In the discussion a few of us were having about the (near) future of civilization commenter bram said (edited for spelling errors)
The problem I have with most of the atheists (I’m typing to an obvious exception [that would be me – Simon]) I know is that they have substituted God with the State. They truly are Statists.
Most Christians have some sense of limit on human power. Statists don’t – that’s why they fail.
I replied that I’m not exactly a believer – but I’m not exactly a disbeliever either. But that is not the important point. The important point was reinforced by commenter Ben David.
Bram:
The problem I have with most of the atheists (I’m typing to an obvious exception) I know is that they have substituted God with the State.
– – – – – – – – – – –
Bingo.
This accurately describes the American Jewish liberal experience – they have substituted left-wing “social justice” for Judaism.
Yes. Quite true. So I responded with.
The problem is that there is no social justice. Only general social advance. And the best way to get that advance is to make sure those who produce it are well rewarded not hobbled.
Stupid Jews. (a rather harsh thing to say about so many of my brethren to be sure).
Referring to the 78% who voted for Obama.
So how is that fairness coming along? Or why the Progressive Left (there is a Progressive Right – more interested in morality than money) will never agree to anything but an income tax.
In fact, an income tax is absolutely essential, if “robbing Peter to pay Paul,” is your goal. That is made startlingly clear in the recent PBS documentary by Ken Burns about Prohibition. Prohibition — against the use and sale of alcohol — was largely supported by Progressives — not so much because they had great angst about the evils of alcohol, but because the legislation included the income tax. Prior to that, the government was funded by a sales tax on alcohol. Making alcohol use illegal demanded a different tax system – the income tax! Progressives were all for that. They fully understood, even then, that their goals were wealth redistribution, and that they could never achieve them with a narrow sales tax.
Wealth redistribution, and the power necessary to pick winners and losers in such a system, requires a complicated and convoluted taxing mechanism that ensnares every citizen, so that the power brokers have the flexibility and means to manipulate the people and their lives, and for the shroud of confusion a complicated system creates to obfuscate the consequences of their actions.
From a political perspective it is important to understand all of this, so as to understand what will surely be vehement opposition to any kind of tax proposal that is truly “fair.” Be assured the Progressives will never be so forthright as to explain the truth of their opposition. They will point to other things such as the poor being unable to afford a “fair” tax (which is not untrue if it is imposed at current levels). The politics of it all will require that they maintain an appearance of wanting a simple tax system, but to retain their power will require clinging tightly to the current system. They will never find a “fair” tax system that is acceptable.
My old friend (he never returns my e-mails) David Mamet, who is Jewish, had this to say when he (like I) woke up.
“I wondered, How did the system function so well? Because it does—the system functions beautifully.” How did the happiest, freest, and most prosperous country in history sprout from the Hobbesian jungle?
“I realized it was because of this thing, this miracle, this U.S. Constitution.” The separation of powers, the guarantee of property, the freedoms of speech and religion meant that self-interested citizens had a system in which they could hammer out their differences without killing each other. Everyone who wanted to could get ahead. The Founders had accepted the tragic view of life and, as it were, made it pay. It’s a happy paradox: The gloomier one’s view of human nature—and Mamet’s was gloomy—the deeper one’s appreciation of the American miracle.
Don’t my other brothers realize that under a wealth redistribution system their property is not safe from redistribution for the “greater good”? Evidently not.
In the words of Abraham Lincoln (which he supposedly never said) “You cannot help the poor man by destroying the rich.” I think history proves that to be true. Would we have been better off hobbling Steve Jobs or even Bill Gates? Or the hundreds of thousands of smaller business guys who support the market they are in? Finger (as in count on) it out.
Comments
9 responses to “Social Injustice”
We could hobble Corzine, or Milkin, any number of people.
As we all know, the problem has always been one of envy. Those who look up the ladder see people with “more” than they, themselves, have and they agitate for the redistribution of THAT wealth.
The great sin is that those agitators always ignore the fact that there are people on the economic ladder below them looking up at THEM and demanding redistribution in turn.
This was clearly evinced at the Occupy protests where goods were stolen (theft is also a form of wealth re-distribtion) and where the “professional homeless” were resented for showing up in the Occupy food lines (“Hey, wait a minute. This is OUR food, not YOURS!).
Redistribution for thee, but not for me!
I’ve always wondered about the psychology behind the wish to redistribute other people’s property. As T notes above envy is a big motivator in it and I’ve had experiences that point to another trait (unless of course I’m way off). My idea has to do with the differences between a person who needs external validation and the person who doesn’t. The one needing external validation also being a natural supporter of redistribution.
My logic is that if you constantly are looking for the atta boy or recognition from without then you would also possess a highly developed awareness of being treated unfairly, at least based on your perception. Let’s face it, this trait of needing external validation is really another form of arrested development and children are keenly aware of when they are being unfairly treated (in their minds fairness has all to do with “what’s fair to me.”) I’m particularly thinking of the people I see in the media all the time, actors, self-proclaimed artists of all kinds, politicians – anyone who actively seeks public recognition really. It also goes hand-in-hand with narcissistic tendencies.
RickC,
That’s a good point. I would add that these two ideas are probably corollaries; those people that require external validation envy those who display those symbols (the BMW, the large boat, the vacations abroad, etc.). One probably feeds the other.
The Judeo Christian concept that each person is “equal” stems from (a) their transcendent worth as an image of God, and (b) a moral focus on their free will.
When these religious underpinnings are knocked out from under western society – what then becomes of “equality”? How is it defined?
Socialism offers a definition of “equality” that springs from an objective, materialistic worldview.
Take off the West’s Judeo-Christian spectacles and it’s obvious that all men are NOT created equal.
So: how exactly DO atheists frame a morality that duplicates the free, fair Western culture that they inherited from Judeo-Christendom? One strong enough to withstand the inevitable power-hungry thugs?
….Continuing the specifically Jewish facet, there are several causes for the tribe’s affinity for socialism:
1) It started in “the old country” as Jews desperately sought an alternative to the oppression they had long suffered. Post-Enlightenment assimilation was the drug of choice for western European Jews, while labor socialism was the drug of choice in eastern Europe.
2) In America, Jews were exposed to urban Republican prejudice, less so to the Democratic anti-negro sentiment of rural areas. Also, Jews quickly formed political alliances with other immigrant groups against entrenched powers.
Ben David,
It really isn’t hard. Even for atheists. Equality under the law. No one gets special treatment from government. Neither high, nor low. No crony capitalists, no welfare bums.
In a pluralistic society what you want is a minimum code that everyone can adhere to so that each can practice his own religion (privately – without government help).
Or you can make it simple. The only function of Government is to protect Liberty. – Look up our founding fathers. A few Unitarians in the mix and Thomas Jefferson was not exactly a model Christian (if he believed at all).
You see if you can come up with a code rationally you can get better adherence. “The Maker says” does not win everyone over and in far too many cases creates opposition.
Or you could go with “Everyone is special” (in the Eyes of the Maker). Leaving the bit in parens unsaid so as to increase the market value.
3) Socialism in many ways mirrored ghetto culture. At least in its aspirations.
4) The Kibbutz movement was working.
Simon:
Or you could go with “Everyone is special” (in the Eyes of the Maker). Leaving the bit in parens unsaid so as to increase the market value.
– – – – – – – – – – –
But everyone is NOT special – not unless you are looking at the world through Judeo-Christian eyes.
Through atheist/materialist eyes, some ARE stronger, more talented, and “worth more” than others.
This is why Plato’s ideal republic – and Greek democracy in general – never had a concept of universal suffrage or representation. Plato and other pagans are perfectly comfortable with the strong subjugating the weak and the stranger.
The “universal rights of man” are only obvious to those raised in Judeo-Christian culture, whether they are believers or not.
So the founding fathers – and modern atheists – are coasting on a set of values they cannot themselves derive rationally, or defend against the inevitable power plays.
But everyone is NOT special – not unless you are looking at the world through Judeo-Christian eyes.
DNA.