sultan knish
The gun control debate, like all debates with the left, is reducible to
the question of whether we are individuals who make our own decisions or
a great squishy social mass that helplessly responds to stimuli. Do
people kill with guns or does the availability of guns kill people? Do
bad eating habits kill people or does the availability of junk food kill
people?
To the left these are distinctions without a difference. If a thing is
available then it is the cause of the problem. The individual cannot be
held accountable for shooting someone if there are guns for sale.
Individuals have no role to play because they are not moral actors, only
members of a mob responding to stimuli.
You wouldn't blame a dog for overeating; you blame the owners for
overfeeding him. Nor do you blame a dog for biting a neighbor. You might
punish him, but the punishment is training, not a recognition of
authentic responsibility on the part of the canine. And the way that you
think of a dog, is the way that the left thinks of you. When you
misbehave, the left looks around for your owner.
The cult of the left believes that it is engaged in a great apocalyptic
battle with corporations and industrialists for the ownership of the
unthinking masses. Its acolytes see themselves as the individuals who
have been "liberated" to think for themselves. They make choices. You
however are just a member of the unthinking masses. You are not really a
person, but only respond to the agendas of your corporate overlords. If
you eat too much, it's because corporations make you eat. If you kill,
it's because corporations encourage you to buy guns. You are not an
individual. You are a social problem.
Individual behavior is a symptom of a social problem. Identify the
social problem and you fix the behavior. The individual is nothing, the
crowd is everything. Control the mass and you control the individual.
That is how the left approached this election. Instead of appealing to
individual interests, they went after identity groups. They targeted low
information voters and used behavioral science to find ways to
manipulate people. The right treated voters like human beings. The left
treated them like lab monkeys. And the lab monkey approach is
triumphantly toted by progressives as proof that the left is more
intelligent than the right. And what better proof of intelligence can
there be than treating half the country like buttons of unthinking
responses that you can push to get them to do what you want.
Would you let a lab monkey own a gun? Hell no. Would you let it choose
what to eat? Only as an experiment. Would you let it vote for laws in a
referendum? Not unless it's trained to push the right button. Would you
let it drive a car? Nope. Maybe a bicycle. And if it has to travel a
long way, you'll encourage it to use mass transit. Does a monkey have
freedom of speech? Only until it annoys you.
You'll take away most of the monkey's bananas, which you're too lazy to
go and find for yourself because you have more important things to do
than fetch bananas. You train monkeys to fetch bananas for you. That is
how the enlightened elites of the left see the workers whose taxes they
harvest; as monkeys that they taught in their schools and created jobs
for with their stimulus plans for. And the least that the monkeys could
do is pay their taxes, because the monkeys didn’t build that. You did.
You do plan to take care of monkey's medical expenses, at least until
they get too high, and spay and neuter it with free birth control. You
will train it to be the smartest and most well-behaved monkey it can be.
And when it gets too sick, you plan to have it mercifully put down so
it doesn't hang around spreading diseases and depressing you with its
misery.
And what's wrong with any of that? Human beings are just evolved
monkeys. It's not as if you're being cruel to the monkey. You're engaged
in what you might charitably think of as a symbiotic relationship with
the monkey. If the monkey were smart, it might think of you as a
parasite. But you have a whole lot of rounds of ammunition stockpiled in
case of a Planet of the Apes scenario.
If you assume that there is as much of a substantive difference the
elite and the common man as there is between a man and a monkey, there
is nothing particularly inappropriate about such behavior. We herd
animals. Liberals herd people. The human being is the livestock of the
liberal animal farm.
The Nazis believed that they were the master race because they were
genetically superior. Liberals believe that they are the master race on
account of their superior empathy and intelligence. There's an obvious
paradox in believing that you have the right to enslave and kill people
because you care more, but that didn't stop millions of people from
joining in with revolutions that led to a century of bloodshed in the
name of movements that cared more.
The defining American code is freedom. The defining liberal code is
compassion. Conservatives have attempted to counter that by defining
freedom as compassionate, as George W. Bush did. Liberals counter by
attempting to define compassion as liberating, the way that FDR did by
classing freedoms with entitlements in his Four Freedoms.
On one side stands the individual with his rights and responsibilities.
On the other side is the remorseless state machinery of supreme
compassion. And there is no bridging this gap.
Liberal compassion is not the compassion of equals. It is a
revolutionary pity that uses empathy only as fuel for outrage. It is the
sort of compassion practiced by people who like to be angry and who
like to pretend that their anger makes them better people. It is the
sort of compassion that eats like poison into the bones of a man or a
society, even while swelling their egos with their own wonderfulness.
Compassion of this sort is outrage fuel. It is hatred toward people
masquerading as love. And that hatred is a desire for power masquerading
as outrage which in turn is dressed up as a deep love for others and
empathy for all living creatures. Peel away the mask of compassion and
all that is underneath is a terrible lust for power. And the only way to
truly justify the kind of total power summoned by such lusts is by
reducing the people you would rule over to the status of non-persons.
The clash that will define the future of America is this collision
between the individual and the state, between disorganized freedom and
organized compassion, between a self-directed experiment in
self-government and an experiment conducted by trained experts on a lab
monkey population. And the defining idea of this conflict is
accountability.
To understand the left's position on nearly any issue, imagine a 20th
Century American and then take away accountability. Assume that the
individual is helpless and stupid, has little to no control over his own
behavior and is only responding to stimuli and functions in a purely
reactive capacity. Then use that data to come up with a response to
anything from kids getting fat to a football player shooting his wife to
terrorists firing rockets at Israel. The only possible answer to
reactive behavior is to find the thing being reacted to and condemn it.
If
you want to fake being a member of the left on any topic and in any
setting, master this simple phrase. "But we have to look at the root
causes to see who is really responsible." Congratulations, you can now get by anywhere from Caracas to Brussels to Berkeley.
The root cause is a perpetual search for an accountability vested in
systems rather than people. That search always ends up with systems and
ideologies, rather than mere people, because it justifies the
destruction of those systems and ideologies. And destroying systems and
ideologies allows them to be replaced by their progressive replacements.
The final failure of accountability for the left is a failure of moral
organization, while for the right it is a failure of personal character.
The right asks, "Why did you kill?" The left asks, "Who let him have a
gun?", "Who didn't provide him with a job" and "Who neglected his
self-esteem?"
Freedom goes hand in hand with personal moral organization of the
individual by the individual. Organized compassion however requires the
moral organization of the society as a whole. A shooting is not a
failure of the character of one man alone, or even his family and social
circle, it is the total failure of our entire society and perhaps even
the world, for not leveraging a sufficient level of moral organization
that would have made such a crime impossible. No man is an island. Every
man is a traffic jam.
Social accountability on this scale requires the nullification of the
personhood and accountability of the individual, just as the moral
organization that it mandates requires removing the freedom of choice of
the individual, to assure a truly moral society. When compassion and
morality are collective, then everyone and no one is moral and
compassionate at the same time. And that is the society of the welfare
state where compassion is administered by a salaried bureaucracy.
Choice is what makes us moral creatures and collective compassion leaves
us less than human. The collective society of mass movements and mass
decisions leaves us little better than lab monkeys trying to compose
Shakespeare without understanding language, meaning or ideas, or
anything more than the rote feel of our fingers hitting the keyboard.
This is the society that the left is creating, a place filled with as
many social problems as there are people, where everyone is a lab monkey
except the experts running the experiments, and where no one has any
rights because freedom is the enemy of a system whose moral code derives
from creating a perfect society by replacing the individual with the
mass. It is a society where there is no accountability, only constant
compulsion. It is a society where you are a social problem and there are
highly paid experts working day and night to figure out how to solve
you.
No comments:
Post a Comment