-------------------------------------------
I have commented a number of times regarding Mr. Moor in these pages. In the below letter he attempts to refute an observation about the Left from another letter writer, Jack Levitt. What I find delightful is that Mr. Moor actually deals with the matter at hand and addresses the points Mr. Levitt raised. This is indeed rare in leftism.
Mr. Moor ultimately fails, but I commend him for the effort.
Read on:
First, Mr. Levitt's letter:
There are two main consequences of the proposition set forth in the Declaration of Independence that “All men are created equal.” The first, espoused by conservatives, is legal equality, i.e. that all human beings are endowed with the right to enjoy equal rights, equal legal opportunity, and equal legal protection. The second, promoted by liberals, is social and economic equality.
The Declaration of Independence, however, has no legal power, and the word “equal” only appears in the Constitution in the 14th Amendment granting equal protection under the law.
Legal equality neither mandates nor permits government to ensure equal social position or economic well-being. The law, under this interpretation looks at what persons do, not who they are.
Social and economic equality, while appealing, distorts equal protection under the law to make cultural or social changes and to create government mandated quote as, turning our form of government into a democracy rather than a republic.
The founders conceived of a republican form of democracy, thus avoiding the extremes of autocracy and a pure democracy. James Madison observed that democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention and have ever been incompatible with personal security or the rights of property.
While both liberals and conservatives support the idea of equal opportunity, most liberals want to use the government to also promote financial equality and equality of outcome. Most conservatives believe that economic reward should be the result of hard work and merit. Liberals want equality at the finish line, while conservatives focus on equal opportunity at the starting line.
We should strive to make equal opportunity in America a fact rather than an aspiration, and abandon the well-intended, but misguided, attempts at social and economic equality.
Social and economic equality, while appealing, distorts equal protection under the law to make cultural or social changes and to create government mandated quote as, turning our form of government into a democracy rather than a republic.
The founders conceived of a republican form of democracy, thus avoiding the extremes of autocracy and a pure democracy. James Madison observed that democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention and have ever been incompatible with personal security or the rights of property.
While both liberals and conservatives support the idea of equal opportunity, most liberals want to use the government to also promote financial equality and equality of outcome. Most conservatives believe that economic reward should be the result of hard work and merit. Liberals want equality at the finish line, while conservatives focus on equal opportunity at the starting line.
We should strive to make equal opportunity in America a fact rather than an aspiration, and abandon the well-intended, but misguided, attempts at social and economic equality.
----------------------------------
And now Mr. Moor's rebuttal:
In his recent letter, Jack Levitt argues that neither our founding fathers nor our Constitution go very far to support the liberal view of equality; that being, “to promote financial equality and equality of outcome.”
His view is that all persons be guaranteed the opportunity to participate in public activities and institutions, but that is all. What individuals make of the opportunity is not the business of any branch of government. When legal intervention is warranted is when an activity or institution raises the bar of opportunity for some but not for others. So far, so good.
Where I would strongly disagree is his interpretation that liberals seek equality of outcomes and would shovel money to the poor to achieve that. This is a veiled reference to the wholly discredited philosophy of the Communist Party. Equal distribution of wealth did not work in any country where it was tried. To say that this is what liberals want is a rhetorical device that should have died with the Soviet Union. (This is a valid point, that "equal distribution of wealth did not work." However, we know there are lots of socialist-oriented leftists who do not think that the idea should have died. The fact that there is substantial wealth redistribution in the US is prima facie evidence that the idea not only exists, but thrives.
His view is that all persons be guaranteed the opportunity to participate in public activities and institutions, but that is all. What individuals make of the opportunity is not the business of any branch of government. When legal intervention is warranted is when an activity or institution raises the bar of opportunity for some but not for others. So far, so good.
Where I would strongly disagree is his interpretation that liberals seek equality of outcomes and would shovel money to the poor to achieve that. This is a veiled reference to the wholly discredited philosophy of the Communist Party. Equal distribution of wealth did not work in any country where it was tried. To say that this is what liberals want is a rhetorical device that should have died with the Soviet Union. (This is a valid point, that "equal distribution of wealth did not work." However, we know there are lots of socialist-oriented leftists who do not think that the idea should have died. The fact that there is substantial wealth redistribution in the US is prima facie evidence that the idea not only exists, but thrives.
You see, we do not need to admit that "equality of outcomes" is necessary in order to criticize partial expressions of these socialistic endeavors. The very fact that there is substantial support among the Left for taking money from one in order to give it to another is not only a process that exists, but it is celebrated.
Occupy is particularly vehement in this regard. They constantly talk about the eeevil 1%, and how those people need to be divested of large portions of their wealth. A progressive tax system also speaks to this, as does efforts to equalize school funding between rich and poor school districts.
And we can mention affordable housing initiatives, Affirmative Action, Title 9, feminism, and a whole host of other attempts at changing outcomes for some at the expense of others. While not expressly obtaining "equal outcomes," that is surely the process.)
I will only speak for myself. (Again, a refreshing admission, that his viewpoint may differ from others of his political persuasion.)
I will only speak for myself. (Again, a refreshing admission, that his viewpoint may differ from others of his political persuasion.)
Equality of outcome is not a goal driving my political wagon. Inequality of outcome, to me, is a red flag that opportunities may not be equal for all. (Hmm. He now walks it back. He does measure outcomes, and if the outcomes are not sufficiently equal, there is necessary remedies to implement.)
If there are no means whereby the physically handicapped or those handicapped by circumstance can participate, there is no equality of opportunity. (Mr. Moor brings forth a suspect example as emblematic of the problem he wishes to address. However, a disabled person does not require wealth redistribution in order to access society and its opportunities. Such a person only requires accommodation of his disability so that he may physically be present at the opportunity.
He apparently mistakes "equal opportunity" for "same opportunity." "Opportunity" is simply the ability to act upon a circumstance for personal benefit. Nothing in the idea of "opportunity" requires the opportunity to present itself for access. Thus, opportunities should not be equally available.
In fact, opportunity specifically requires a person to work towards the place where that opportunity is. Opportunity is not handed out like candy at a parade. Opportunity is not legislated. It is not distributed. It simply exists, and requires a person to expend effort.)
Rather than leave these people to struggle with the bad hand that may have been dealt to them through past discriminatory practices, this liberal sees an obligation in his government to remedy past mistakes and to make whole those who have been harmed or hurt. (The first thing to note here is that it does not automatically fall to government to "make whole" someone.
Second, we don't even know if there has been harm. The author lumps people together into a class of "harmed" people who supposedly have been denied opportunity.
Third, the word "discriminatory" is arbitrary. It implies a systemic problem that requires a systemic remedy. This is not justified by Mr. Moor's presentation.
Fourth, it is clear that past efforts at remedy are abject failures. Those efforts have placed government in the position of determining fairness and implementing wealth redistribution in a vain attempt at addressing those inequalities. There is no evidence that any of these initiatives have had any systemic positive effect, and in fact, there is clear evidence that things are worse.)
It is not as though history is innocent. (History is not an agent. It is simply what has happened. The actions of people and/or government may have indeed inflicted harm in the past, but this has nothing to do with taking money from one person and redistributing it to another. Those who are well off are not the inflicters of harm. Yet Mr. Moor believes they ought to be made to pay for "inequality," and be penalized for something they had no hand in perpetrating.)
From our position of privilege, ("Our?" This suggests a shared identity that does not exist.
In addition, there is no such thing as a "position of privilege." Those who have worked hard to obtain a level of achievement and its attendant prosperity are not privileged. They deserve what they worked for. They've done nothing wrong. They've oppressed no one.
Further, those who achieved this prosperity have not done so at the cost of anyone else. Their share of the pie does not impact anyone else in any way. Thus, they do not owe anyone anything for reaping the rewards of their ingenuity, work, and risk taking to achieve something beneficial for themselves.)
it is dishonest to say, “I got here by my hard work, you do it too.” (How is it dishonest? What exactly is wrong with pointing to success and telling someone, "you can also benefit by hard work and make a life for yourself?" Rather than vilifying success and resenting the successful, why not emulate them, present them as role models, and encourage people to follow their own dreams in the possibility that they too might make themselves productive members of society?)
No comments:
Post a Comment