Alyssa Rosenberg has an interesting opinion piece in the Washington Post—interesting, but not in the way she means it.
I’m pro-choice, but I’m grateful for what pro-life groups did this week, Rosenberg opines. Why?
In today’s fractious political world, it’s important to extend credit where it’s due. And so, as a pro-choice liberal, I want to thank a group of pro-life organizations that spoke up this week in support of a congressional deal to improve the child tax credit. Antiabortion Americans United for Life hailed the bill, which will primarily help lower-income families and families with a larger number of children, as “a core part of an American pro-life and pro-family future.” Pro-choice Center for American Progress President Patrick Gaspard described the legislation as “an unmissable opportunity to reduce poverty among low-income children and families.”
Why is Rosenberg grateful?
The often-justified liberal criticism of pro-life conservatives has long been that they elevate the lives of unborn babies over the lives of mothers, and that they’re eager to prioritize children in the womb but not in the world. [true] After birth, it becomes more important to refuse “attempts to expand the welfare state” [true] than to feed poor children when school is out during the summer [which means, to feed poor children at taxpayer expense]; more vital to enforce a traditional heterosexual nuclear family where women stay home than to make sure children have access to safe, quality day care [“access” here means access to other people’s wallets to pay for the day care]; more essential to reject federal help than to make sure children have health insurance [again, meaning at taxpayer expense].
The contradictions in the stances of liberals and conservatives becomes obvious here, though the contradictions are flipped. Both the welfare state and abortion bans are rights-violating. The welfare state, which is based on forced redistribution of wealth, violates the individual right to decide how, when, and if to use one’s own money for charitable purposes. Abortion bans violate the individual right of women to control one's own body and doctor’s right to perform abortions if the doctor so chooses.
Now, as far as welfare statism goes, the tax credit is one of the least bad options, because it allows the parent or guardian to keep more of what they earn. True, sometimes the tax “credit” is not a credit at all, but becomes “refund”—i.e. a handout—at taxpayer expense if the parent’s tax liability is less than the allowable credit. But at least the tax credit idea requires the parent to file a tax return, which means to be working.
But the broader point here is a moral one: To be a principled individual rights advocate (individual rights properly understood), one must be against the welfare state and in favor of legalization of abortion.
Note what is going on here. Both conservatives and liberal are supportive of rights violations in their own spheres of interest. But it is the conservatives who are caving, and moving toward the liberals’ pro-welfare state principles. The liberals, the most consistent violator of individual rights, is winning, thus validating the truth of Ayn Rand’s observation that “In any conflict between two men (or two groups) who hold the same basic principles, it is the more consistent one who wins [italics in original].”
Related Reading:
Biden’s Concept of Freedom is the Path to Slavery
A Right to Pursue versus a ‘Right’ to Provision: The Declaration and its Reactionaries
My Challenge To the GOP: A Philosophical Contract With America
The U.S. Constitution is About Individual, Not ‘Human’, Rights
Collectivized Rights—Ayn Rand
Moral Rights and Political Freedom—Tara Smith
Ayn Rand’s Theory of Rights: The Moral Foundation of a Free Society—Craig Biddle for The Objective Standard
No comments:
Post a Comment