IMHO

By Terry Boyles, As Published in The Union

“In my humble opinion” thus begins and ends “The Moral High Ground parts 1 and 2” by Rob Chrisman. If only we and our leaders could really proceed with such a large measure of humility.

The writer proudly argues that the people’s government should do nothing but protect citizens from loss of “life, liberty, property”. But those three simple words encompass a wide range of interpretation. Hence our eternal, political, balancing act.

Our founding fathers recognized that a democratically elected government “by the people” can and should do more than deliver punishment for crimes of property and person.

While “like liberty” is indeed owed to every man. Every man’s ability to invoke that liberty is very much determined by their wealth and power. Life isn’t fair and never can be, but accumulated wealth does grant those who possess it far greater liberty than the poor.

In the libertarian’s world, everyone, rich and poor, deserves what they get. They feel that their “resources” are entirely theirs to do with as they please, as if their possessions were a part of them (an arm and a leg) granted the same spiritual autonomy as their souls. They argue that they, and they alone, deserve their resources, completely independent of any societal support or ancestral inheritance.

Tax is not “theft”. No society could long thrive without communal resources to address collective needs. It’s obvious to even the staunchest libertarian that some government spending, and taxation is necessary for at least some basic functions (eg building roads, national defense). On the other hand history indicates that a perfect altruistic utopia (free of personal possessions) is a foolish, even dangerous, dream.

More logically (please dispense with claims of moral high ground from either side), the people intercede to restrict behavior that might not rise to the level of simple theft or physical harm. It’s so easy to “live and let live” when you’re comfortable.

Chrisman seems to take umbrage at the idea that a “majority of one” can tell him what to do with his stuff. Whether it’s a plurality of one or 7 million votes, either you accept the principles of democracy and the will of the people, or you don’t. The constitution clearly grants congress the power to tax and spend citizens’ money. But would every one pony up if not compelled by law and punishment?

We can, quite rightly, agree to disagree about how much protection the state should be asked to deliver.

The libertarian rushes to raise the individual, and his unquestioned ability to deliver happiness to himself and his kin unimpeded by social obligations he may not endorse.

The socialist insists on a high level equity regardless of merit or individual industry.

Every citizen is dependent, to a certain degree, on a social order that allows our individual ability to think, speak, move, work, love and thrive that would be impossible in feudal, authoritarian or anarchic state. Our institutions (full of unelected bureaucrats) are an indispensable part of that order.

Political discourse, our support of certain candidates, or positions on legislative action, are now couched as identity instead of ideology. It’s not just liberals who claim the ethical high ground. Political stances, and support of particular candidates, becomes a matter of pride, and moral imperative.

Chrisman concludes his humble analysis of any economic “justice” that redistributes wealth as “the dark side”. Personal wealth and its accumulation, by his judgment, should never be tempered by government diktat, only individual choice.

When either side brings morality into the discussion, the ability to back down (even a little) and find compromise becomes impossible. Every election now finds us on the precipice of oblivion. “The end of America is at hand!”. How ridiculous.

Despite what we hear and read from the pundits… the vast majority of Americans do not subscribe 100% to the principles of either socialism or libertarianism. Woke or anti-woke. Who said that anyone should get everything they want? We are all Americans, diverse, but very much similarly human. We can work it out if we put our identities aside.

Let’s have faith in our constitution, go back to the voting booth, and choose reasonable candidates. Then congressional committees should hammer out our differences based on logic, law, and the spirit of cooperation and compromise. IMHO.

Previous
Previous

September 2023 — Update from the Chair

Next
Next

Ideas & Opinions — The Donald vs Democracy