Remember Millard Fillmore? Thirteenth President? He stood for limited government and states’ rights. At the same time, he complained after leaving office that “It is a national disgrace that our Presidents…should be cast adrift, and perhaps be compelled to keep a corner grocery for subsistence.” Not anymore, Fillmore.
Nowadays, Presidents don’t have to worry about retirement. They are well cared for by the government pensions they receive and by the private money that inundates them in tsunamis of lucrative opportunities that mostly just require their presence and not their supposed expertise.
Back to Fillmore. I guess you wanted it both ways, Millard. You supported a limited government, but you wanted that government to support you beyond the level of a local grocer’s economic status. How like so many of us you were. We don’t want to pay taxes, but we want the benefit of tax dollars. We want independence, but we, like Millard, don’t want to be “cast adrift.”
I mention this in the context of a rising movement toward socialism. True, trends toward socialism have waxed and waned since the nineteenth century with the pendulum swinging a little more Left than Right, like a plumb bob next to a rising mountain range. I’ve been hard pressed to explain the gravitational pull except to say that the orographic lift is the growing mass of humanity. More people, fewer jobs to go around in an industrialized and technical society where one machine, one robot, can do the work of many. Trust me, I’ve dug some ditches by hand, and I know a backhoe can outwork me.
Even in a service-centered society, machines have replaced humans as self-driving vehicles and package-delivering drones reveal. And that poses a problem for every modern society. What do we do with this mountain of humanity? How do we meet their needs lest they be “compelled to keep a corner grocery for subsistence”?
And the few who by either hard work or luck find themselves relatively independent also find themselves deemed as “unfairly” rich. Ah! “Fairness,” the guiding principle of socialism—if one excludes envy and covetousness.
Storytime: I remember sitting at lunch during a conference at a Left-leaning university and hearing from another table a Canadian say, “Since when did America do anything that is fair?” Keeping the peace, I remained silent because engaging would have probably stirred anger in those who were already inclined to rail against “inequities.” Over the course of four decades, I learned that Ivory Towers tend to close, rather than open, minds, a feature of academia that I see exacerbated today in shout-downs of speakers with “opposing views.” Anyway, the comment about American unfairness made me wonder whether anyone who espouses fairness can truly define what that means, especially since many of those in academia who so proclaim its virtues are seated in chairs of steady tenure with a promise of a lucrative pension that will keep them from a life of subsistence as a local grocer.
It appears to me that those in jobs with steady, protected incomes are ironically drawn to socialism. They do not see themselves as members of a special class. That seems particularly true of elected officials who reap the benefits of steady pay, numerous perks like tax-funded staff and junkets, and promised pensions. They push for equity through redistribution—as long as it isn’t the redistribution of what they personally have. It never seems to occur to those who push socialism and rail against the rich that they are themselves richer than someone else. If redistribution is the cure for unfairness and inequity, why not apply the principle at home: Surely, you have an extra pair of shoes you could give that homeless person. Surely, you have more than one audio device, more than one radio, that is, to give to another. Challenge to socialists: Count the number of duplicates you have. Count the radios, TVs, cars, chairs, sets of dishes, beach homes. Surely, you can give away one of those for the sake of equity and redistribution.
By chance I came across an editorial by a Dr. Bill Cummings this morning. Entitled “Charity vs. Socialism.” The Telegraph opinion piece from November, 2013, ranks those countries by their charitable giving, basically, by their “voluntary redistribution.” Cummings writes that the United States ranks first in charitable giving. He also says that socialist and socialist-leaning countries fall far down the list of charitable givers.
I suppose that were I to meet once again that Canadian who claimed that America did support “fairness,” I might point out the fact of its voluntary charity and government foreign aid. But I won’t be unrealistic. As in the evolution of every place on the planet, groups have contested, often violently, this or that piece of land. From fights to wars, every country has a similar history of development. I also suppose that I could not justify Europeans forcing Native Americans from their traditional lands in what seems now as an act of "unfairness"; yet, I do know that all was not peace and harmony among warring Huron and Iroquois and just about every other contending groups. But I would note that it is demonstrable that Socialist governments killed upwards of 160 million people—many of them their own citizens—during the twentieth and twenty-first centuries. Hitler’s socialist party (Nazis), Stalin’s Soviet Union, Mao’s China, Mussolini’s Italy, and other socialist countries have systematically performed democide and imposed imprisonment and poverty on their citizens. If that is the “fairness” that socialists want to deny, there’s little argumentation that can convince them otherwise.
But, of course, as I and others have mentioned elsewhere, the claim by today’s socialists is that, “No, our socialism is different because we will be in charge.” They say so not realizing that the same statement has been made for more than a century. But the result is always the same. Some dictator or group of oligarchs assumes control. Privileged classes arise. Inequality prevails, and a population suffers, more so, it seems, than in capitalistic societies.
I will grant that the mountain of humanity does make the plumb bob or the pendulum of public opinion vary from the vertical. I will also grant that unequal distribution is a repetitive state in the real world. The people of Bangladesh are not going to mine tungsten or titanium unless they pan for those elements in the waters of the Ganges and Brahmaputra rivers. I will not be able to mine for gold in the coal fields of western Pennsylvania, but I could drill for natural gas that people in other regions cannot find beneath their feet. The planet did not form with some guiding principle of equal distribution. Mineral wealth—the source of most wealth—lies unevenly distributed and is not as ubiquitous as the humans that mine it.
I would be foolish if I thought to envy Cape Cod lobstermen for their catch. I live inland. I would also be foolish if I thought those lobstermen should provide gratis lobsters to western Pennsylvania. All distribution comes at a cost of some kind. Is it fair that New England lobstermen get to eat as much lobster as they wish while the closest critter I have is some tiny crayfish in the stream that runs through my property? Is it fair for me to have royalties from a gas well that a New England lobsterman will not get?
If you remember your history, you’ll recall that Mussolini told his citizens that his form of socialism—Fascism—would make the trains run more efficiently. It didn’t. Like so many other socialist promises, his promises were empty. And like so many other socialists, his Fascism led to the deaths and impoverishment of many Italians as he personally consolidated more power.
I suppose all of us hold some contradictory positions like Millard Fillmore. And among those positions lie the struggle we have between being personally free to fail and wanting to be protected from failing. Maybe life can’t be fair. But maybe, also, we’re lucky that someone serves us as the local grocer.
Nowadays, Presidents don’t have to worry about retirement. They are well cared for by the government pensions they receive and by the private money that inundates them in tsunamis of lucrative opportunities that mostly just require their presence and not their supposed expertise.
Back to Fillmore. I guess you wanted it both ways, Millard. You supported a limited government, but you wanted that government to support you beyond the level of a local grocer’s economic status. How like so many of us you were. We don’t want to pay taxes, but we want the benefit of tax dollars. We want independence, but we, like Millard, don’t want to be “cast adrift.”
I mention this in the context of a rising movement toward socialism. True, trends toward socialism have waxed and waned since the nineteenth century with the pendulum swinging a little more Left than Right, like a plumb bob next to a rising mountain range. I’ve been hard pressed to explain the gravitational pull except to say that the orographic lift is the growing mass of humanity. More people, fewer jobs to go around in an industrialized and technical society where one machine, one robot, can do the work of many. Trust me, I’ve dug some ditches by hand, and I know a backhoe can outwork me.
Even in a service-centered society, machines have replaced humans as self-driving vehicles and package-delivering drones reveal. And that poses a problem for every modern society. What do we do with this mountain of humanity? How do we meet their needs lest they be “compelled to keep a corner grocery for subsistence”?
And the few who by either hard work or luck find themselves relatively independent also find themselves deemed as “unfairly” rich. Ah! “Fairness,” the guiding principle of socialism—if one excludes envy and covetousness.
Storytime: I remember sitting at lunch during a conference at a Left-leaning university and hearing from another table a Canadian say, “Since when did America do anything that is fair?” Keeping the peace, I remained silent because engaging would have probably stirred anger in those who were already inclined to rail against “inequities.” Over the course of four decades, I learned that Ivory Towers tend to close, rather than open, minds, a feature of academia that I see exacerbated today in shout-downs of speakers with “opposing views.” Anyway, the comment about American unfairness made me wonder whether anyone who espouses fairness can truly define what that means, especially since many of those in academia who so proclaim its virtues are seated in chairs of steady tenure with a promise of a lucrative pension that will keep them from a life of subsistence as a local grocer.
It appears to me that those in jobs with steady, protected incomes are ironically drawn to socialism. They do not see themselves as members of a special class. That seems particularly true of elected officials who reap the benefits of steady pay, numerous perks like tax-funded staff and junkets, and promised pensions. They push for equity through redistribution—as long as it isn’t the redistribution of what they personally have. It never seems to occur to those who push socialism and rail against the rich that they are themselves richer than someone else. If redistribution is the cure for unfairness and inequity, why not apply the principle at home: Surely, you have an extra pair of shoes you could give that homeless person. Surely, you have more than one audio device, more than one radio, that is, to give to another. Challenge to socialists: Count the number of duplicates you have. Count the radios, TVs, cars, chairs, sets of dishes, beach homes. Surely, you can give away one of those for the sake of equity and redistribution.
By chance I came across an editorial by a Dr. Bill Cummings this morning. Entitled “Charity vs. Socialism.” The Telegraph opinion piece from November, 2013, ranks those countries by their charitable giving, basically, by their “voluntary redistribution.” Cummings writes that the United States ranks first in charitable giving. He also says that socialist and socialist-leaning countries fall far down the list of charitable givers.
I suppose that were I to meet once again that Canadian who claimed that America did support “fairness,” I might point out the fact of its voluntary charity and government foreign aid. But I won’t be unrealistic. As in the evolution of every place on the planet, groups have contested, often violently, this or that piece of land. From fights to wars, every country has a similar history of development. I also suppose that I could not justify Europeans forcing Native Americans from their traditional lands in what seems now as an act of "unfairness"; yet, I do know that all was not peace and harmony among warring Huron and Iroquois and just about every other contending groups. But I would note that it is demonstrable that Socialist governments killed upwards of 160 million people—many of them their own citizens—during the twentieth and twenty-first centuries. Hitler’s socialist party (Nazis), Stalin’s Soviet Union, Mao’s China, Mussolini’s Italy, and other socialist countries have systematically performed democide and imposed imprisonment and poverty on their citizens. If that is the “fairness” that socialists want to deny, there’s little argumentation that can convince them otherwise.
But, of course, as I and others have mentioned elsewhere, the claim by today’s socialists is that, “No, our socialism is different because we will be in charge.” They say so not realizing that the same statement has been made for more than a century. But the result is always the same. Some dictator or group of oligarchs assumes control. Privileged classes arise. Inequality prevails, and a population suffers, more so, it seems, than in capitalistic societies.
I will grant that the mountain of humanity does make the plumb bob or the pendulum of public opinion vary from the vertical. I will also grant that unequal distribution is a repetitive state in the real world. The people of Bangladesh are not going to mine tungsten or titanium unless they pan for those elements in the waters of the Ganges and Brahmaputra rivers. I will not be able to mine for gold in the coal fields of western Pennsylvania, but I could drill for natural gas that people in other regions cannot find beneath their feet. The planet did not form with some guiding principle of equal distribution. Mineral wealth—the source of most wealth—lies unevenly distributed and is not as ubiquitous as the humans that mine it.
I would be foolish if I thought to envy Cape Cod lobstermen for their catch. I live inland. I would also be foolish if I thought those lobstermen should provide gratis lobsters to western Pennsylvania. All distribution comes at a cost of some kind. Is it fair that New England lobstermen get to eat as much lobster as they wish while the closest critter I have is some tiny crayfish in the stream that runs through my property? Is it fair for me to have royalties from a gas well that a New England lobsterman will not get?
If you remember your history, you’ll recall that Mussolini told his citizens that his form of socialism—Fascism—would make the trains run more efficiently. It didn’t. Like so many other socialist promises, his promises were empty. And like so many other socialists, his Fascism led to the deaths and impoverishment of many Italians as he personally consolidated more power.
I suppose all of us hold some contradictory positions like Millard Fillmore. And among those positions lie the struggle we have between being personally free to fail and wanting to be protected from failing. Maybe life can’t be fair. But maybe, also, we’re lucky that someone serves us as the local grocer.
RSS Feed