Caring About Stuff, And The Fairness Argument

The search for ‘fairness’ as demanded by the Occupy crowd, and leftist politicians of every orientation is, in its essence, a demand for utopian outcomes by degree; managed by an institution that does not fit the utopian definition, representative government. It also demands that human nature be ignored. The ‘fairness’ mantra is belied by: reality, facts and commons sense. ‘Fairness’ is today’s synonym of choice for classic class warfare.

The essential idea is the demand that all human dysfunction must be checked and corrected by central authority. That central authority is, by necessity, assumed to have evolved beyond the dysfunction it is charged to correct. In other words, human nature ceases to exist upon election or appointment as a central authority. The clouds part, the sun shines, Angels sing and an individual is delivered from his ‘humanness’ and the failings inherent in the human condition. It is the most fundamental of all logical disconnects and collapses the idea that government must be the answer and that the more of it we have the better. Despite a steady stream of corruption attached to central authority the assumption prevails that central authority arrives with the imprimatur of God like ‘fairness’. In reality, the more power is ensconced with central authority the more corrupt and corrosive the central authority becomes.

Dysfunction must be corrected by the only available mega-corrector of dysfunction seen to be viable; government. All problems must be solved, including those that are inherent in human nature. The definitions float and change with the circumstances. Is all ambition greed? Is all success achieved at someone else’s jeopardy? If you’re smarter, if you work harder, if you have a brilliant idea that leads to profit; you must be ‘fixed’!

Where are the bounds? Is there a limit to what we must ‘fix’? The movement for a more serious consideration of the Constitution and original intent holds the value of limitation at its very core; that there are bounds to what a government can or should do. Should we have ‘fixed” Bill Gates or Steve Jobs? Is their incredible success not a generalized benefit? How much should they have made, how much is too much? Would ‘fixing’ them have removed their motivation and passion for what they and their companies do? Would that have been a good thing in the interest of ‘fairness?’? Should they have been ruled by the Occupy movement’s flexible definitions of ‘fairness’ , or by the free market, which essentially says if you produce what I want or need I’ll pay you for it, with the money I made, doing the same for someone else.

Leftist ideas arrive with serious dysfunctions of they’re own. The threshold for the modern, leftist, utopian concept of ‘one world government’ has been experimented with in microcosm by the EU. It’s on the verge of collapse. The necessary centralization of authority in extra-governmental, non elected bureaucracies removes Europeans from any sense of empowerment in determining their own fates. The base line challenge for modern day utopians is that the people must be driven to apathy. They are driven by a social contract that takes care of them, they are driven by decision making that occurs in such a massive bureaucracy that they give up hope of influencing it. They end up; ‘along for the ride” with their chief concern being that the ride continues.

Industrious, productive Germans don’t want to pay the bills for Greece, Spain, Italy, Portugal, Iceland and Ireland. However, utopian ‘fairness’ demands bail outs and license to continue on the path to economic ruin. The energy of European demonstrations against economic rationality was and is significant. It leaves one to wonder what would be the case if that energy were directed toward growth and productivity. Alas, it is only directed at maintenance of a failed social contract existing in those countries who long ago signed on to the viability of utopian outcomes and a leftist definition of ‘fairness’. It is, after all, agreement on the definition and the immutability of that definition that forms the foundation for what comes after.

Unvarnished applications of Communism and Socialism have all, systemically failed, with millions of dead in the interest of the necessity for political purity in support of central authority. What did those systems do to eventually recover and survive? They adopted their own versions of Capitalism. One does not have to look anywhere other than those countries historically committed to leftist ideas to see the base line rejection of those ideas. It is, at its essence, very simple; it did not work! One can also look to countries fully committed to maintenance of the centralized power that utopian ideals demand, North Korea anyone?

The left is enamored of, driven by, the emotional energy of issues. Emotion as the basis for action demands an absence of focus. When emotions prevail, facts and anticipation of consequence are victims. The energy of belief absent justification is, in and of itself, sufficient. Until, of course, it fails.

I was present in Florida for a small Occupy protest march. One sign covered it all in four words. At the end of the march was a young man carrying a sign putting a fine point on having no point at all.

The sign; “I CARE ABOUT STUFF”! This is where we want to go?