Well, when leftists try to make the “you’re not a humanist” accusation, just throw it right back in their face, with cherries on top. After all, do we not know that liberty is not only morally right but the most enriching and leads to the greatest prosperity for individuals and society as a whole? The leftist espouses a social order which logically and historically entails grinding poverty, starvation, a standard of living at or slightly below subsistence, while politically powerful individuals rape and pillage in manner that would put any 19th-century nobility or royalty to shame. I am speaking, of course, of communism in its various manifestations.
There are many ways to illustrate the anti-humanist tendencies of leftists. However you choose to do it, just remember that most leftists are misanthropes who believe that humanity is a “virus” upon the planet. It’s not hard to goad them to exhibit that. When you are championing individual self-expression, whether by the poor or rich, equality before law, where neither rich nor poor are permitted to steal, you will easily “out-humanist” the misanthropic leftist who is all pessimism on the human condition and believes that nobody can make decisions for themselves without the intervention of the enlightened “experts”.
In my opinion, a leftist is stupid to bring this subject up… it’s like bringing a knife to a gunfight.
The problem with this approach is that it seems to imply that the poor are poor as a result solely of personal failings. This is not true. In large part, the poor are poor as a result of the pervasive exploitation of the State (think of how inflation hurts the poor the most and how taxes hurt everyone, no matter whether they are collected from the rich). So, on the one hand, the poor are poor because they are systematically exploited by the very machinery that the leftist believes will “level the playing field”. On the other hand, some poor are poor as a result of choice. Take legendary rock climber Dan Osman, for example. The guy could barely pay his bills but he lived as he chose. He stole from no one and accepted no hand outs but he was relatively poor. He lived free of the complex entanglements of modern society. His choice. His poverty was not the result of any “failing”, simply a conscious choice to pursue his dreams instead of pursuing an industrially productive career. The ethos of liberalism is exactly this… so long as you don’t steal from or aggress against others, any path you choose is perfectly legitimate… pursue it to your heart’s content.
Of course, most people are not Dan Osman. Among those who are not wealthy but wish they were are the masses of failed businessmen looking to blame somebody (often, they have a legitimate complaint… against the State!) and those without even the gumption to apply themselves to any form of self-improvement. They play the lottery religiously in the hope of “striking it rich”. These are the “deservedly poor” - they are those who whine and complain that they are not richer all while they will not lift a finger to do the simplest thing - such as getting a job, let alone working a second job as many have done - to build capital to move up. The flip-side of the NAP is that if you want more resources to consume on your own pleasures, you must produce morevalue for society. The only exceptions to this are government employees, criminals and prodigal heirs. The issue of inheritance is its own can of worms, but surely all the world ills are not the result of “unearned” inheritance. [8-)]
And yet, despite inflation and taxes, most people are not poor even though most people enter the workforce after high school or college with little to no financial assets.
Another mistake I often see from the left is in the vilification of chance or luck. Any station in life you are born in is thus supposedly unearned and illegitimate. You cannot possibly affect your own DNA (currently), thus genetic traits that are economically superior are unearned and illegitimate. The entrepreneurial profits you make on risk-taking ventures is unearned and illegitimate. On the other hand, if a freak tornado destroys the mill and you are left jobless, it’s not your fault.
While I would agree that initial conditions of life have no “earned” merit and that natural disasters aren’t anyone’s fault yet produce negative consequences, there is no practical solution to these “problems”. If you decide to handicap the “undeservedly” strong or distribute entrepreneurial gains and inheritances over the whole society, you undermine both productive abilities and incentives.
I don’t know. I tend to place greater weight on personal traits than environment. But then again, I’m only comfortable because of my environment. But am I the rule or the exception?
Milton Friedman once said when asked if he were ever poor or on welfare. “Of course…but that is all irrelevant. Is there one of you who is going to say you don’t want a doctor to treat you for cancer unless he himself has had cancer?”
I never said those people in particular were “shiftless.” Maybe for them, the environment is a great factor in their poverty. I still wouldn’t try to take money from anyone else to help those people. If someone wants to help them, they can, if they don’t want to, they don’t have to.
Indeed, an environment’s influence on someone can not be under estimated. A once prosperous, rich, and intellectual culture is now poverty stricken, with little opportunity for an individual to excel due to factors beyond ones control.
Indeed, an environment’s influence on someone can not be under estimated. A once prosperous, rich, and intellectual culture is now poverty stricken, with little opportunity for an individual to excel due to factors beyond ones control.
But that’s the left’s argument. These people can’t help themselves, someone needs to help them, bring in the government.
I can understand it because yeah, they can help these people now, but the way they go about doing it sucks and the long term consequences of doing so can outweigh the temporary benefits.
Just pointing out a case where environment is as important, if not more so, than “personal traits”. I suggest you watch that whole documentary if you have the opportunity, it’s pretty nuts.
This is definitely a good example of how important a role environment can play. I do not know if it illustrates a general rule or not. I will try to check it out though, it looked pretty crazy. All those flies.