If there is an illness infecting politics today, it is self-interest.
Of course, us in the blog world always see self-interest being the illness of the "other guy", however, it's a fair question to ask all of us, from all ends of the political spectrum.
I read an interesting concept the other day, attributed to American Philospher, John Rawls, referred to as the "Original Position" and while I am simplifiying it in the extreme, the basic concept is this:
When you look at the changes you feel society should make, try and step back and ask yourself, "If I didn't know what part I would play in society, how would I design it?"
In other words, each of us often sees changes from our own perspective. But, if you could imagine that you might be someone quite different, would that change your persective of change?
While you may, today, be an affluent white male, would you see society differently if you were aboriginal? Or handicapped? Too often we, on the right, talk about concepts like "individual responsibility", which comes easy to us if we were fortunate enough to be born into affluence or even modest comfort. Would that feel differently if we were born into a broken home on one of Canada's Indian Reserves?
Now - loss of perspective, clearly, is not the purview only of the affluent or the upper middle class. Those on the other end, the social activists, the advocates for the poor, for the environment should also ask themselves, "If I had one million dollars, how much cost, how much tax, how much government interference would I put up with, and still choose to take the risk of losing my investment and placing my savings into a business and take on the obligation of hiring full-time employees, as opposed to simply putting that money in a bank and spending it on my own needs - and in the bargain, effectively taking away employment for those in need of a job?"
It's an easy concept to talk about, more difficult to practice - for as much as we can "pretend" to be someone we're not, our own biases and preconceptions will still invade our own analysis - however, I might suggest even an imperfect effort to "walk in someone else's shoes" is a worthwhile endeavor that in this time of polarized politics, we could all do a little more of.
Certainly, the answers to our political questions are complex, and are not able to be solved simply by applying the "Original Position" principal, but, still, it wouldn't hurt all of us to be cognisant that our political beliefs, like our religions, are often formed on the basis of what we were born into, and deserve a greater degree of introspection that we often give them.
Just sayin'
7 comments:
Encourage and reward innovation, get out of the way of adding extra costs and unneeded regulation.
Do not look to government to fix or solve everything.
I am not talking about going back to the 1700's but if you look at our parents who may have left their old homes with very little they made their fortunes through hard work and sacrifice.
Today people demand and will not sacrifice.
How many families today have a small home, one car, stay at home parent?
That's funny CS.. I was talking with a friend at lunch yesterday - and both of us grew up in homes where we were required to work for our spending money,where our parents grew up in difficult times and did not ever allow their children a free lunch so to speak growing up.
And.. his point was that adversity and the requirement of hard work makes you stronger and more determined.. where we pointed to several people we know who seemingly had life "handed to them" and who didn't amount to much.
So - your point is well taken, that looking at the "original position", would I want the government to hold my hand and give me my livelihood? Not in a million years.
Even coming from modest means, I would have preferred that, to having life handed to me on a platter.
We don't always "help" people by making life easier. Sometimes life being hard is what makes the results of working through the hardship worthwhile.
I grew up in Toronto in a 1,000 sq ft home family of five, working class family first generation. My parents did not have our benefits or entitlements we demand today as a birthright.
We have begun to reap the damage of creating a nanny welfare state, it is our parents eyes. Some of them remember the "real" depression and the world wars.
We need to go back and remind our citizens they need to be responsible and make choices, you can't have everything without huge taxes.
Personally, my take is that I have seen many people born into horrendous circumstances, particularly aboriginal people, abused children, handicapped people, and in a prosperous society, I say, we do more to give them a hand up to sit at the same table of opportunity that probably you and I had from birth.
No free ride, but no anchor tied around my ankle either.
And, while we pursue more effective help for those who legitimately need help, we be ruthless with cutting off funding of programs for those who create their own nightmare (can you say the "Insite" program in Vancouver), or for almost all of the things the government is asked to do besides the basic needs of a functioning society.
Health care;
Education;
Military and policing;
Judicial System;
Roads and transportation infrastructure;
Reasonable safety net for those who cannot fend for themselves.
And we get the hell out of paying for cultural pursuits, sporting events, government "promotion", private enterprise support and the like.
And we hammer the civil service - clearing house like a prairie brush fire. Government has a way of exponentially browing upper and middle management that is sickening and which the private sector would never allow - often under gross manipulation by union requirements and misguided government effort to be "progressive".
And we tell big business - if you fail, we will not be bullied by talk about larger impacts on the economy and lost jobs. If you fail, you fail, and if people lose jobs and if all of us suffer, so be it.
No one said life will be easy and by bailing out the biggest failures, but ignoring the plight of the small business, we are really sending the wrong message - and beyond that, we are allowign the reigns of government to be pulled by the privileged elite.
oops.. "exponentially GROWING"
My experience is the system set up to help "X" needy group become a cesspool of waste and the help does Not get to the intended group.
Autism for example is a 90k per year for 5-7 years when they are young. How much money has been spent by each provincial government in fighting the one-one treatment?
Save now, pay later.
Why are we giving millions to band councils with 100% full disclosure?
Look at the University being shut down by the NDP.
In the City of York years ago, we had them refill a subway tunnel because the money ran out to complete it. I think we spent in excess of $ 20 million for that hole.
The whole idea of abstracting away from one's own identity has always been patently ridiculous. You cannot inform your own decisions without any reference to your own circumstances, character and past. The idea "I'll pretend I'm not me and come to some more rational conclusion" is usually driven by a sense of "burgoise" guilt.
Beyond that is the logical notion that everyone should "have the same" or "similair" outcomes even a rational conclusion like Rawls suggests? I think that's doubtful. If rather than everyone having the same there is not an insubstantial chance that you could be part of a group that has more, while also possibly getting less its perfectly logical to accept that as a superior option.
Rawls argument has only ever really worked if you assume people are horribly risk adverse even assuming you accept his ridiculous proposition that we can abstract away our own identities.
Post a Comment