Why Is ‘Economics’ Simultaneously Fundamental And Violable?
June 28, 2012 1 Comment
The left likes to remind us that humans are social animals. No man is an island, it takes a village. The Randian image of the lone wolf individualist is a puerile fairy tale, they say.
Let’s take them at their word then: resolved, that part and parcel of being human, a fundamental and inalienable aspect of human existence, is being part of a group, and obtaining one’s wants and needs via mutual social arrangements with others – in other words, via economics.
Because that’s what economics is, isn’t it?
But so then if this is what the left believes, then why do they diminish the importance of economics when it comes to human rights? Free speech and free conscience are human rights, they would surely say, for reasons having everything to do with the fact that these things are fundamental and necessary aspects of what it means to be human. But so, by their own avowed views, is economics – exchange, cooperation, property, association. Decisions about same.
Yet the left clearly thinks that the government can dictate anything whatsoever that is ‘economic’. Far from having the same sacrosanct status as speech and conscience, once they can convince themselves that an exercise of human action is ‘economic’, to the left that action is tainted and demoted entirely from anything resembling status as a ‘right’. Why is this? Why is ‘economics’ considered to be a second menu item?
- The left doesn’t believe sincerely in any of their ‘rights’ talk. That is just a facile means to policies they favor, which are socialist above all else. When socialism requires violating rights (as it obviously, definitionally does in the economic realm), any consideration of rights naturally goes out the window.
- The left doesn’t believe in the humans-as-social-animal talk. That is just a means to government usurpation of individuals. If they sincerely believed the social and cooperative aspects of human existence were so fundamental, they wouldn’t be so willing/eager to sever them from other ‘social’ rights for which the left respects above all the primacy of autonomy and free association (such as sex).
- Left philosophy has been largely constructed and justified by ‘constitutional lawyers’, and similar thinkers who don’t really understand economics, and thus have a fundamentally flawed and superstitious view of its being somehow separable from other aspects of human existence. The rest of leftist autocratic thinking on economics follows from this misunderstanding, this original sin.
Are there any possibilities I have missed? Or am I just being unfair? Because as I have listened to a parade of leftist and lawyers the past year and more justify a policy that is fundamentally totalitarian, that violates individual rights in such a complete and limitless manner, I genuinely don’t see how to reconcile their social-animal belief (i.e. economic actions being fundamental to humanity) with it’s-ok-to-violate-rights-if-they-are-’economic’.
This is not an irrelevant debate on this particular day, of course.