In chapter 2 he explains that the Statist utopia can happen in many forms, monarchism, feudalism, fascism, communism, national socialism and economic socialism- all forms of tyranny. Thanks to Natalie, I understood all that! They want equality but not how the founding fathers saw equality. The founders saw equality to mean the natural right of every individual to live freely under self government, to acquire and retain the property he creates through his own labors and to be treated impartially before a just law. However since we are born unique we are inherently not equal in all things, like ability. The Statist, Levin thinks, rejects that idea and wants to level the playing field and have everyone the same regardless of their differences. This reminds me of the helicopter parent that is going to control their child's life. The child IS going to an Ivy league school no matter what the child actually wants to do in life. Not everyone wants to be a doctor, or even go to college for that matter. The idea of trying to make us all "equal" in this way seems to take away and/or not appreciate our uniqueness from one another.
Tuesday, November 27, 2012
Liberty and Tyranny Chapters 1&2
In chapter 1 Levin is defining the "conservative" and the "statist" which is his term for what we might think of as the progressive liberal? Can anyone else describe the Statist better? (from the internet,"the belief that a government should control either economic or social policy, or both, to some degree" one article claims Obama is a statist not a socialist). Basically the Statist wants more and more control which the conservative feels infringes on the rights of the individual. It's between forced equality from the government or the liberty to make one's own way whether one succeeds or fails. Pg. 8 at the top is talking about how the statist finds more ways to "help" while the wealthy and successful are demonized for what they have, which leads to government intervention. I like what he says at the end of the paragraph, "in this way, the perpetrator and the victim are subordinated to the government's authority-the former by outright theft, the latter by a dependent existence. In truth, both are made victims by the real perpetrator, the Statist".
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
For me, reading about FDR and the new deal made me think a little. I always thought of what he did as so wonderful and needed. After having read that section of the chapter it made me put a little more thought into it. He claims that it wasn't the New Deal that helped the country out of the depression but industrial growth resulting from WWII. The New Deal actually prolonged the economic recovery. Very Interesting.
ReplyDeleteYes, from what I have read FDR subscribed to the ideas of the British economic philosopher Edward Maynard Keynes. Keynes believed that savings was akin to hoarding and greed. He rejected the long tradition of America of saving and frugality. He argued that the objective of all economic activity was "consumption". His solution to getting out of economic holes was simple: spend, spend, spend. If you see "Keynesian" in your reading this is what and who they are referring to.
ReplyDeleteEven in FDR's time many people saw this as illogical and didn't agree. And the argument is the same today. Obama's stimulus bill was based on the same principle. The more we spend, the better our economy will be. Well we saw how that worked out.
The thing that I have been contemplating with these ideas is how they relate to the gospel. In the LDS church at least, we are taught by our leaders to save, to gather food storage, to prepare ourselves. This would be considered "hoarding" in the Keynesian approach. However, if we have faith in our leaders that these principles are correct, we would have then reject the Keynes and his approach.
(side note: Keynes himself had a sizable investment portfolio and savings, he accumulated great wealth. Didn't really live by his own principles did he?)