Belinda wrote: ↑Thu Aug 20, 2020 8:38 am
But it is precisely the political left who have the more realistic i.e. pessimistic view of human nature. The political left view is human nature is such that without coercion men will not be sufficiently generous or even sufficiently cooperative.You wife obviously is exceptional.
Oh, I'm
certain that's not true. The "more realistic" comment, I mean.
The Left is willing to take away other people's property and redistribute it to themselves, that's for sure; but they do it in the most naive way. They actually think that if the "equalize" things, then people will behave well. They think that the problems with society are a product of society itself -- they never really think that society was created by THEM and took the form that human nature itself tends to take. They actually think they are of some higher and better stock than other human beings, seeing as they are so devoted to equality; and that they alone can be trusted to redistribute fairly. They think that their ideology, Socialism, will not lead to an opportunity for totalitarianism, no matter how many times they see that cycle repeated. They think instead, that the last person to try Socialism "did it wrong -- that wasn't 'real' Socialism -- and that if THEY had a chance to do it, it would all come out right, because THEY are so much better than those other Socialists....
In other words, the last human nature that they have any skepticism about is
their own. They are the most naive and self-trusting, the least self-aware of all people. Their view of general human nature is totally polyannish, totally uncritical, even while their view of conservatives is totally cynical.
At least conservatives, despite their faults, advocate for
limited or
minimal government with checks-and-balances. So even if you disagree with them, you will be safer from the excesses of human nature in a conservative polity. But Leftists think the government should be so big as to be in charge of all important functions -- education, medicine, economics, labour, consumption, arts, the media, and even personal expression -- and that controls and limitations on government power are just impediments to Utopia. And they think human nature is so trustworthy that their "big government" will never turn abusive.
One wonders where they think they're going to get these wonderful, sinless people who are going to populate their ideal society.
"greed, shortages, power grabs, denunciations, "cleansings," gulags, "re-education" camps, executions, disappearances, secret police and dictators follow."
are prevented by democracy.
Not in any of the Socialist places in history. They all kept using the word "democratic," or "people's republic," while being totalitarian.
Unfortunately with democracy you get people like Trump in charge . This is why universal high level education matters so much.
Heh. Higher education, unfortunately, is not security against stupidity. There are more Leftists in universities per capita than anywhere else. Tenure, an elitist environment, and distance from real life has the unfortunate side-effect of people who believe their own ideas without testing them. And because they've been told they're "smart," they don't think critiques from any "mere mortals" can really touch them, or should be taken seriously. Only their own peers really count, to them. There are exceptions, of course; but statistically, and especially in faculties like the Humanities, conservative scholars are as rare as hen's teeth, and they are marginalized by the vast hordes of Leftist believers.
Jesus was an educator, if you will allow the anachronistic term.
True in a general way. I wouldn't think that was a fair summary of what He really is, though.
Democracy is the least bad political response to unfair distribution .
I agree. So why should we let the Socialists eliminate it, would be my question. I know they speak about "Democratic Socialism," but that's as sensible an idea as Free Totalitarianism, as history has everywhere shown. And, as I say, it's unbelievably naive about human nature.
Besides -- who told them the current "distribution" was unfair? Perhaps it is; but it's not just obvious that income inequality is unfair, if people are not all doing the same jobs, with the same risks, for the same amount of time, and to the same level. Inequality might be exactly the most just outcome, if some people are working, or ingenious, or clever, or industrious, or risk-positive, or fortunate, and others are not. And equality-of-outcome can only be achieved through force and suppression of those traits.
And they managed that merely by how bad their policies were...they were still in a constitutional monarchy. Imagine how bad they'd have been if they'd been let loose?