The modern world is impossible without capitalism.
At some level, the lefties know it and that knowledge is what frustrates them. From that knowledge springs all sorts of bad behavior and dumb ideas.
Today, I remembered this quote from former 60 Minutes commentator, Andy Rooney:
“Communism got to be a terrible word here in the United States, but our attitude toward it may have been unfair. Communism got in with a bad crowd when it was young and never had a fair chance…
The Communist ideas of creating a society in which everyone does his best for the good of everyone is appealing and fundamentally a more uplifting idea than capitalism. Communism’s only real weakness seems to be that it doesn’t work.”
One of the fallacies of a communist society is revealed, perhaps unintentionally, by Rooney in the first sentence of the second part of the quote.
In this lies the death of a communist system because in order for “everyone does his best for the good of everyone” supposes that we all will be motivated by some “central good”. My question is this: who determines what that “good” actually is? Who sets the goals? Who determines the behaviors necessary to achieve that state of “good”? Who organizes the population to pursue that “good”?
The answer is that somebody does. Without sufficient order, there would be anarchy. In the absence of freedom of choice, it falls to the government bureaucracy to take it on.
Friedrich Hayek addressed this in his pivotal book, The Road to Serfdom, in the chapter titled: “Who, Whom?”:
I believe it was Lenin himself who introduced to Russia the famous phrase “who, whom?”– during the early years of Soviet rule the byword in which the people summed up the universal problem of a socialist society. Who plans whom, who directs and dominates whom, who assigns to other people their station in life, and who is to have his due allotted by others? These become necessarily the central issues to be decided solely by the supreme power.
More recently an American student of politics has enlarged upon Lenin’s phrase and asserted that the problem of all government is “who gets what, when, and how.” In a way this is not untrue. That all government affects the relative position of different people and that there is under any system scarcely an aspect of our lives which may not be affected by government action is certainly true. In so far as government does anything at all, its action will always have Borne effect on “who gets what, when, and how.”
In what is generally accepted by the political right as the most accessible modern liberal/”progressive” myth is the Star Trek franchise – Star Trek, Star Trek – The Next Generation, Deep Space 9, Star Trek Voyager – and somewhat less so – and actually my favorite of all this genre, Star Trek Enterprise with Scott Backula as Captain Jonathan Archer.
In a post from long, long ago and far, far away (2005), The Western Chauvinist offered this analysis:
Anyone old enough to have seen the original Star Trek series created by Gene Roddenberry might recognize the utopian ideals of today’s liberals in it. Think about it. On any major policy we debate, Star Trek is the fulfilment of the liberal playbook.
Start with environmental policy. No fossil fuels burned in GR’s world. Nope – only dilithium crystals and warped space needed. Isn’t it grand? No CO2 emissions at all – no SUVs, no lawnmowers, no contrails. No mining or drilling, except for those resourceful Neanderthals on some distant planet mining dilithium crystals. And the federation has such a sense of social justice that we end up fighting for their liberty! Awesome.
Next up, how about economic policy? Capitalism or socialism? How primitive. As far as I can tell, no currency ever changes hands. Everyone in the Federation seems to “work” for the Federation (is this the U.N.?). And, of course, they’re perfectly matched to their positions. I mean, Scotty was born an engineer. You get your food from this nifty device called a replicator – no charge! Housing, clothing, transportation, child care, education – all provided by the Federation. Whoopee!
How about health care? Well, Star Trek gives a whole new meaning to “universal healthcare”! I never saw Bones turn away anyone. He could take care of you even if your blood was green. With all the fancy technology at his disposal, he could develop an antidote to anything. What is wrong with our greedy drug companies today! This is the 21st century isn’t it?
And finally, we can wrap up social policy, civil rights, race relations, international relations conveniently in “the prime directive”. This is encompassed by today’s liberal ethics of multiculturalism, political correctness and moral relativism. The policy of “non-interference” in evolving societies is analogous to the liberal’s hands-off who-are-we-to-judge attitude. Of course, Kirk was wont to defy the principle just about every episode, but his phaser was judiciously set to “stun” most of the time.
Beam me up, Scotty.
I can't really comment. I liked the series when it first came out but I was never a trekkie and i never even heard of the spinoff that you prefer. Still, I can understand and agree with your essay.
Yes - such a wonderful perfect world - except that the waif Tasha Yar and her pet cat still had to hide from the rape gangs. Didn’t know that she hailed from Roddenham!