.
In praise of DISPARATE IMPACT
The American Constitution enshrines the INDIVIDUL above the STATE, ABOVE the COLLECTIVE/community.
It does this by severely limiting government action and involvement in the day-to-day affairs of its free citizens and by barring government control over any portion of the economy and enshrining private property rights.
Private property rights and individualism combine to make the equalization of people impossible, as they codify a severe and draconian “disparate impact” into what is defined as “individual Liberty.”
Under that system, the clever put the yolk on both the brilliant and the poor (who wind up doing the bulk of all the back-breaking work). The “clever” are generally not the most intellectually gifted and certainly NOT the often mocked, “effete, educated elite,” as educational achievement and intelligence are not consistently correlative. The “clever” are often derided as “the investor class,” or “the entrepreneurial class,” as they are, in fact the investors, speculators and entrepreneurs who create profitable concerns from their own thoughts. The “clever” are generally the most gifted in common sense, ironically enough, an area in which the many of the “intellectually gifted” are not.
Under individual Liberty, "the clever," who number at most perhaps 15 – 20 percent of the population, at most, come to completely dominate it. And while there is no greater “disparate impact” than that, there is also nothing that increases human achievement and progress more than that, either.
Moreover, “disparate impact” (differing outcomes based on factors like abilities, ambitions, ruthlessness and cunning that often translate into differences between various economic classes and ethnic groups) is not only “right and just,” but “Constitutional,” as it is codified into the original American Constitution in the name of property rights.
The vicious free-for-all of the open/free market, private property rights and INDIVIDUALISM works in that it creates the MOST prosperity for the MOST people.
The best that can be said for any form of COLLECTIVISM is that “despite producing less prosperity and a (“slightly” to “significantly”) lower overall standard of living (depending on your viewpoint) it also greatly reduces the innate disparate impact that individualism allows and enables the government to do more to equalize people economically.” When all is said and done, that amounts to virtually no argument at all, as it concedes at the start that INDIVIDUALISM and economic freedom produce MORE prosperity for MORE people.
The American Constitution that codified private property rights, individualism and economic freedom as the structural essence of the USA was at least the 5,000 year leap in the advancement of man that W. Cleon Skousen said it was.
Those who view this document, a document that “enshrines a socially Darwinist "disparate impact" based on guile over intellect and refinement,” as flawed believe that simply because they fail to understand that freedom is innately unequal and that common sense is far more valuable, at least in terms of human advancement than mere genius.
Liberty is the full weight of personal responsibility. It is not an easy path. It’s not even a “fair path.” It does not limit the natural inequities of man, it accepts them as natural and reinforces them. It is not neat and clean, but it is prosperous. It is not kind and tolerant, but it is prosperous. It is not stagnant, static and more equal, but it is powerfully dynamic, coldly opportunistic and nakedly prosperous.
In short, it is not only the best system in terms of advancing mankind and increasing prosperity ever advanced, it is a system so far advanced that its contemporary critics do not even understand it well enough to make an informed critique.
11 comments:
Not according to Barry; government MUST be the arbiter and decider of all things fair, and equally distributed. This part of the Constitution must be, therefore, stricken from the record.
Again, according to Barry.
Not according to, I trust, a majority of voters in '10 and again in '12.
A conservative post about the constitution and the nature of our founding that doesn't have monotheism plastered all over it?
Very good stuff.
There are two distinct schools of thought on this SF, the first is that the wide disparities in wealth and achievement that individual LIBERTY and private property rights INEVITABLE bring about are acceptable, and another that says that such a system rewards that "clever" 20% (at most), with perhaps another 65% to 70% do "well enough" as productive workers, independent artisans, craftsmen and other professionals, while the least capable, the most damaged among us, or the "non-productive 10% to 15%" suffer mightily, especially in regards to "relative deprivcation," is unacceptable.
I have little problem with those who believe and espouse the second viewpoint, but I DO have a HUGE problem with their inability to be honest about their agenda and their inability to argue their ideology upfront and honestly.
Moreover, America IS an ideology - its FOUNDING ideology, so such people (those opposed to that founding viewpoint) should LEAVE and start their owen communal culture somewhere else.
Perhaps they recognize this and that's why they're unwilling to argue their views honestly!
I have no problem with religion First breath, though I'm not at all religious myself.
I am somewhat spiritual, but I've never had any inclination to proselytize my own views on such matters.
I don't disagree with those who'd say that ALL of Western morality, let alone that upon which America was founded is rooted in the Judeo-Christian (Monotheistic) ethic, but in my view, the government should NOT be in the business of either promoting OR discouraging any specific religious beliefs or institutions.
That is sorely being put to the test today with the rise of the "death cult" called "traditional Islam."
In general, Theocracies of all stripes are inherently tyrannical and I believe unsupported by ANY of America's founders, as spiritual as the Deists (Franklin, Jefferson especially) were and how religious the others (such as Adams, Madison, etc.) all were. They seemed to see no role for government in either encouraging or discouraging such personal beliefs.
Thanks for commenting...much appreciated input. Very thought-provoking.
hiya JMK..it is a system so far advanced that its contemporary critics do not even understand it well enough to make an informed critique...well that sure does say it all..Sarah Palin spoke truth to power at the last Tea Party as well~!
Hi Angel!
The Tea Parties are being derided by the pseudo-elites as "hate."
Well hating big, intrusive government is a virtue, embracing it is supporting despotism and tyranny.
Everyone at any future TEA Party events should be looking around for potential infiltrators.
Take pictures of anyone holding up nazi signs, or signs with obvious racially/ethnically offensive messages....today people can be readily identified by image comparison software.
The Tea Party infiltration is the answer the Left has, when it's debating points are intellectually and factually bankrupt, and all it has is smear, misrepresent, and undermine. The Left cannot go head-to-head in the arena of honest debate, and it knows it; hence, the tactics of Nazis.
Which is no surprise, since we have already established that Nazis were, and remain, leftists.
"The Tea Party infiltration is the answer the Left has, when it's debating points are intellectually and factually bankrupt, and all it has is smear, misrepresent, and undermine. The Left cannot go head-to-head in the arena of honest debate, and it knows it; hence, the tactics of Nazis." (SF)
ABSOLUTELY!
No one has ever been able to make a positive, affirmative argument in favor of Leftist policies and that's why they lie, demean, obfuscate and slime.
"Which is no surprise, since we have already established that Nazis were, and remain, leftists." (SF)
Oh GOD....and before anyone accuses you of violating "Godwin's Law," you're 100% RIGHT!
For a GREAT site devoted to proving just that, SEE: http://constitutionalistnc.tripod.com/hitler-leftist/index.html
It's an awesome site!
From it comes the incredible Hitler quote, " "We are socialists, we are enemies of today's capitalistic economic system for the exploitation of the economically weak, with its unfair salaries, with its unseemly evaluation of a human being according to wealth and property instead of responsibility and performance, and we are all determined to destroy this system under all conditions." - Adolf Hitler
(Speech of May 1, 1927. Quoted by John Toland, 1976, p. 306)
Leftists run like hell from that particular quote.
Wonder why...
Fact is, Hitler was ALWAYS a far-left loon. The fact that he despised OTHER far-Left loons (like Germany's kooky Communist party) does not indicate ANY "anti-Left" sentiments on his part.
This is an excellent post and makes clear that the Founders wanted a small limited government. I believe the best approach to restore sanity to our government is to demand a balanced budget.
If Congress balanced the budget they would heve to cut spending. Then we can argue over where the money is spent after we have eliminated the deficit.
All the other issues are just a smokescreen the politicians stir up to keep the voters from seeing the real problem--the excess spending and corruption in high places.
"I believe the best approach to restore sanity to our government is to demand a balanced budget." (Bill Greene)
GREAT insight Bill, that would be a direct way to force such a reduction, BUT remember, government has always made even the smallest cuts demanded of it FROM the programs people depend on most...a sort of, "We'll learn ya not to mess with us," sort of strategy. I've seen it work in NYC for eons. Cut where it impacts the people the most and watch'em howl...to the point where they'll even accept tax hikes instead.
What we need is nothing short of the end of the current political-economy, this perverse partnership between business and government (Corporatism, the "regulated-market or "crony capitalism"), but that would take a number of things, including a complete overturning of the existing political class, the eradication of the lawyer/legislator (which is an walking innate conflict of interests) and a fundamental change in our tax system, which now places over 71% of all income taxes on the top 10% of wage earners, who account for 45% of the annual aggregate income of the country. The elimination of the income tax (repealing the 16th Amendment) and moving to some form of consumption-based tax would be the way to do that. Such a tax system would garner tremendous revenues now overlooked in "the underground economy."
We'd also have to reform the tort system, capping damage awards and returning to the concept of "Assumed Risk," which is concurrent with personal responsibility. Under assumed risk the burden for a civil tort would be raised drastically, requiring proof that the plaintiff/litigant be able to prove malice, malfeasance or wanton disregard for public safety.
The concept of "Assumed Risk" held sway in America up through the 1930s, when it began to be eroded, it's fall occurring almost unnoticed in the late 1950s and early 1960s. What its eradication did was to make it even harder for new upstarts to enter any existing market to compete with the already established and favored (govt protected) enterprises/entities and it turned much of America from productive sovereign citizens to parasitic moochers, looking to government and the law to deliver them largesse they neither earned, nor deserved.
While agree that a balanced budget is a good starting point, that's true ONLY IF there is the political will to cut REAL waste, real duplication of services, and real excess...and not the old "stupid government trick" of "punishing the people for complaining about waste, fraud and abuse by cutting essential services first."
It's been a long, protracted, multi-pronged attack AGAINST America's founding principles, and it will require nothing less than that to turn this all around.
P.S. GREAT blog you have.
Re the "clever" people who succeed so well, it ius true that they rely more on common sense than high intellect. Indeed, the theory of history that I present at www.thecommongenius.com indicates that historical progress came from the efforts of common people, not from the great men or great philosophers and intellectuals of history.
And it is true that those of the highest intellect--think high SAT and IQ scores--are frequently so out of touch with reality that their programs do more harm than good. However, my analysis of history shows that past societies, if and when they reached great prosperity and freedom for their people, became infiltrated and taken over by a new elite with the verbal virtuosity and educational credentials to impress the ordinary people who built the society. 18th century Scotland was a prime example, as was ancient Greece and Rome.
I fear the same trend is occurring here in America and has been since Woodrow Wilson's days 100 years ago. Obama's election shows how far this trend to intellectual elites has gone and it spells trouble for our future. While the clever people are still making the country run, the new leaders are undermining everything that built success.
Post a Comment