John, I too am conservative on these issues, but putting myself in Dr. Lawrence’s shoes, I’d like to analyze that last quotation you gave. I agree that she is saying that those who have succeeded are to be punished in a sense,
Fairness and unfairness can be a pretty subjective thing to describe and one person may think a huge amount of income redistribution is required, while another thinks only a small mount is required. The bigger the shift in monies from better off to worse off, the greater the “punishment” is for those who had to give up what they have earned.
but she and other “progressives” argue that the success of those people is not totally due to their own merit and hard work. There’s actually a lot of truth in that.
Well, here I must disagree with you. If you had written “…some truth…” we’d have agreed. The assumption is too quickly reached by a lot of people that if someone is wealthy then they must have ripped off someone else, or stolen it, or whatever. In a minority of cases that may be true, but I think the general rule is that most people who are successful are so because of their own efforts and skills. The “progressives” seem very ready to be jealous of the success of others and to immediately think the worst of them. That green eyed monster raises his head too readily amongst those who have a class warfare mentality, or who have been educated to see ‘class’ as a fixed, immutable aspect of our society that needs to be broken down. It is usually an ideological mindset that colours the world view of the “progressives”. They see ‘unfairness’ wherever they look.
If success were due strictly to hard work, then obviously there would be an equal appearance of success throughout the world, and in each nation and community. Yet this is not the case, so pure statistics implies that those who are successful have SOME inherent advantage purely by way of where they were born (or other factors such as race). I mean, why are so many folks in Australia, the US, or Europe able to get a college education and live so well? To say that it’s because they worked harder is ridiculous. Rather, the society in which they were privileged to be born is blessed to be able to make that path so easy (although each individual still must work hard to stay on that path).
Let’s take a kid from either the US, Australia, or Europe. He is born into a society in which his forefathers have expended a lot of time and effort making sure that the next generation can be a little more secure and safe. So, we save and save and work and work to make sure we can educate our kids and then set them loose as well equiped as we can get them, so that they will succeed and live prosperously. Part of the process is setting them up with the mindset to succeed, a work ethic and a desire to be the best you can. Because of that process, the launching pad from which they begin their life’s journey has been raised higher and higher by each successive generation. Figuratively speaking, compared to say, some countries in Africa, we are thousands of feet higher before we launch our children. The “progressives” then label our society and our kids as “privilidged”. Compared to Africa, they probably are! However, to say they are “privilidged”, in my opinion, is to insult the generations that have gone before. I prefer to say that the young are burdened with higher expectations than their predecessors and more, far more is expected of them than was of their fathers and grandfathers. They have a huge responsibility to improve on what they have been given.
Now, down inside our own societies, there are those who win fortune and fame. It might be through sheer hard work, a bit of luck, or through genius, or a combination of all those things. Rarely is it achieved through skullduggery. Rather than assume that all wealth is won unfairly, the “progressives” should simply try and make sure that everyone has an equal opportunity to win their fame and fortune. That might mean identifying which parents are struggling through no fault of their own to educate their kids and giving them a bit of a leg up. However, it should not entail a permanent, wholesale redistribution of wealth, because that punishes the achievers and teaches the next generation that there is easy money to be had when you don’t strive to pick up the responsibilities that go with being born into a wealthy society.
Again, I totally agree with you that redistribution of wealth is not the way to go, but we can’t totally dismiss an opponent’s argument when there seems to be some logic to it. Rather, we must show them that, despite the obvious advantage that some folks have, sweeping measures to strip success away from those people is NOT justice either.
Well, here you pretty well agree with what I have already written. There is indeed *some *logic in what they argue for. There are instances where people are disadvantaged through no fault of their own. Life isn’t always fair. If society does nothing, then the kids miss out on opportunities and society misses out on what those kids may have to offer. So a little help now and then is quite OK. However, I think every case should be judged on its merits and dealt with accordingly. The “progressives”, however, see class injustice as a fixed and immutable evil in capitalist society that must be broken down. They see injustice in all aspects of society and regard every misfortune as “unfair” when, sometimes, misfortune is really only bad management on the part of some individuals. The "progressives then ascribe a blanket fix to the problem and the result is that many people, and society itself, are punished. The incentive to achieve is crushed.
And good ones!
Cheers,
John
