Rand Simberg has a nice column in Pajama Media about tax cuts. He makes the very real observation
I view a reduction in my income tax as more of my own money, which I earned, that I am allowed to keep. Leftists start with the implicit assumption that all wealth, regardless of who actually earned it, is the property of the state, and any amount that we have after taxes is viewed as a gift from the state.
This got me thinking about how this "world view" referring to taxes gets so much credibility. It occurred to me that it really gets down to a basic over all world view of life as a whole.
The idea is basically this, "Nobody owns the world, it is owned by everybody." This at its core is a very commendable ideal and in some ways very true.
You can, and it has been, expand on this ideal to this "No species owns the world, it is owned by all living things." This is the basis for many environmental teachings and beliefs. Again a very commendable idealism and in many ways based in truth.
But there is a serious flaw in this thinking that can easily be tested. Find a Grizzly Bear den and go inside for protection from the weather. You will quickly find out that the Grizzly recognizes something that many on the left fail to recognize, the Grizzly believes in property rights.
In fact to some degree or another all living things do and man is no different. Even the most uneducated of human beings recognize this, though the more educated seem to have a harder time with it.
When you take the idealism of "Nobody owns the world, it is owned by everybody" and try to incorporate that into a political, economic and social structure, it fails. It fails simply because what is mine is not yours whether you are a Grizzly Bear, a Nightingale or a Russian peasant.
A Grizzly may allow you to share his den for a time and a Russian Peasant can; by force made to share his lands and his crops, but neither the grizzly or the peasant see it as either natural or required by the laws of nature.
This "One World" view can work successfully on small communal scales, simply because everyone knows one another and becomes dependent on each other for their common welfare, much like a family unit.
It also can even be somewhat successful on larger national level such as in some Scandinavian nations, successful being defined as it exists. This is because small countries like Sweeden are pretty much a homogeneous society with shared culture, traditions and backgrounds. But the ideal begins to crumble when large segments of the population even if only a large minority is introduced into the society. We see this happening all over Europe. In England, France, The Netherlands, Belgium and even Germany the introduction of other cultures and traditions in large numbers creating a more heterogeneous society, breaks down the common fabric that is necessary for the socialist system to work. Why?
Because people are no different than Grizzlies in this respect, they are not willing to give up their beliefs and traditions for some unknowing, unseen common good. It is not just prejudices, if prejudice at all, it is survival. Why should a Muslim give up the traditions and societal structure that has been the basis for their community for centuries for the common good of a government entity that they have no connection to, whose only real purpose is to standardize the whole.
This could be said of Jews, Christians or any secular group that is proud of their heritage and culture. That is why, in order to promote a "One World "agenda, you must either demonetize the old beliefs, cultures and most important any pride in shared history or you must overly encourage all beliefs and cultures (multi-culturism) regardless of the obvious disparity in some cultures. Who for example could argue that large segments of Islam's treatment of women is preferable or more enlightened than most Western cultures? One way or the other "One World"idealism must destroy distinctive cultural pride and tradition, or at least that is the current practice.
The problem is that people are animals, they do have survival instincts at the most basic level, the family unit. This is why it is also necessary to marginalize the family unit. This is done by empowering the child over the parent, a very obvious and increasing trend in western society today. This perhaps above all else is the most frightening, because it corrodes the very nature of our species or any species for that matter. The contnuing attack on the family unit through promotion of youth and the belittling of age and experience is not only dangerous it is ultimately self defeating.
Will this "One World" view succeed? In my opinion yes and no. Ultimately man(kind) must evolve to a genuine "We are the world", Kum ba ya, Star Treck society. We must at some point reach a point in out development that we stand together as a species to preserve our planet and our species. But it will not happen based on the devaluation of the individual this is doomed to fail.
As it currently stands the worlds' only governing body, The United Nations, is dominated by regimes that seek to control people rather than empower them. The current rush towards "One World" is being attempted by the use of power- economic, political, propaganda and plain brute force over the masses. When people feel disenfranchised from the government they will revert back to the basic levels of trust, the family unit.
Ultimately to achieve this "One World" we must recognize that what is best about us must be encouraged, not discouraged. When governments recognize that the empowerment of the indvidual rather than the control of the individual is the key to unity, then we will make real progress. The love a parent for a child is a far more powerful tool to the advancement of man than the suppression of birth. The burning creative desire of the entrepreneur is what allows for technological and economic advancement not the equal distribution of resources.
We have already learned these lessons, yet here we are, allowing ourselves to be sucked back down the drain of suppression of the human spirit by those whose true purposes are elitist governance and political power over us and our children. It will fail, it will fail because the grizzly will be awakened and rise up to protect his/her den from those who would so naively believe that it is their job to share it, only the grizzly can make that choice.
Jer
-More...
Complete Original Article
No comments:
Post a Comment