One of the most puzzling aspects of the human psyche is that most people who can be defined as left or right seem to have Darwinism (or survival of the fittest) backwards. Capitalism is a natural extension of this principle, those who are the most fit for our system, the most productive, enjoy more success in life. It's a beautiful thing.
So why do so many conservatives subscribe to this principle economically but not to life in general? I think the basic answer is obvious, because of a long standing religious view against evolution. This ends up hurting the Republican position on other issues, global warming for example. If you refuse to study the science of one issue, how will anyone take you serious when you try to back other positions with science?
Conversely, those on the left look at the natural world and see the beauty in evolution but then refuse to apply a survival of the fittest model to human affairs. The strongest or best equipped animal is the most prosperous but when it comes to humans they believe in equality. Are we not an animal? They love the natural world, the extreme environmentalist in fact has a disdain for humans. If the natural world is the model which we should live by then why should we be subject to a centrally planned existence? Where in nature is there central control? Why would anyone want to be controlled by another? Only if you are the weak, or at least the naive I suppose.
Both sides have their 'religion' or 'faith', which on certain issues supersedes their rationality. I obviously am of the opinion that the right exercises far more reason on a day to day basis but that does not mean that improvement is not necessary.
To the conservative, keep your faith but don't let yourself be blinded. Interpret the lessons to be learned from your holy works for yourself, much of the dogma you follow could be the interpretation of just another man who lived perhaps a thousand years ago. Times have changed and just as his interpretation differed from the opinion of a thousand years before that, perhaps you can update your views. Did God give you the miracle of the human brain for no reason? Maybe He expects man to continue to uncover more truth with each successive generation.
You preach against government indoctrination, yet you are also indoctrinated. You are an individualist, yet you follow the congregation. We have seen enough scandals involving church officials, many seem to have the same character as politicians. Why rail against one group but not the other? Be an individual, can you handle a personal relationship with God? Do you need some other man to tell you what is right? Maybe humanity is now approaching adulthood in God's plan. Maybe some men are now ready to leave school and make it on their own. Just maybe God is tired of you following other men.
To the leftist (I hate that the word liberal has been bastardized), competition breeds success. Embrace it. What happens to species that have no competition or threats for an extended period once those challenges inevitably arrive? That period of stagnation leads to extinction. Look at the stories of the colonization of New Zealand and the Galapagos Islands and what happened to the native species there.
You are a naturalist, yet you support the artificiality of government control. You believe in the superiority of man over god, yet you have nothing but pessimism for the human race. If the climate does change, can't we handle whatever comes our way? We have seen enough scandals involving politicians, many seem to have the same character as church officials. Why rail against one group but not the other? Be an individual, can you handle personal responsibility for your own life? Do you need some other man to tell you what is right? Maybe government is stifling human potential. Maybe a group mentality can never equal the sum of its parts or even one of its parts.
The human race has all but overcome any natural threat to our survival, but we still have a yearning to create, to explore, to learn. We are still of this Earth, we are programmed for competition. Our new battlefield is economics, it is what makes us all prosperous and what makes us human. Capitalism is not evil, it has brought us to where we are. Our standard of living has exploded since the founding of this country because of it. Our production is our species' measure of fitness, it is who we are... whether you like it or not.
Excellent post, good points all around. Mentioning "a God who set a sequence of events in motion that lead to us" as opposed to "one who creates a modern human from scratch" makes me think of Thomas Paine's "Age of Reason."
ReplyDeleteI agree with JDS. I believe this is your best post. Every example you give is flawless against rebuttal. I'm going to pass this link to all my friends for them to read, if they haven't seen it already. Keep the writings going. I love it when I read an article that makes me think.
ReplyDeleteAs a Christian I agree that there are many people of faith who take things that are written in the bible too literally. In dealing with the creation of this planet and the afterlife I think the scripture was written in a way to make things as understandable as possible. It had to be written in a way that could be understood by billions of people from innumerable cultures over multiple millennia. I don't think the creation of the Earth (God or no God) is something that would be describable in words, but both this and heaven are brought down to our level through symbolism and imagery so that we might just have the faintest understanding of how it all begins and ends. C.S. Lewis has a great sequence in Mere Christianity (a great logical interpretation on Christianity from a former atheist) where he says those who criticize the Christian view of heaven (with its music, streets of gold, etc.) shouldn’t criticize books made for grown-ups if they can’t understand them. I believe the same criticism can be leveled at many people of faith who fail to recognize that some of these writings are symbolic representations of inexpressible occurrences.
ReplyDeleteI can't say that I see the left as "naturalists,” although that is certainly the image they are currently trying to portray of themselves. A farmer whose daily business is to work and understand his land is much more of a naturalist than a lefty living within the steel confines of a major city. I believe a lot of them are well intentioned people who fickly attach themselves to trendy causes which they see as humanitarian. These fads burn strong and die fast (Tibet, Darfur, Global Warming--at one point Cooling). I think they bring this paternalistic world view into their approach to government, namely they think that they and the government are more capable of taking care of you than you are of yourself. Of course there are plenty whose intentions are rooted more in a thirst for power and a condescending, rather than paternalistic, view of their fellow man.
I don’t see the concepts of individualism and congregation as contradictory. As a Christian my relationship with God is something I deal with every day and it is extremely personal. That being said there is still strength to be found in sharing my triumphs and struggles with fellow believers. Congregations help not only with accountability but it also gives us a social network where we can find friendship in those of similar beliefs who can sympathize with the issues we deal with. I see myself as an individualist in my non-religious life, but that doesn’t mean I don’t enjoy the time I get to spend talking with and getting to know people of common interests.
very good points, matt. and let me clarify a little, i'm not advocating that no one go to church or discuss issues with like minded people. i'm using the term congregation as more of adjective to describe the mindset of the so called religious right as it is defined today, not the average sunday church crowd.
ReplyDeletethey have far too much power within the party and they do nothing more than create an easy to target stereotype of republicans as a whole. i do not think they are for freedom of religion at all, which is what concerns me. religion should have no place in politics.
You're a hypocrite. You claim competition is neccessary and provides the best answers, but only allow for the ideas that fir into your ideology.
ReplyDeleteFor instance, who's to say that government healthcare isn't a better, more cost effective method if your political ideology prevents you from even entertaining the idea, let alone doing actual cost-benefit analysis? We know from looking at other nations' systems that SOME government run healthcare plans (certainly not the mess currently in Washington) provide better service for far less cost. We are getting taxed by businesses in the form of insurance premiums, but ignore this in anti-tax screeds because of our devotion to capitalist ideology. Paying less for better care is not stupid, so we should at least entertain the possibility of a government run system providing the best answers, and do the math.
Or on global warming - sure we might be able to adapt to climate change, but what if prevention is ultimately cheaper?
If you truly consider competition to be the cornerstone of human propserity, then why not carefully consider EVERY possible solution to a problem on a cost-benefit basis, and leave empty ideology at the door?
private companies cannot compete against a government that has unlimited resources (in the form of OUR money) and which is not concerned with being profitable. it's very simple.
ReplyDeleteSo then government can naturally outcompete business on some issues. Either there are some principals which should be held higher than darwinism, or there isn't. Therfore, you are a hypocrite.
ReplyDeleteSo is socialism ulitmately less efficient and wasteful than a capitalist system or not? If YOU truly believe "private companies cannot compete against a government that has unlimited resources (in the form of OUR money) and which is not concerned with being profitable." then YOU are a closet socialist who just hates paying taxes.
I believe a properly regulated free market could ultimately outcompete a government system, which tends toward waste and inefficiency.
I also believe that our current market system is NOT free, and actively encourages business collusion and monopolies that make private plans as inefficient and wastefull as government plans. More so, since even you admit our current markets could not produce a medical system able to outcompete a wasteful socialist system.
While I am a Libertarian, I truly believe that competition is the source of America's success. Socialism is a less robust and far less desireable system than ours because it eliminates competition. Your brand of corporatism suffers many of the same problems, and is actively hobbling the true free market as conceived by Adam Smith, and in fact gives the free market an undeserved bad name that actually supports the growth of socialism! That means we need to be more pragmatic in our decisions, and not be held back by pseudo-religious political Dogma.
Again, you have just revealed you cannot logically support your own suppositions, and instead just gush Republican ideology.
this one makes no sense at all so it's a little hard to respond.
ReplyDelete"I believe a properly regulated free market could ultimately outcompete a government system"...and just who is going to do the regulating? you can't be that naive, it would of course be government-loving politicians doing the regulating.
the private sector can't compete because there is not a level playing field because the government has all of the power. they can run anyone out of business if we give them the power to.
your argument is that we should give the government more power so that they the market more free. sorry, that's not how the real world works.
Libertarian politicians would properly regulate the free market, wher you parrot-brained Republican zombies have failed.
ReplyDeleteWe live in a representative democracy. WE elect politicians, we set laws. You are cynical because you are a member of a power-loving, liberty destroying party. It is possible to both believe in effective laws and the free market. YOU don't because the Republicans always try to solidify as much extra-legal power as possible whenever they fool enough voters to get into office.
Face it, it's not so simple as government VS. Business. We've had much success in this country with firm and fair laws regulating a free and competetive market economy. Only recently in the era of Republican de-regulation have we had these issues with monopolies, collusion and the breakdown of our economy.
My argument is that we should FIX our regulation so that the market is once again free: free of over-centralized monopoly power, trusts, bribery and dishonesty. Again, you totally neglect to support your position: How can a free market even exist without regulation? It just would devolve into monopoly, collusion and the destruction of competition and customer choice. But you can't even think about the question logically, you can only repeat: "INCREASE GOVERNMENT POWER!!!!" like some kind of religious fanatic.
NO nation in the world has a completely deregulated market, because they don't work. What's so wrong to going back to what has worked in America before? Why do your parrot-brains hate democracy so much?
Even as a Libertarian, I am glad we live in a society of laws. I LIKE that the government has the power to 'run anyone out of business' if we give them the power. You'd prefer to have extra-legal businesses completely beyond the power of democratic government at large in this country? What if an insurance company started murdering non-policy holders to extort business? You'd support having the citizens of the USA be powerless against such a threat? Or what if a defense contractor sold weapons technology to the highest terrorist bidder? You'd prefer our enemies were empowered rather than have a government with the most basic of power to protect its citizenry? You're nuts!
ReplyDelete