Classical Liberalism vs. Modern-day Progressive “Liberalism”– Part II
In my last post I described the idea of Classical Liberalism and the implication that a Realist metaphysic has on it systematically. The two combine to form a completely consistent set of principles from the ground up. We discovered that this belief system states:
1. Man is a rational individual whose end is happiness.
2. Man has certain natural rights which are his tools to fulfill his end
3. All men are inherently “equal” in that they possess these rights (forgot to mention this important part in my last post)
4. Government is required only to protect these natural rights so that man can fulfill his end
It was as simple as that. Now I want to take a look at modern-day liberal/progressive thought and see if we can back out the metaphysic upon which it is grounded. First, we must define what liberal/progressive ideas of government are. They believe that:
Government should provide for the needs of the people including:
1. Retirement
2. Education
3. Healthcare
4. Employment
5. Housing
Unlike rights, however, NEEDS are not completely commissary. This means that to provide the needs to some, rights must be taken away or obligations must be imposed on others (especially property). Therefore it does not seem that all the natural rights described by our Founders are actually necessary. I don’t think that liberal/progressives would jettison all “rights”, but certain ones, especially the right to property, must be cast by the wayside for SOME so that OTHERS can have their needs met by government. So, it seems that only those rights which do not prevent the government from providing for the needs of the people are allowed.
The implication is that man, therefore, does not have all of the tools required to achieve his end, happiness. He is reliant upon the government (i.e. others) to provide for his needs so that he can achieve happiness. He therefore cannot be said to be an individual.
Likewise, since his needs must be met by the government, he clearly cannot understand what would bring him happiness or how to achieve it on his own. Therefore man cannot be said to be entirely rational. He may be capable of some limited self contemplation (or loathing) and can recognize that he has needs. However, he clearly does not have the intelligence or reason to be able to deduce what course of actions will help him achieve happiness.
And what of man’s end? I would say that liberal/progressives believe that man’s end is still happiness. However, since man is not an individual, his end cannot be said to be his individual happiness. Rather, his end would be the sum happiness of society. His actions should be such to maximize the happiness of all rather than his own happiness.
So, if we make our list as before, we have determined:
1. Man is not an individual, nor is he a completely rational being. His end is the sum of all happiness in society.
2. Man has only certain rights which do not prevent the Government from providing for his needs.
3. Government is required to protect some rights, but more importantly to provide for man’s needs and ensure the sum happiness of society.
Do you see, now, how inconsistent this set of beliefs is?? If you look at the example from Classical Liberalism, the beliefs flow easily from the top down. Man is described, he has innate tools to fulfill his end and government is there to simply allow him to be himself and achieve his end.
The example from modern liberal/progressive thought is completely catawampus. It describes man, but his “rights” or innate abilities are described by the needs of government (they are whatever doesn’t get in government’s way). Yet these “tools” or “rights” then must describe government? In reality, the order should be switched and government should be described first before man’s rights. This means that the government does not serve man’s rights, but rather man’s rights serve the government. He has therefore lost his individual sovereignty.
The loss of this individual sovereignty is the only consistent piece in this system, since it is also described in point #1 that man is no longer an individual! But this point has serious implications. If man is not an individual sovereign, what use do we have of the Social Contract (i.e. Constitution) which is set up to protect this individual sovereign from the majority? None! The implication, then, is that the Governmental system necessarily changes from a Democratic Republic to a true Democracy!
But this is not even the biggest problem. The biggest problem, in terms of consistency, is that if man is not an entirely rational being and cannot decide what is in his best interest, and government is run by men, how is it that government can truly provide for man’s best interest, provide for his needs, and allow him to achieve happiness!? Who could run such a government under this system? The only way to reconcile this matter is to say that there are certain “enlightened” persons who should make such decisions for those “unenlightened” persons. In other words, there must be a ruling class (remember Divine Right?)! If so, then there must be TWO descriptions of man, not just one (one is a rational being, one is not). And if there are TWO descriptions of man, then it cannot be said that “all men are created equal”. Clearly both statements cannot be true at the same time!
Do you see the problems we’re running into here? By taking the beliefs of liberal/progressives and attempting to back out what they mean fundamentally, we find nothing but inconsistencies and errors. I would wager that half of liberal/progressives would recoil in horror at the implications that their political thoughts make! Most would say, “Certainly men are created equal” but at the same time will say, “Government should provide for the needs of the people”. We’ve seen that these two things are not commissary.
Likewise, a liberal/progressive would say, “Certainly we have rights” but at the same time will say “Government should provide for the needs of the people”. But to do so, the government must take away at least some rights!
Such are the dangers of liberal/progressive thought. What you have is anything but Liberalism. Instead what you have is a utilitarian, collective populism; a system that is completely antithetical to the principles on which this nation was founded.
1. Man is a rational individual whose end is happiness.
2. Man has certain natural rights which are his tools to fulfill his end
3. All men are inherently “equal” in that they possess these rights (forgot to mention this important part in my last post)
4. Government is required only to protect these natural rights so that man can fulfill his end
It was as simple as that. Now I want to take a look at modern-day liberal/progressive thought and see if we can back out the metaphysic upon which it is grounded. First, we must define what liberal/progressive ideas of government are. They believe that:
Government should provide for the needs of the people including:
1. Retirement
2. Education
3. Healthcare
4. Employment
5. Housing
Unlike rights, however, NEEDS are not completely commissary. This means that to provide the needs to some, rights must be taken away or obligations must be imposed on others (especially property). Therefore it does not seem that all the natural rights described by our Founders are actually necessary. I don’t think that liberal/progressives would jettison all “rights”, but certain ones, especially the right to property, must be cast by the wayside for SOME so that OTHERS can have their needs met by government. So, it seems that only those rights which do not prevent the government from providing for the needs of the people are allowed.
The implication is that man, therefore, does not have all of the tools required to achieve his end, happiness. He is reliant upon the government (i.e. others) to provide for his needs so that he can achieve happiness. He therefore cannot be said to be an individual.
Likewise, since his needs must be met by the government, he clearly cannot understand what would bring him happiness or how to achieve it on his own. Therefore man cannot be said to be entirely rational. He may be capable of some limited self contemplation (or loathing) and can recognize that he has needs. However, he clearly does not have the intelligence or reason to be able to deduce what course of actions will help him achieve happiness.
And what of man’s end? I would say that liberal/progressives believe that man’s end is still happiness. However, since man is not an individual, his end cannot be said to be his individual happiness. Rather, his end would be the sum happiness of society. His actions should be such to maximize the happiness of all rather than his own happiness.
So, if we make our list as before, we have determined:
1. Man is not an individual, nor is he a completely rational being. His end is the sum of all happiness in society.
2. Man has only certain rights which do not prevent the Government from providing for his needs.
3. Government is required to protect some rights, but more importantly to provide for man’s needs and ensure the sum happiness of society.
Do you see, now, how inconsistent this set of beliefs is?? If you look at the example from Classical Liberalism, the beliefs flow easily from the top down. Man is described, he has innate tools to fulfill his end and government is there to simply allow him to be himself and achieve his end.
The example from modern liberal/progressive thought is completely catawampus. It describes man, but his “rights” or innate abilities are described by the needs of government (they are whatever doesn’t get in government’s way). Yet these “tools” or “rights” then must describe government? In reality, the order should be switched and government should be described first before man’s rights. This means that the government does not serve man’s rights, but rather man’s rights serve the government. He has therefore lost his individual sovereignty.
The loss of this individual sovereignty is the only consistent piece in this system, since it is also described in point #1 that man is no longer an individual! But this point has serious implications. If man is not an individual sovereign, what use do we have of the Social Contract (i.e. Constitution) which is set up to protect this individual sovereign from the majority? None! The implication, then, is that the Governmental system necessarily changes from a Democratic Republic to a true Democracy!
But this is not even the biggest problem. The biggest problem, in terms of consistency, is that if man is not an entirely rational being and cannot decide what is in his best interest, and government is run by men, how is it that government can truly provide for man’s best interest, provide for his needs, and allow him to achieve happiness!? Who could run such a government under this system? The only way to reconcile this matter is to say that there are certain “enlightened” persons who should make such decisions for those “unenlightened” persons. In other words, there must be a ruling class (remember Divine Right?)! If so, then there must be TWO descriptions of man, not just one (one is a rational being, one is not). And if there are TWO descriptions of man, then it cannot be said that “all men are created equal”. Clearly both statements cannot be true at the same time!
Do you see the problems we’re running into here? By taking the beliefs of liberal/progressives and attempting to back out what they mean fundamentally, we find nothing but inconsistencies and errors. I would wager that half of liberal/progressives would recoil in horror at the implications that their political thoughts make! Most would say, “Certainly men are created equal” but at the same time will say, “Government should provide for the needs of the people”. We’ve seen that these two things are not commissary.
Likewise, a liberal/progressive would say, “Certainly we have rights” but at the same time will say “Government should provide for the needs of the people”. But to do so, the government must take away at least some rights!
Such are the dangers of liberal/progressive thought. What you have is anything but Liberalism. Instead what you have is a utilitarian, collective populism; a system that is completely antithetical to the principles on which this nation was founded.
posted by Cogito at 7:59 AM
2 Comments:
Presidential Aspirant: I plan to win support of the people using my persuasive presentation of classical or modern-day liberalism (you take your pick).
Bond God: Fine. But you realize you must clear all policies through me, right?
Presidential Aspirant: Huh? What you talkin' 'bout?
Bond God: People, shmeople. They are not voters. They are taxpayers. Rights? You don't need no stinking' rights. Tea Parties? Hah! My President has God's work to do. If God's work means a crazy Asian war, then you will do your best to make the taxpayers like it. If God's work is to reduce CO2 emissions, then you get to pitch that as well. That's about all you have to do. Do that and we'll get along just fine. You might even get an Airport named after you. Do well enough, and the taxpayers will celebrate your birthday.
Presidential Aspirant: What if I don't want to do your God's work? What if I want our country to co-exist with the Hindu, Catholic, Moslem, and Jew? What if I want to unleash free enterprise and cut regulation in the US economy? What if I want to give free health care and college education to all the peoples? I think College Football would work much better if the top 8 teams had a playoff.
Bond God: Who said anything about you wanting or thinking? First, if I suspect you won't do God's work, you will not be President. There's 5,000 good-looking taxpayers who can BS just as good as you waiting in line. I decide who gets contributions and good press. Then, if while you are President, you decide to get uppity, I resort to Plan B.
Presidential Aspirant: What's Plan B?
Bond God: I push the sell button on 30-yr US Treasury Bonds.
Presidential Aspirant: So?
Bond God: Try financing your goverment with the 30-yr sitting at 15%. See how far that gets you. Nope. You'll see soon enough that its best to do as I say. Jimmy Carter was a nice taxpayer. But all the other taxpayers hated him when he left the White House. He jumped just fine. But he forgot to ask me "How High?" once. Tsk. Tsk. Tsk. I asked him to give back the Panama Canal and he decided to "think about it".
Presidential Aspirant: Oh. I see now.
Bond God: Jump!
Presidential Aspirant: How high, sir?
Is this a subject hijacking?
I thought the Department was an executive branch, reporting to the President. Seems to me, blackmail couldn't work.
Post a Comment
<< Home