. And they taught the rising working class to organize and "smash the bosses." Not just the workers, in peaceful protests and work stoppages, but government was needed to force the bosses to give the workers an even break.

And so the advanced people led the working people in a century-long campaign of "social protection" to provide a safe space for the factory workers. The advanced people had lots of ideas and they used their political power to implement their ideas in beneficial social legislation and regulations.

But then a century later the economy changed and life-long factory jobs disappeared from the economy. The social model constructed in landmark legislation by the advanced people for factory workers didn't apply any more. The workers were used to be taken care of by the advanced people and didn't know what to do. So they gave up and took to drink and opiates.

Anyway the advanced people had moved on from helping working people. Now they wanted to help women and racial minorities and sexual minorities.

Nowadays the advanced people have become deeply concerned about frightful oppressions perpetrated against women, against racial minorities, and against sexual minorities. Something must be done, they cried. And they taught women and racial minorities and sexual minorities to organize and speak truth to the power of the white heterosexual patriarchy, and smash the glass ceiling, and demand their representative share of jobs, and the respectability of marriage equality.

You can see that the advanced people are using the same strategy against the powerful patriarchy as they did a century ago against the powerful capitalists.

But what was the point of helping the workers? The advanced people set up a rigid system of government protection that the advanced people thought would help the workers in their fight with the employers and provide them with decent pensions and health benefits. Unfortunately the advanced people fenced the workers into a rigid system that fell apart when globalization and unionization had made factory labor in the western world too expensive.

What would have really helped the workers? I'd say that it would have been more helpful to let the workers work out their own destiny, to involve the state in some of the most egregious problems but not to create such a rigid regulatory system that protected the workers so well that they lost the get-up-and-go needed to adapt and thrive. It is clear now that when the world changed it left them high and dry.

Now the advanced people are doing the same thing with women, racial minorities, and sexual minorities. Are they really helping them? I'd say that it would be more helpful to let women, racial minorities and sexual minorities to work out their own destiny, to involve the state in some of the most egregious problems, but not create a rigid regulatory system in which employers are considered to be discriminating against minorities unless they employ government-mandated quotas of protected minorities.

One day the world will change, and when it does the protected minorities will find out, just like the workers, that the social protections they were given don't protect them at all when the world changes, and everyone has to scramble to adapt to the new reality.

So I argue that the governing strategy of the advanced people, the modern ruling class, is cruel and unjust. It cocoons its favored clients with benefits and free stuff, but it condemns them to live in dependency without maintaining the robust skills that people need to thrive in a market system that is always changing, always improving, always adapting, always learning.

Our advanced people, our ruling class, are not evil: just conceited and wrong. They imagine that they are intelligent and wise enough to determine what is best for other people.

In this conceit they are wrong. Probably it is best for humans in this sub-lunar world to stick to taking responsibility for themselves. Because when they decide that they are smart enough to take responsibility for others, they are probably only doing what will help themselves.

When you think you are god's gift to the working class, or to women, or to minorities, you are probably going to find yourself piling error upon error, and spreading misery instead of content, because you probably don't know what is best for other people.

But where is the human that can ever admit such a thing to himself, let alone to others?

No comments:

Post a Comment