Stephen B. Young penned an article for the Minneapolis Star and Tribune (July29,2012) on the Nanny State. This talented writer was able to bundle Calvin’s belief that our lot in life is pre ordained, social Darwinism meaning only the “fit should survive” which is so Ayn Rand-ian, and the idea of me-ism gathered under the premise that we should hate the government. His claim that the founding fathers rejected Rousseau’s ideas when they formed our government is blatantly wrong. Like most conservatives, they attack what is most right by claiming it is most wrong; witness the current campaign driven by Rove. They attack Obama on all of his greatest accomplishments.
He wrote; Rousseau’s negative rights are claims on outcome that our own powers and abilities are insufficient to secure for us. This is the fundamental purpose of any democracy but especially our democracy. The radical right reads the Constitution of the Untied States as though we are living in 1776 before we had a military industrial complex, yearly tuitions of $53,000 per year, and over 300,000 citizens as we have in 2012. For another, but less complex example of misreading of that document, the Second Amendment of the Constitution says State’s militias have the rights to bear arms to protect their sovereignty. To achieve that end the authors wrote that the “rights of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” The amendment was clearly intended as "tax free" way to create a defense force to protect every state from a neighboring state, which is exactly what I mean when I say that attitudes and problems have changed from 1776. A radical Robert's Supreme Court has parsed this statement word for word and we end up where we are. In the same manner, people and in some cases the Supreme Court, read the constitution to mean that people have “negative rights”: rights to education, health care, a living wage, retirement income, vacation, parental leave, etc to mean that, to quote the author, “It is the responsibility of others to provide them for us. It’s life as free lunch.” He is so wrong.
This play on words in the quote should read, No it is not a free lunch; it is our responsibility to provide for each other and pay taxes to do it. The Constitution is an altruistic document. The government should be vested with the power to make it possible for all of these things to happen. We could add to the list Obama Care, social security for retirement, delivery of the mail, provided for a defensive army, interstate highways; regulate commerce, etc, etc, etc. They provide for all of these things by a progressive tax as well as with self sustaining programs. Those who have benefited the most from our society pay the most to maintain it. It is an us, us, us society and not a me, me, me society. He said a “house divided” cannot stand. He is right. If we think, we can survive, as 300,000 individuals in a world of 7 billion our own avariciousness we will lead to our doom.
Of course, we need regulations to control “free loaders”, the immoral, and the lazy but we also need to take care of those in true need. Right wing conservatives define progressives as wanting everyone to be lazy, not work, live on welfare, etc. Stephen Young did this between the lines then attacked those he defined in that way. Progressives want regulations to control welfare and make sure it goes to those truly in need but also we need regulations to control the rich man greed but also regulations to promote business. In respect to social Darwinism, we as a society need to control population growth, the perpetuation of genetic disease, and harm to our environment. But, we should never abandon our humanness and do as Ayn Rand suggests, just ignore them; a paraplegic need to live and have a measure of happiness; even those who are not victims of a war driven by unregulated arms industry. Counter to what Stephen Young seems to believe, we do not have to destroy the government to do all these good things. The opposite is more to the truth.
No comments:
Post a Comment