All Western democracies are, to a degree, communist.
The United States is a Western democracy.
Ergo, the United States is, to a degree, communist.
That's not a compliment nor is it an insult. It is a straightforward argument exemplifying deductive reasoning. You may disagree with the conclusion, but the logic is sound. So if you disagree, it must be that you don't accept one or both of the premises. You probably agree with the idea that the United States is a “Western democracy,”i so the first premise remains has to be the one in question. Most likely, you disagree either with the word “all” or the word “communist” – probably the latter term. So let me explain what I mean when I use it.
In a world in which the original principle was “every man for himself,” societies were established. The “State of Nature” may have a lovely ring, but the “Law of the Jungle”ii was the general operating principle, and it was this system from which people needed protection. So societies were established: people agreed to trade some of their liberties for protection. It was a selfish agreement, but a necessary one. In fact, the American Constitution is based on the idea that the primary function of the new government was for the protection of its citizens from each other and from outside powers. To ensure governmental adherence to its limited responsibilities, and to “protect” its citizens from … From what, precisely?
That's not so clear. The Constitution was, by design, a little ambiguous on several issues. Only twice in the body of the document is the word found – once in Article II Section 1 Paragraph 8, which includes the protection of the Constitution in the presidential oath, and once in Article IV section 4 which includes, as an obligation of the United States to its citizens, to “protect each of them against Invasion.”
Congress has seen fit to enlarge that apparently limited responsibility to include many of the vicissitudes of life. The term “promote the general welfare” also appears twice in our constitution and the idea is that concern for the “welfare” of our citizens is a primary goal, though there is ample disagreement as to the meaning of the term. It seems to be the basis for the entire idea of entitlements. Indeed, much our current concern for the equitable treatment of all our citizens falls under the rubric of “welfare” – whether that was its meaning or not.
On both occasions of its appearance, “promote the general welfare” followed “provide for the common defense.” The first occasion was in the preamblei and the second in Article I Section 8, which dealt with taxation. Thomas Jefferson understood that section to indicate that the taxation was not to be used for general welfare but to provide funds to support armed forces. Along the way, however, the concept of general welfare has been expanded to include far more, and those who oppose entitlements or the taxes to support them are deemed racists or worse.ii Nonetheless, we are left with numerous programs offering payments to many different groupsiii in terms of cash, food stamps, housing allowances, government jobs, tax breaks, health care, and a wide variety of other means to help them make ends meet.iv We're left with the need to protect ourselves from ourselves and from others in our own society as well as threats from abroad.
We're also left with what we viewvii as high taxes and a huge national debt. But our children and grandchildren will deal with that.
We have adopted the well-known approach: “From each according to his ability, to each according to his need.” After all, it's only fair that we help those who are in need. That's what Karl Marx saidviii and it's a shame that labeling it as a Communist doctrine gives it a bad name. What is clear, however, is that it's a costly idea, and that those who decide how to redistribute the wealth – as well as those who already have it – usually make out like bandits.
To be continued.
Next episode: “You Get What You Pay For? – Part 2” – At least most of us pay.
i I'm sure that some of our citizens – usually members of what are politely called “fringe groups” – would disagree, but I'll proceed without their concurrence.
“Now this is the Law of the Jungle – as old and as true as the sky;
And the Wolf that shall keep it may prosper, but the Wolf that shall break it must die.”
iii “We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence [sic], promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”
That's the preamble, and it states the purpose of the entire document. Parts of it are quite clear although others, especially the idea of the “general Welfare,” are somewhat ambiguous and subject to interpretation. The same is true of the other reference.
iv The subject of entitlements, in the context of that compromise document, the Constitution, will be treated in a future blog.
v Including large sums for the rich by means of programs, loopholes, and various kinds of other benefits. Also gaining by such means are members of Congress, and politicians in general, who seem to be entitled to whatever they can get their hands on.
vi The ends justify the means.
vii Not everyone would agree, however. Some countries charge higher taxes and provide greater benefits.
"In a higher phase of communist society, after the enslaving subordination of the individual to the division of labor, and therewith also the antithesis between mental and physical labor, has vanished; after labor has become not only a means of life but life's prime want; after the productive forces have also increased with the all-around development of the individual, and all the springs of co-operative wealth flow more abundantly—only then can the narrow horizon of bourgeois right be crossed in its entirety and society inscribe on its banners: From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs.”
No comments:
Post a Comment
I know you agree, but you can leave comments anyway.