Government can be used to make positive change and raise the
quality of life? [sic; I think he meant to say “can’t.”] Systems such as Social
Security and Medicare do that in spite of objections from a minority of “rugged
individualists”. Left to individualism life would not be so great. In the
conceptualization of representative democracy, the “state” is the slave of the
“people”. If our “state” is not, then our “state” is broken. We need to fix it
and use it appropriately.
Government is the only institution that can
legally compel obedience. When you say “use” government, you’re advocating use
of force by some people against other people who simply disagree, but have
committed no crime. Is that using government “appropriately”? The dirty little
secret of representative democracy is that an elected legislature can trample a
person’s rights as readily as any dictator. An appropriate government--a
representative republic--is one restrained by constitutional protections
of individual rights and limited to enumerated separation of powers designed
for that purpose. No electoral faction should ever be allowed to use the
government as the “hired gun” to impose their values on all others, regardless
of the size of the majority or the small number of dissenters. The “people,”
after all, is an assortment of individuals, not an omnipotent entity that
reigns above and apart from the individuals who comprise it. Each person is
part of “the people,” and thus has an equal right to plan for her own life
matters such as retirement and healthcare so long as he respects the same
rights of others. Both Social Security and Medicare violate those principles.
When you say “the ‘state’ is the slave of the ‘people’,” you speak of some
people making slaves of other people. But freedom is not the right to vote away
other people’s liberty and property or force one’s values on others. Freedom is
the right to live your life regardless of other people’s votes.
The term “rugged individualist” is usually used
derogatorily to imply some lone wolf who has no use or care for any other
person. But that’s a straw man. A rational--that is, truly
individualistic--person understands that there is tremendous value to be gained
from associating with others in all areas of life, economic, social, personal.
But an individualist respects other people, and will only deal with others in
voluntary and mutually advantageous terms. The issue is not mutual cooperation
and associations, or not. The issue is forced ‘cooperation” and
association versus voluntary cooperation and association. Would you
think it right to force another person into a church congregation? After all,
some people think religion is vital to “the quality of life.” Neither is it
right to force that person into financial arrangements like Social Security.
Just as some people might prefer secular beliefs, others might prefer mutual
funds or other personal uses for their money.
Granted, the welfare state is not full
socialism. The so-called safety net leaves room for individual rights and free
enterprise, making it tolerable. But the limited socialism of the welfare state
is still collectivist, statist, and anti-individualist. It is a “gateway drug”
to totalitarianism, as the state of today’s politics indicates. Government
should be neither slave nor master. It should be the agent protecting the free
choice of all, not just choices of the politically privileged but also
electoral minorities and “rugged individualists.”
Thanks.
Related Reading:
No comments:
Post a Comment