I was reading this article on Internet – and as is customary, I grabbed my head with both hands and screamed “How can you people be so stupid?!” But let me go directly to the quotes that show the confusion which is inherent to American so-called “liberalism” and “progressivism”…
A meritocratic society can’t be an entirely egalitarian society, and the principle of limited government recognizes that some injustices can’t be corrected. The challenge of democratic politics is to balance and reconcile these equally indispensable, unavoidably contradictory ideas: on one side liberty, and on the other justice.
In the later part of the article, Clive Crook, the self-described progressive makes it obvious that the type of justice he claims is in conflict with freedom – is the so-called “social justice”, and it is clear that he associates justice with equality of result. He never attempts to explain why he believes that justice demands that all people earn same amount of money or achieve equal success. Indeed, it’s well understood that justice requires equal treatment under the law – and people of different abilities, treated equally are unlikely to achieve same results. For example, it’s obviously absurd to proclaim that the world is unjust because Garry Kasparov was the world chess champion, and not, say, Al Sharpton or Joe Biden. The rules of chess are equally applied to all, and no one stops Al Sharpton from competing in the chess tournament – it is his innate abilities and circumstances of his life which made his participation absurd.
It’s also quite obvious that taking at gun point the fruits of labor from one group of people and giving to another is fundamentally unjust. One can support Medicaid, welfare, foodstamps and subsidized housing as acts of mercy – but it’s impossible to make a claim that these programs represent an act of justice. Indeed, one could notice that the only type of society that practices justice in any reasonable form is a society where people are left to their devices and allowed to direct their own lives with minimal coercion from the government or fellow citizens.
Liberals often pronounce that no one truly achieves everything in his life due to his own personal efforts. As Barack Obama infamously proclaimed “You did not build that”, while the faux-indian Elizabeth Warren muttered that “There is nobody in this country who got rich on his own”. But this line of reasoning seems to ignore the obvious – while everyone can use roads, and bridges and schools, only very few people actually succeed, while a great majority of people succumb to an average life. So, what did the successful people do differently? This is a question not asked, let alone answered by Obama and Warren. And if people are treated justly – i.e. equally by the state, who would expect equal results from millions of people, each of them an individual, each of them different, each with his own talents, character traits and personal choices? You can certainly complain that God or destiny or Gaia did not give you the talent to create new things or perseverance to work on the project, but it’s irrational to blame society for your own deficiencies – and what’s worse, it is actually rather counter-productive.
If anything, history shows that any attempts to fight the conceived “injustice” of freedom ends in the loss of both freedom and justice. Even if I ignore the major experiments in “redistributive justice” in USSR, North Korea and China (which ended in the worst possible injustice in the last 1000 years), one can easily see that if anything, all latest experiments in Western Europe and USA for equality of result did not end up in more justice. For example, America showed a dramatic reversal in the growth of living standards and equality after the major liberal programs (Medicare, Medicaid, welfare, subsidized housing) were put into effect. Obama’s proclaimed attempts to “invest in communities” resulted in expected massive handouts of taxpayer money to his donors, political allies and supporters, while the taxpayers were left with tremendous debt obligations and sluggish economy.
The coming bankruptcy of the welfare state both in Europe and US also demonstrates that the attempt to give up freedom in order to gain justice is also unsustainable. It’s clear that American society is getting closer and closer to a crisis – when young and relatively few workers will be faced with massive demands for their fruits of labor to pay for the massive federal, state and local debts – while at the same time supporting tens of millions of retired baby-boomers. Ignoring the obvious financial peril, our president is vastly expanding the welfare state, which in turn promises even steeper tax penalties for the future Americans.
In the final analysis, the concept of justice cannot exist in a society without freedom. Any attempt to ignore this fundamental truth will result in the breakdown of society – and America’s choice of Barack Obama in 2012 is another step on the path to destruction of this fine country. When tens of millions of people confidently believe that they have a right to take the fruits of labor of other people – be it “millionaires and billionaires” or the families which earn more than an arbitrary sum ($250k or 400k) , and these people are a majority, the fall of the country into the abyss may be inevitable. No freedom, no justice, no prosperity – Live free or die. These are the choices for our country.
Indeed, one could notice that the only type of society that practices justice in any reasonable form is a society where people are left to their devices and allowed to direct their own lives with minimal coercion from the government or fellow citizens.
Sounds like a marvelous place – where is this society located so that I might go and take note of how it works?
Pretty much not where, but when. US, 100 years ago.
Well, I’d agree with you on that the first part – minimal coercion from the government – certainly as compared to our current mountains of regulations, but not so much on the second – from our fellow citizens.
It might be interesting to look at whether or not those two things are inversely related – more government coercion, less social pressure to conform and vice versa.
As always, I could be wrong about that.
Hyphenated American: “US, 100 years ago” as the paradigm of freedom? I’m sorry, but didn’t you just remind me (on a different comment thread) about Jim Crow laws and how, if I were a black woman living in the American South in the 1950′s, I wouldn’t have been free? Not that I needed reminding, of course; but apparently you do.
Jack, but I did not say that America 100 years ago was perfect. Right? But then, apparently, I needed to remind you that people may lose their freedom – and yet, there will be no gulags… Here is your claim and my response to provide the context…
Jack: “I’ll add this: I’ve been hearing every single effort at “liberal” governance since, oh, 1962 or so decried as “communism” or “socialism” or “tyranny” of some sort (of course, such accusations date back even further, to the New Deal), and for some strange reason I still think I live in a free country. I could, of course, be wrong; keep me posted on when the gulag opens…”
HA: “And speaking of gulags – we did not have the gulags during Jim Crow era, with abortions being illegal – but you won’t say that a black woman in the South was completely free, right?”
Now, it’s apparent that your standard for freedom is rather limited – if we don’t have the gulags, then we are free. Well, there were no gulags in the South 100 years ago – does it mean that black women were free in the South 100 years ago? It’s your standard, not mine.
You nailed me there, comrade. When I wrote “keep me posted on when the gulags open,” it was because I do in fact believe that any amount of oppression short of actual gulags is okay. You’re saying I should set my standards higher?
For about 20% of the population, maybe. Largely at the expense of the rest of the population.
Steve
“For about 20% of the population, maybe. Largely at the expense of the rest of the population. ”
This pretty much is the corner stone of Marxism. M-kay, so explain how 20% of the population lived at the expense of the rest of the population.
I’m a little concerned, Hyphenated American, that you so frequently have to grab your head with both hands and scream: that can’t bode well for your blood pressure, can it? The stupidity of the American people is legendary–I’m sure you know the P.T. Barnum quote–and I’m sorry it continues to surprise you. As to freedom and justice and equality and all that: yep, it’s just one darn misunderstanding after another, isn’t it? It turns out that different people define those key words differently, and then prioritize them differently and seek to achieve them differently: it’s maddening, and it almost makes you wish there was some Central Authority that would just step in and set everyone straight once and for all. Alas, “we the people” in America just keep arguing about how to find the right balance between those disputed concepts, and lots of us apparently are too stupid to see, as you do, the Plain & Simple Truth. Don’t give up on us yet, Hyphenated American; we’re still a work in progress (by which I don’t mean to suggest that we are, or should be, Progressive). Last word on “justice”: as Hamlet said, “Give every man his just deserts, and who should scape whipping?”
“I’m a little concerned, Hyphenated American, that you so frequently have to grab your head with both hands and scream:”
I am little concerned, Jack, that you took this metaphor so literally (as Joe Biden would say).
“The stupidity of the American people is legendary–I’m sure you know the P.T. Barnum quote–and I’m sorry it continues to surprise you. ”
I don’t remember talking about stupidity of American people in my post. After all, American people are different, some smart, some stupid, some conservative, some liberal. On a more serious note, I am amazed how the left-wingers like to stereotype American people – I guess that you would be a little bit upset if I for example rephrased the P.T.Barnum’s quote and said “You Will Never Go Broke Underestimating the Intelligence of the African-Americans”, and I have a feeling that you would be a tad upset… ;)
Anyway, on a more serious note, I was talking about stupidity of one particular liberal journolist, not all American people….
“As to freedom and justice and equality and all that: yep, it’s just one darn misunderstanding after another, isn’t it?”
Pretty much so, yes. And all educated people understand this…
“It turns out that different people define those key words differently, and then prioritize them differently and seek to achieve them differently: ”
Ah. But then – defining justice as equality of result is really re-defining justice to fit one’s preconceptions. “Justice” which concerns itself with equality of result is not really justice as was understood for thousands of years – but rather something completely different. It’s more like “war is peace” and “slavery is freedom” kinda thing, ya know?
“it’s maddening, and it almost makes you wish there was some Central Authority that would just step in and set everyone straight once and for all.”
It’s strange that you, a person who is “concerned” when an article he disagrees with is published in Newsweek is somehow trying to present himself as a defender of diversity of opinion. And the funniest thing – I don’t remember writing anything the Central Authority which should setting anything – that’s more of a domain for the vulgar marxists like Obama, who wants the government to be in control of our life. Me – no, I am all for liberty and small limited government, so no Central Authorities for me…
“Alas, “we the people” in America just keep arguing about how to find the right balance between those disputed concepts, and lots of us apparently are too stupid to see, as you do, the Plain & Simple Truth.”
Alas is too many people are too stupid to believe that liberty and justice are in conflict – and not alas that we the people are arguing about this. It’s perfectly fine to debate this – up until the point when you decide to use the power of the government to take away other people’s liberty. Now, that’s really alas, right?
“Don’t give up on us yet, Hyphenated American; we’re still a work in progress (by which I don’t mean to suggest that we are, or should be, Progressive).”
As one blind man said to another – “We will see”.
“Last word on “justice”: as Hamlet said, “Give every man his just deserts, and who should scape whipping?””
Ah – but then you do see that Hamlet apparently is using a rather traditional view of what is justice, which makes him a rather strange source for you to quote.
We’re talking past each other, HA. Please see my upcoming post (and please read it charitably)…
Jack, I will read it charitably.
Reminds me of this quota by Alexis de Tocqueville that’s been floating around on Facebook recently.
“Americans are so enamored of equality that they would rather be equal in slavery than unequal in freedom.”
An analogy I use frequently is prison. People in prison are about as equal as you can get. Liberty/freedom is what matters. Then you can do with your life what you will. The equality we need is equal protection under the law and equal opportunity. Curiously, progressives/liberals have no interest in that kind of equality.
John E.: “progressives/liberals have no interest in that kind of equality” is kind of a stretch. And speaking of “stretch,” from my limited and second-hand understanding of life in prison, I think you may be overestimating how “equal” the inmates actually are–there’s kind of a pecking order, so to speak, and in fact a brutal one. But I’m glad you quoted de Tocqueville on the subject; at least we can agree that the desire for a perhaps chimerical equality isn’t a new thing.
I’m not over extimating. I’ve worked in corrections. I think you’re over analyzing and missing the forest for the trees. But, you’re point is well taken. While in prison virtually everyone had enforced equality of living space, certain possessions, etc, true equality of social status and outcomes still doesn’t exist. Just like life on the outside.
Mr. Shifflett, it appears that in your 11:27 am post above, you have mistakenly attributed DADvocate’s opinion to me.
No offense taken, of course, but I did want to point that out.
John E.: you’re absolutely correct, and I apologize and thank you for pointing it out.
No apologies needed – takes a bit to get familiar with the different Authors here, I’m sure.
takes a bit to get familiar with the different Authors here, I’m sure.
My good John E.,
It apparently does.
H. M. Stuart
Alexandria
“Well, silly me” he said, chortling ruefully at his own unexamined assumptions…
I thought you might be honored. ;)
Heh! Indeed I am!
Here is the real de Tocqueville quote.
“There is in fact a manly and legitimate passion for equality that spurs all men to wish to be strong and esteemed. This passion tends to elevate the lesser to the rank of the greater. But one also finds in the human heart a depraved taste for equality, which impels the weak to want to bring the strong down to their level, and which reduces men to preferring equality in servitude to inequality in freedom.
Chapter III, Part I
Often misquoted as: Americans are so enamored of equality that they would rather be equal in slavery than unequal in freedom.”
All of the progressive/liberals I know want equality of opportunity, not absolute equality.
Steve
Are they smart enough to know the difference. I frequently hear about equal pay and career advancement for women from progressives, but there is rarely the corrolary of progressives recognizing that many women decide to put having kids or being a housewife above career, thus keeping the overall average female income below that of males.
All of the progressives/liberals I now want equality of outcome, not equality of opportunity. That’s why they want affirmative action and other programs designed to benefit particular groups and not others. You must live in a very small world.
Ithink you are jumping to conclusions. Try asking them what they believe. You are acting like lefties who claim people on the right want the poor and sick to die.
Steve
“In the later part of the article, Clive Crook, the self-described progressive makes it obvious that the type of justice he claims is in conflict with freedom – is the so-called “social justice”, and it is clear that he associates justice with equality of result.”
Not clear to me. When you define other’s terms and set up a strawman argument it makes it easy to argue against.
Steve
On the other hand the fallacy of Hasty generalization “(fallacy of insufficient statistics, fallacy of insufficient sample, fallacy of the lonely fact, leaping to a conclusion, hasty induction, secundum quid, converse accident) – basing a broad conclusion on a small sample.” a la “All of the progressive/liberals I know” is quite acceptable.
Should have said know and read. It is a large enough group that I should find someone supporting the idea if it is, as you claim, universal. I think the closest I can come is people claiming there should be equal pay for the same work, but I don’t really think that is a right or left idea.
Steve
Steve, did you read his article? If so, tell me, what do you think Clive thought justice is, and why it is in conflict with freedom?
It is a short piece, so I dont think he defines justice or addresses it much, just accepts that it exists and this it has some conflicts with liberty. Probably the closest he comes is in linking the opening of the Declaration of Independence with Selma, etc. I certainly dont see any push for equality of outcomes.
Given our history, I am not sure he really needs to do so. As he notes, it is an old tension.
Steve
Steve, I think I asked a pretty straighforward question: “tell me, what do you think Clive thought justice is, and why it is in conflict with freedom?”
You bothered to reply to me – but ignored my questions. Why?
I did. He is writing the typical 800 word article. I dont think he actually defines it. I dont think it is fair or right for me to define it for him.
Steve
Okay, can you venture a guess based on the article on what he considers to be “justice”?
Whose freedom? Must the Catholic church be “free” to keep its employees from getting contraceptives on their employer’s health insurance, or should those employees be “free” to spend their health care dollars any way they deem appropriate? Should the slaveowners in the antebellum South have been “free” to own their slaves, or should the slaves have been free to choose their own work and homes? Should Lester Maddox have been “free” to decide who all got to eat in his fried chicken place, or should African-American citizens of the state of Georgia have been free to decide where to eat lunch? There is no such thing as absolute freedom. Everybody’s freedom can conceivably, at some point, intersect with and impede somebody else’s. Justice lies in the balancing act between them.
M-kay. I guess I need to write a full-blown article to explain where you went wrong here. Let me try to do this on Sunday.