In fear of Wishes coming True
In celebrating the substitution of Kamala Harris for a doddering Joe Biden, a friend said, “I would prefer Bernie Sanders, but the country is not ready yet.” Thank Goodness!
As a friend, I know him to be intelligent and sincere, and like so many others, his sentiments seem to embrace the deceptively pleasing Marxist mantra: From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs.
In the obverse, this mindset seemingly resembles the Golden Rule: Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. However, there are some fundamental differences:
While charity may be a moral ideal, the benefactor (with reference to his conscience and his God) should be privileged to determine the nature, extent, and objects of his charity. In practice, Collectivism and its denominational offshoots of Marxism, Socialism, and Communism cannot rely upon the voluntariness of the populace; therefore, compliance and participation must be compelled by force. Compelled charity or coerced altruism are not moral acts on the parts of the givers (producers), intermediary (government), or beneficiaries (consumers).
Where Marxism has been applied in practice, it has failed routinely, consistently, and oftentimes spectacularly. The self-identifying “needy” are never content to have only their subsistence needs met. A limited and shrinking producer class will not produce maximally when the fruits of their labors are subject to being taken by force (of law) and redistributed to (undeserving) others. The demands upon the societal and economic systems grow unabated while the willingness or ability to address those demands wanes. Eventually, the societal structures collapse under the unfathomable burden of dead weight.
Feeling entitled and emboldened (by their status as “victims”), expectant beneficiaries command a standard of living, which is not commensurate with their contributions. They quickly redefine “wants” as “needs” with reference to the “excesses” enjoyed by propertied classes (i.e. “oppressors”), whom growing and expanding victim classes deem unworthy or excessively privileged. Through their takings, they claim to act in the advance of fairness, justice, and equality, but their true motivations are selfishness, greed, and covetousness. Self-destruction is fueled by cycles of retaliation, revenge, and retribution.
Victimhood is a powerful motivator: The self-identifying “victim” is always morally right, neither responsible nor accountable, and forever entitled to sympathy. Victim classes act collectively and in unison, adopting a perverse moral certitude, which they mistakenly believe can be derived solely from their number. When society places a premium on victimhood, then nearly everyone wants to be a victim. Once everyone self-identifies as victim of some “oppressor” or another, then it becomes an incessant battle among persons and peoples to determine who is the most deserving among all victim classes. This mindset results in the reduction of everyone and everything to the lowest common denominator. It is a recipe for certain disaster.
My friend identified as societal positives the “passing of the generation of Baby Boomers” and a “declining birthrate.” (Both of these things result in a declining population, but I will defer for another discussion the economic challenges posed thereby, as evident in China, Japan, and Europe.) My friend offered, “It will be a different and smaller world.” It may very well be different. Obviously, many persons want it to be different. They seemingly want a world which is detached from reality. Different may be deceptively attractive, but it is not necessarily better, just as one’s “uniqueness” does not make him or her necessarily useful or productive.
Not able to expect a groundswell of support for overt Socialism in the short-term, my friend expressed his “hope” that Democrats — including Kamala Harris (who vied with Bernie Sanders for the title of “most liberal” Senator) — will win in the upcoming election.
As a doctor, he likely favors the “theory” of socialized medicine (i.e. Medicare-for-All); although, in practice it is certain to result in rationing and a reduction in the quality of care. Like Sanders, Harris previously supported imposing Medicare-for-All, and she also supported the elimination of private health insurance: “In for a Penny in for a Pound.”
My friend also expressed support for “Green Energy,” which presumably would include implementation of the “Green New Deal,” which would cost many trillions of dollars and involve the federal government in the most minute aspects of our personal lives. All aspects of individuality and personal choice would have to be sacrificed for the benefit of the Collective.
Most interestingly, my friend proposed assuring that government “stay out of people’s business.” Apparently, he wishes to have his cake and eat it too. It is impossible for government to satisfy the expansive wish lists of the insatiable “victim” classes, without taking something in return either from the would-be beneficiaries (e.g. individual liberties and personal freedoms) or from disfavored “others” (i.e. the infamous “One Percent” or the nebulously defined but much maligned class of “Rich”).
It has been said:
A government, which is capable of giving you everything that you want is similarly capable [and more likely] to take everything that you have.
Like nearly all organisms, our bestial species is motivated by self-protection, self-advancement, and self-propagation. Despite awareness of moral ideals, we are not naturally inclined to selflessness, altruism, and martyrdom. Any policy or program, whose success depends on human beings acting en masse in a manner directly contrary to our inherent nature, is destined to failure.
I sarcastically asked him how his “Pet Unicorn” was doing because his expectations exceed what is possible within our singular but imperfect reality. Nevertheless, persons embrace deceptive but pleasing lies. They want to dispense with reality. They want something “different.” They want the fiction to be true. They adopt and interject themselves into the fantasy to the point of clinical delusion.
Persons who embrace “democracy” as a panacea for all societal ills either do not see the inherent dangers or prefer to live in willful ignorance. Writing to John Taylor in 1814, former President John Adams said:
I might hav[e] exhibited as many millions of Plebians sacrificed by the Pride Folly and Ambition of their fellow Plebians and their own, in proportion to the extent and duration of their power. Remember Democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes exhausts and murders itself. There never was a Democracy Yet, that did not commit suicide. It is in vain to Say that Democracy is less vain, less proud, less selfish, less ambitious or less avaricious than Aristocracy or Monarchy. It is not true in Fact and no where appears in history. Those Passions are the same in all Men under all forms of Simple Government, and when unchecked, produce the same Effects of Fraud Violence and Cruelty. When clear Prospects are opened before Vanity, Pride, Avarice or Ambition, for their easy gratification, it is hard for the most considerate Phylosophers and the most conscientious Moralists to resist the temptation. Individuals have conquered themselves, Nations and large Bodies of Men, never.
The mechanisms of decline and collapse are not hard to understand, they are accurately reflected in a passage, which is often misattributed to Alexander Tytler. Despite the erroneous attribution, the words are no less prescient:
A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy….
I would argue that annual trillion-dollar deficits projected indefinitely, and an accumulated National Debt, which recently exceeded $35 Trillion, are the epitome of “loose fiscal policy.” Therefore, I asked of my friend:
How is it “staying out of people’s business” — quite literally — to steal from the nebulously defined “rich” and forcibly to redistribute income and wealth to a growing and expanding class of self-identifying “needy” and relative “poor,” which constitutes a self-serving electoral majority?
I am still awaiting a reply from my Democratic-Socialist friend. In the meantime, I will note the observation, which was articulated by Dame Margaret Thatcher, “The problem with Socialism is that you eventually run out of other people’s money.” Through the compulsory authority of the state and the coercive actions of government, we might be made more equal, but we are to be made more equal in loss, want, disappointment, and misery.
Government cannot simultaneously serve as sword and shield for favored special interest groups. Power is an inevitably corrupting influence, regardless of whether it is wielded by a single despot or an electoral majority. As power trends toward absolute, so does the certainty for corruption, and with corruption come abuse, oppression, and tyranny.
Either government is sufficiently impotent so as to do no harm to anyone or it is an untamable beast, which when unleashed from its fetters is certain to sow wanton destruction far and wide. That is our reality, even if uncomfortable or disconcerting, and no amount of wishful thinking or delusion is going to alter that singular reality.
