In a FEE article, The Good Intentions Fallacy Is Driving Support for Democratic Socialism, Barry Brownstein attempts to explain the growing popularity of Democratic Socialism. After recounting tales of starvation in Venezuela, the latest in the long list of catastrophic human disasters wrought by socialism, Brownstein writes:
With reports like these (from Venezuela), one wonders how support for socialism in America can be growing?
If some Americans are economically illiterate and ahistorical that would explain their support. If they have mistakenly identified Scandinavian countries as socialist, that would also offer an explanation.
Perhaps people are seeking more meaning in their lives and being part of a mass movement fills a void.
Some students have admitted to me they value being able to exercise power over others. Perhaps they see socialism as a means to acquire power?
These may be some of the explanations for increasing support for democratic socialism; and yet, there is another factor at work. Americans are increasingly allowing their thinking to be influenced by logical fallacies.
Brownstein spends the rest of the article blaming “The Good Intentions Fallacy”, which essentially means if your intentions are “good,” then the ends justify the means. As he explains though, mere good intentions isolated from objective reality leads to authoritarianism. He even quotes Milton Friedman: “ “Concentrated power is not rendered harmless by the good intentions of those who create it.”
Brownstein is pretty much on the mark. But I think he falls short. He concludes:
Let us grant “good intentions” to today’s cadres of democratic socialists. Let us assume they are “thinking positively.” No matter. No good intentions or positive thoughts will overcome how reality works. The destructive outcomes of socialism will follow as history repeats itself.
No. Let’s not “grant ‘good intentions’ to today’s cadres of democratic socialists.”
What is meant by "good" in "good intentions?" A person may have “a vision to . . . benefit especially those people who had felt neglected and marginalized” or want to “improve the lives of millions of his fellow countrymen.” A person may see himself as altruistic--putting others’ needs above his own. I don’t think that’s morally good. Nor do I think wishing to see other people’s lives improve is necessarily altruistic. But a person’s morals are his own private business. Anybody can wish or desire anything she wants. Who does not want to see the lives of his fellow countrymen improve?
A wish or a desire is not an intention. The question is, what does one intend to do about his wishes, if anything? That’s where intentions come in. Socialists are altruists. Altruism means self-sacrificial service to others' needs. That’s fine if one practices it privately. But applied to political economy--the relationship of government and economics--altruism leads to "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need" imposed by law; which leads to the sacrifice of individualism to collectivism; which leads to totalitarian socialism. That’s the socialists’ intent. There is nothing "good" about the intentions of democratic socialists. Genuine good intentions begin with respect for the moral and political rights of every individual to live and act on his own judgement in pursuit of his own flourishing. Democratic Socialists, by definition, are devoid of that respect. Why else do they turn to politics, when they are free to follow their wishes by forming their own voluntary communes, leaving those who disagree to live in peace? Because they intend to force their morals on everyone else. So they turn to politics, because "Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun." Altruism is the morality of sacrifice. Merged with politics, altruism means forced sacrifice--and the first thing to be sacrificed are man’s individual rights--sacrificed to the “greater”, or “common,” good. A socialist country is born.
Support for socialism is rising in America because, whether they acknowledge it or not, the socialists' intentions are evil. Their intentions grow out of the barrel of a governmental gun. As long as people believe that "good" means living for others rather than the pursuit of happiness—and as long as the socialists are granted the unearned moral stamina of proceeding from "good intentions"—socialism will never die. So, as of now, their altruist wishes are winning over the Declaration of Independence.
Brownstein is far too generous. I don't believe "The Good Intentions Fallacy" is applicable to the Democratic Socialists. Their intention is to force the country into submission to their socialist programs. There may have been some excuse 100 years ago, when there was no historical record to draw upon. But when the same intentions lead in practice to life-crushing results, over and over and over again, right up to today's Venezuela, those who would “try again” have long since lost the benefit of the doubt. Ignorance is no excuse--not in the face of the accumulated evidence of socialism's record. To quote Ayn Rand from a critique of socialism in practice:
Mistakes of this size are never made innocently. If men fall for some vicious piece of insanity, when they have no way to make it work and no possible reason to explain their choice— it's because they have a reason that they do not wish to tell.
Today, the reason they do not wish to tell is pure powerlust. After the last 100 years, the term “good” cannot logically be applied, in any form, to today’s Democratic Socialists. Bad intentions--and only bad intentions, from powerlust to greed to envy--fit. Followers of Democratic Socialists have long since lost the right to claim ignorance.
Today's Democratic Socialists do not deserve the moral high ground. They are in fact motivated purely by evil intentions. The question is, will America collapse, taking the world with it, before the majority of Americans wake up?
Related Reading:
Criminal Socialism vs. a Free Society
The Passion of Socialists—Craig Biddle
QUORA *: ‘What makes someone a socialist?'
Socialism vs. Welfare Statism: Why These Terms Matter
1 comment:
Socialism, democratic or otherwise, in politics, has neither high nor low moral ground. It has NO moral ground.
In politics, there is no high or low moral ground. There is only moral ground, period. That's because, in politics, there is only unalienable individual rights. That takes all the moral ground, and politics merely determines the best possible way to keep unalienable individual rights. Socialism has no part, and can have no part, in this, and no moral ground.
When mixed with unalienable individual rights and politics, or when it takes any form of central control of human relations by physical power, socialism, by nature, has nothing to do with politics. Politics is not, and cannot be, a tool or a part of it, or involved with it in any way.
As a central control of human relations by physical power, socialism is one, and only one, thing: crime, and crime is its only tool, and its pushers and practitioners are not politicians. They are criminals. Actual politicians are keepers of unalienable individual rights.
Post a Comment