[lit-ideas] Re: Does This Have Wings?

  • From: Ed Farrell <ewf@xxxxxxxxxxx>
  • To: Thomas Hart <tehart@xxxxxxx>
  • Date: Thu, 12 Jul 2012 08:11:48 -0700

Title: Re: [lit-ideas] Re: Does This Have Wings?
This is pretty much spot on; I was viewing this "dialog" with similar sensations.  It's also clear in the arguments of Paul and Donal how utilitarian
"ethics," constructed as it typically is upon hypotheticals, is less about human beings and more about statistical constructs.    

Wednesday, July 11, 2012, 6:37:40 PM, you wrote:


I wanted to see if it might be possible to combine arguments and rationales that used "liberal" interpretations of various phrases in the US Constitution to impose a Chinese style tyranny. I started with the idea that anything could be justified by invoking "general welfare." Then I proceeded to look for something that is a liberal favorite, and found population control. I then proposed a mandate that imposed violence upon women by mandating abortion. No liberal male defended a woman's right to choose to have more than one child. The Robert's court ruled that as long as you can invoke the taxing power you could basically get away with anything. I proposed total confiscation of income for 10 years, essentially slavery. No liberal objected. I then came up with a justification for imposing a tyrannous definition of religion. No liberal objected.

The justification for population control rests on Malthus, but Malthus, in the 19th century, and Paul Erlich, in the 20th century, both made predictions that haven't come to pass. I believe current projections are for population to peak in 2050 at 9 billion, and then begin a slight decline. 

Unfortunately, the whole idea of population control runs counter to the way many current social programs are constructed. Social Security and Medicare are both pass-through systems that should have a small number of people being supported by a large number of workers. Unfortunately, the population is aging, and living longer so that the top of the pyramid is increasing, and birth control, abortion, late marriages, etc., are leading to smaller numbers of workers. Unless there is a die-off at the top, either active killing, or passive neglect, or the working base broadens (through legal immigration, since illegals will avoid taxes), or increased fertility, financial implosion is inevitable.

What is interesting is that:

1. People assumed that their definition of "general welfare" is the correct one, and that they were willing to impose it by force.
2. The ideal of forcibly violating a woman's body was not repugnant to them.
3. Children were regarded not as people, but as things, i.e., reified.
4. The idea that the government could impose a penalty, disguised as a tax, amounting to 10 years worth of income was not repugnant to them.
5. The idea that government could determine what constitutes religious practice, and limit one's freedom of conscience was not repugnant to them.
6. The idea that the government could essentially penalize religious thought, belief, and practice, was applauded.

So where is the "liber" in liberalism? I see:

1. The belief that a person, one of the cognoscenti, the good, those who have knowledge, can act for the people as a whole. I'm reminded of Trotsky's criticism about the Party substituting for the workers, the Central Committee substituting for the Party, the Politburo substituting for the Central Committee, and the General Secretary substituting for the Politburo.
2. Liberty is not inherent, not unalienable, but exists at the whim of the rulers.

I'm afraid that I see the boot trampling on the human face and grinding it into the ground, and the proponents of these ideas can only be described in one word:

Fascists.

Jonah Goldberg is right, liberalism and fascism are nearly identical.


"All women are created equal.
Then some become Marines"

Katy Perry video for "Part of me"

Thomas Hart
tehart@xxxxxxx



On Jul 11, 2012, at 6:01 PM, cblists@xxxxxxxx wrote:


I've got an alternate proposal for population control: give all the women of the world minimum health care, education and nutrition for themselves and the children they have already borne, education about and access to contraception, and the absolute right to choose their sexual partners and (without coercion in either direction) how many children they will bear in the future.

It has wings - the question is: who keeps clipping them?

Chris Bruce,
who has more faith on this matter
in womankind than mankind, in
Kiel, Germany
--
------------------------------------------------------------------
To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off,
digest on/off), visit 
www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html



--
  ><(((º>¸. ·´¯`·.¸., . .·´¯`·.. ><(((º>
  Edward W. Farrell // 
ewf@xxxxxxxxxxx

  E d  F a r r e l l  P h o t o g r a p h y
  
http://www.edfarrellphotography.com 

  Plato for Research Management
  
http://www.zorbasoft.com ------------------------------------------------------------------ To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off, digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html

Other related posts: