While the socialist Utopia promises perfection at some point in the future, liberty actually delivers a constantly improving society.

“… liberty, which produces voluntary arrangements that evolve once one’s rights to one’s self and production are protected, provides the means of achieving the best that is actually achievable in advancing society. As we develop ourselves, we each have more to offer others, without requiring immoral acts. And what freedom has historically accomplished, beyond anyone’s ability to envision it, extended to further as-yet-unknowable possibilities, provides ample reason to trust it over coercive alternatives.”

As the title of the article suggests, the Socialist Utopia promises perfection at some point in the future, while individual liberty actually delivers a constantly improving society.

I’ve written before that selfishness and fairness are not legal concepts, there is no enshrinement of a man-made law that says being selfish is illegal, neither is there one that dictates that everything must be fair. The absence of law is an indication that these are moral concepts, not legal ones. In natural law, there is no such concept as “fairness” – the cougar is stronger than the rabbit, the success of the food chain and the survival of the cougar depends on it. The cougar also does not know how to be “selfish”, it eats when it is hungry and as much as it is able to catch…but animals are not burdened with morality or a soul. The realizations of both “selfishness” and “fairness” are human constructs and are based on an individual and societal point of view and an established value system, a value system that is typically based on religious beliefs. We seek to create these concepts as a matter of social interaction and civilization, essentially to protect society from the barbarity and savagery of natural law.

There will be those who say that fairness is enshrined in the Constitution. My argument would be that fairness is provided for, not specifically mandated or defined. The Constitution speaks of fairness and equal treatment with respect to governance, not societal fairness. The words “fair” or “fairness” are not present in the text of the U.S. Constitution. Even in the Declaration of Independence, you will find the express concept that “all men are created equal”, not “equality is guaranteed for life”.

19 thoughts on “While the socialist Utopia promises perfection at some point in the future, liberty actually delivers a constantly improving society.

  1. Is it just me, or has anyone else noticed that ALL collectivist policies seem to lead to social decay (otherwise known as REGRESSION, not “progression”)???

    Which leaves me to wonder: what does this imply for the notion of “evolution?” 😉

  2. Equity and liberty are enshrined in the Constitution. Fairness is used by those destroying the Constitution to enslave the people, kept or made ignorant by their masters.

    What is “Fairness”? A nonsensical term used to enslave people and their souls.

    Fair is not equitable.
    Fair is not impartial.
    Fair is not unbiased.
    Fair is not objective.
    Fair is not dispassionate.

    However, fair is fair . . . But only for the ruler controlling the peoples lives …

    https://therionorteline.com/2012/11/19/fair/

  3. What is fair? Fairness is when the playing field is level, thus allowing the market to do its job. Monopolization, by companies or by our Government, is not fair.

    As humans we can do more than just be fair though – we have the capacity for empathy. We live in a world where no one has to go without. Is it the Government’s job to provide those people? I don’t know.

    Is it better than some people have the liberty and freedom to be selfish while others die over poverty in which they were born into? I don’t know?

    Can the playing field be truly level if you are born into poverty? Is that “created equal”? I don’t thinks so. I think all of society benefits when their fellow man is taken care of. So we can neither have statism nor can we live completely laissez faire. I think the ideal situation is somewhere in between.

    • Liberty and Tyranny …….. Statism or Constitutional Republic are Mutually exclusive and Diametrically opposite.

      What you are refering to are Morals ….. the underlying populace is either moral or it is not ( and in degrees or percentages of the population ). The Civil Society is predicated on a Moral Populace …… without that you have the Tyranny of the Majority whatever system you have …..

      But in a Constitutional Republic there is more of a Chance for all to be protected by the Law …… in a moral-less society there No Chance….Zero….Zip…Nada …..for anyone to be protected in a Statist Government.

    • Atticus, I respectfully urge you to read my post on “fair”. Fair can only be fair from one point of view, not ALL points of view, or said differently, universally.

      America is the first society in mankind’s history, to declare all men are equal.
      Universally.
      Unequivocally.
      Read the Declaration of Independence.
      Equal opportunity for all. Not equal outcome.

      Equal treatment under a “universal law” for all citizens, members of our society. (Regardless of race, color, creed, or “station in life”.)

      Equal opportunity allows all people the freedom to work and trade freely. Equal opportunity guarantees freedom of choice and liberty.

      Equal outcome REQUIRES “un-equal” treatment . Equal outcome requires THEFT from those who have some property to give to those who have less property. All decided by a mere man or woman, who has placed themselves above their friends and neighbors.

      Is one person “entitled” to take property from another?

      Is it “just” or “equitable” for one person to walk into a farmer’s field or barn, and take eggs, fruits and vegetables to eat, or milk the cow to drink?

      Is it “just” or “equitable” for one person to walk into a store, and take what they “want” without paying for the wanted items?

      Is it “just” or “equitable” for one person to walk into your yard and drink from your water hose because they are thirsty or swim in your pool because they are hot, or take your bicycle or automobile to move about, because you “have more” than they do?

      Is it “just” or “equitable” for one person to make life choices which result in life threatening circumstances, and then demand strangers work or pay to remedy the situation that person put themselves in?

      Simply, these are all different versions of “theft”.

      Theft, even when enacted by Illegal and unjust laws for a “minority” group, is still theft.

      Humankind, has a right to work and trade the rewards of their labors for the rewards of labors of others. It does not matter whether those labors are farming, welding, carpentry, or surgery. A person does not have the “right” to walk into a farmer’s field and simply take his meals because he is hungry. Likewise, a person does not have the “right” to walk into a hospital or doctor’s office and require another person give them labor in the form of bandages, pills, stitches, or surgery.

      Atticus, dear Madam or Sir,
      You advocate chaos, anarchy, a “fair” system where you, or someone else, is allowed to treat “all men UNEQUALLY”; where those vicariously determined as “poor”, are allowed to steal from those vicariously decided to be “rich”.

      • I’m with you here. I’ve written many a blog postings on the topics of liberty, property rights, and natural rights. As well – I have read our founding father’s ideas on the topic. And in general, I agree.

        On problem I have: “Equal opportunity for all. Not equal outcome.”

        Equal opportunity, in my view, means leveling the playing field for people who were born into inequality. So I support some institutions such as public schools, libraries, certain scholarships for poor students with excellent merits, etc.

        I think it is important that some people have an unfair advantage by birth.

        • Atticus,

          The moment you start trying to “level the playing field,” you have already started traveling the path to tyranny — because the task you set for yourself never ends and is constantly changing.

          The best we can do is what our founders tried to do: design a system where THE RULE are applied equally — regardless of station in society. If you will read what they said, the founders went so far as to say, if all things are equal, when a rich man and poor man confront each other in court, the court should favor the poor man. The founders also said that property which owes its existence to government is rightly in the domain of public control, therefore, society has some claim to legislate over it. And, finally, they said that, when we die, our property should be divided equally among our heirs. They felt that, in this way, those who did not have the same talents would eventually squander that wealth, thus leveling things naturally.

          They would have strongly opposed many of the things we do today that work against these principles, such as the corporate structure and living trusts. I have argued this here on the RNL in the past, and I meet with strong opposition from my “conservative” friends most every time I do so. But the founders believed this was part of applying rules fairly without getting into the business of trying to legislate fairness. I think you would be on firmer grounds if you were to try arguing along those lines.

          Just a thought and friendly suggestion. You are certainly welcome to disagree and/or reject it.

          🙂

    • Atticus,

      I don’t think you understand what “created equal” means. I also think you need to do some research into how many of the people we consider “successful” were born into poverty. Then do some more research into when our society started to teach people they can’t do things without help. You will notice a break at that point. THAT is the point where business started to use govt. unfairly for its own advantage. Do just a little bit more research and you will find ALL of this is connected to the rise of supposedly “scientifically designed” societies. Whatever you call them, they are all Statist in nature — controlling of the individual. And they all use the notion of “fairness” to convince people to sell themselves into slavery for the promise of getting something from someone else (i.e. a free lunch).

      So I ask you, what is “fair” about justifying the same oppression just in the opposite direction: taking from the rich to give to the poor? If it is unfair to oppress one group, isn’t it unfair to oppress another?

      If you do not see the point, then I think — sadly — you are among those who have sold themselves for that hollow promise…

      😦
      On the other hand, if you do see the problem, then I would suggest that our founding fathers designed exactly what you describe: a system somewhere in between. And it is to that original system that most of us are trying to convince people they should return.

      🙂

      • I think the founding fathers designed an excellent system and I agree that in it’s current form the Government is a far cry from that.

        You especially made a good point here:
        “You will notice a break at that point. THAT is the point where business started to use govt. unfairly for its own advantage.”

        Fascism is a major problem.

        My overall point was that we can’t have a “Utopia” nor can we have an “every man for himself” community. We need something somewhere in the middle – and obviously the founding fathers did a pretty good job designing such a system.

        • Atticus,

          Yes, fascism is a problem, and I have been telling people the current system under which we live is fascistic. This is not the system our founders designed, which is why we have so many problems: the Constitution does not and cannot support fascism.

          On the other hand, while I agree that we need to care for one and other, we must NEVER look to government to do this. No matter how well intentioned, the moment we look to govt. to make things “fair,” we turn government against some portion of society it is supposed to represent and protect, and that opens the door for legitimate claims of oppression by that part of society.

          This is why our founders told us that liberty cannot be preserved without morality, and morality is impossible without faith in God.

          You might like what I have been doing on The Road to Concord. I invite you to check it out if you haven’t already done so.

Talk Amongst Yourselves:

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.