Wednesday, February 23, 2005
Politics: The Mythical "A Good Life"
A few months ago I was sharing lunch with a respected and very intelligent friend of mine, Robert. As an aside, I had tried hard and failed to categorize Robert's philosophy on more than one occasion, and I think I had been eager to label him some flavor of Leftist though he always resisted being categorized. The most he would ever admit to was having a problem with authority.) Anyhow, during lunch, I was, as per usual, arguing under my accepted premises of individual rights (including property rights) and freedom. After enduring my arguments for several minutes Robert offered up some advice in a condescending-yet-friendly tone of voice that it may do me good if I went to Portland, Oregan sometime to hear their points of view.
Aware that Robert's advice was designed principally to aquaint me with the arguments of the Leftists who infest Portland, I told him that I had no interest in his suggestion because as soon as they made a single argument that relied on the notions of "need," "greed," or "exploitation" then I would simply turn off my brain and stop communicating. I disagree with those concepts fundamentally, so why should I waste my and their valuable time entertaining an argument that is based on those concepts? I reminded him that one can't get a true conclusion from a false premise.
We left the restaurant and Robert challenged my lack of desire to entertain any arguments based on need. I answered to him that need always implied a desired action. For example, "I need a pen in order to write a letter." What I objected to was the open-ended need that Lefists so frequenly invoke to justify plunder. He retorted that people do, in fact, have certain needs or they will die, and, to this, I agreed. If our brains go three minutes without oxygen, we will die. Therefore, we need a constant supply of oxygen in order to stay alive.
As we pulled out of the parking lot, I thought of an example which would not only help explain my point of view, but crystallize why Leftist philosophy seems superstitious to me. Working from our previous agreement that humans have certain needs for basic survival, I asked him, "Robert, do homeless people get what they need?" Robert answered affirmatively, obviously seeing that homeless people would all be dead if they didn't get what they needed. He then added, "But they don't get what they need to have a good life."
"And that's where the subject becomes completely subjective," I told him. I offered, "I want to have a six-million dollar house to have a good life. I need it."
What is this "a good life" that justifies plunder? Does everyone deserve "a good life"? Obviously not! If I decide that my hobby is to kill children and then rape their mothers, then I don't deserve "a good life." I think most Leftists would agree with me on that. (I personally believe that if such horrible actions were truly my behavior, then I would deserve to suffer and die the way my victims suffered and died, but that's a different discussion.) So let's go up the ladder of bad behavior and decide where the cutoff is between "a good life" and "prison." What if I'm not a murderer, but merely a rapist? Okay, what if I'm not a rapist, but I make a living mugging people at gunpoint (but don't actually shoot or kill anyone)? Okay, suppose I have seven breaking-and-entering charges against me. What if it's only six? Or one? What if I'm just lazy and can't keep a job because I would rather smoke pot and play video games all day long? At what point does "prison" turn into "a good life"?
My guess is that if you ask 1,000 different Leftists where the cutoff is then you're going to get 1,000 different answers.
Now let's discuss what perks are to be included in "a good life." Do I get a house? Or just an apartment? Does it have to be in a "safe" part of town? Am I entitled to children? Does that entitlement depend on "how good" of a parent I am? Do I get a free education? Through college? Even if I change majors nineteen times and it takes me twenty years to graduate? How about food? Do I get to eat lobster and rack of lamb once a week or five times per week? Or will it be decided that eating some things (fill in the food items that violate your particular food morality) will be considered "unhealthy" and thus not part of "a good life"? What about clothing? Do I get designer clothes? Am I entitled to impress my friends so that I may have a high self-esteem?
I could go on and on. My guess is that you ask 1,000,000 different Leftists what all is included in "a good life" then you're going to get 1,000,000 different answers.
The "a good life" is one of the superstitious beliefs in Leftism. It goes hand-in-hand with "the common good." The "a good life" is frequently invoked but rarely named, and it is most frequently argued with an example of a person who is not deemed to be living in "a good life." It's easy to show an example of what "a good life" is NOT, but it's impossible to show what "a good life" IS.
Aware that Robert's advice was designed principally to aquaint me with the arguments of the Leftists who infest Portland, I told him that I had no interest in his suggestion because as soon as they made a single argument that relied on the notions of "need," "greed," or "exploitation" then I would simply turn off my brain and stop communicating. I disagree with those concepts fundamentally, so why should I waste my and their valuable time entertaining an argument that is based on those concepts? I reminded him that one can't get a true conclusion from a false premise.
We left the restaurant and Robert challenged my lack of desire to entertain any arguments based on need. I answered to him that need always implied a desired action. For example, "I need a pen in order to write a letter." What I objected to was the open-ended need that Lefists so frequenly invoke to justify plunder. He retorted that people do, in fact, have certain needs or they will die, and, to this, I agreed. If our brains go three minutes without oxygen, we will die. Therefore, we need a constant supply of oxygen in order to stay alive.
As we pulled out of the parking lot, I thought of an example which would not only help explain my point of view, but crystallize why Leftist philosophy seems superstitious to me. Working from our previous agreement that humans have certain needs for basic survival, I asked him, "Robert, do homeless people get what they need?" Robert answered affirmatively, obviously seeing that homeless people would all be dead if they didn't get what they needed. He then added, "But they don't get what they need to have a good life."
"And that's where the subject becomes completely subjective," I told him. I offered, "I want to have a six-million dollar house to have a good life. I need it."
What is this "a good life" that justifies plunder? Does everyone deserve "a good life"? Obviously not! If I decide that my hobby is to kill children and then rape their mothers, then I don't deserve "a good life." I think most Leftists would agree with me on that. (I personally believe that if such horrible actions were truly my behavior, then I would deserve to suffer and die the way my victims suffered and died, but that's a different discussion.) So let's go up the ladder of bad behavior and decide where the cutoff is between "a good life" and "prison." What if I'm not a murderer, but merely a rapist? Okay, what if I'm not a rapist, but I make a living mugging people at gunpoint (but don't actually shoot or kill anyone)? Okay, suppose I have seven breaking-and-entering charges against me. What if it's only six? Or one? What if I'm just lazy and can't keep a job because I would rather smoke pot and play video games all day long? At what point does "prison" turn into "a good life"?
My guess is that if you ask 1,000 different Leftists where the cutoff is then you're going to get 1,000 different answers.
Now let's discuss what perks are to be included in "a good life." Do I get a house? Or just an apartment? Does it have to be in a "safe" part of town? Am I entitled to children? Does that entitlement depend on "how good" of a parent I am? Do I get a free education? Through college? Even if I change majors nineteen times and it takes me twenty years to graduate? How about food? Do I get to eat lobster and rack of lamb once a week or five times per week? Or will it be decided that eating some things (fill in the food items that violate your particular food morality) will be considered "unhealthy" and thus not part of "a good life"? What about clothing? Do I get designer clothes? Am I entitled to impress my friends so that I may have a high self-esteem?
I could go on and on. My guess is that you ask 1,000,000 different Leftists what all is included in "a good life" then you're going to get 1,000,000 different answers.
The "a good life" is one of the superstitious beliefs in Leftism. It goes hand-in-hand with "the common good." The "a good life" is frequently invoked but rarely named, and it is most frequently argued with an example of a person who is not deemed to be living in "a good life." It's easy to show an example of what "a good life" is NOT, but it's impossible to show what "a good life" IS.
Comments:
<< Home
His second sentence was " there is no right of work". It was awful how we felt.(We were only Managers)I'm sorry you felt awful; I know that truth has no pity for our tender feelings. There is no right of work because someone has to create it. If you have a right to work, then you also have a right to someone else's life. And I will always maintain that our life, liberty, and property must be held above the actions of other individuals.
Post a Comment
<< Home
