A Window on the Leftist Mindset

 

Adam Smith's ungraved marker.

A long communication from a left-listing acquaintance gives insight into gauche thinking.

He writes: “I lead safaris in Kenya. There, I do not walk about in major centres alone. White privilege is seen around the world.” 

His evidence here for white privilege is exactly the evidence used to prove black discrimination in America. In America, it is supposed to be white privilege that whites can walk the streets without being stopped or harassed. Yet the need for whites to be careful when walking around in Kenya, or Harlem, is, equally, white privilege. 

This illustrates that “white privilege” is simply assumed. It is non-falsifiable.

Our correspondent then points out that we have actually known for a long time about the unmarked gravesites near residential schools that have recently been probed by radar. To his mind, the scandal is that “individual graves and the person buried has been disrespected and families not treated justly.”

But not treated justly by whom?

Whom do we usually consider responsible for marking and tending graves? In the first instance, the family. Why in this case are they not held responsible, but instead seen as victims?

If no family can be located, or the family is too poor, then it is the government’s responsibility. But this ordinarily means the local government, and certainly would have in the 19th or early 20th century. “The city where the person has died pays for the funeral, and will employ a local funeral home to manage the burial.” (talkdeath.com) 

These gravesites are on Indian reserves. The local government is the band council—indeed, they claim more than municipal sovereignty. So why are they the victims here? Why have they not tended their gravesites?

This illustrates the problem aboriginal people face; it is the same problem we saw in MP Qaqqaq’s recent farewell speech. It is learned dependency. What other Canadians do for themselves as a matter of course, aboriginal people have come to expect a distant government to do for them. This is never an efficient system: this is the way you create a permanent underclass; or a Third World nation. The chronic poverty and despair on reserves is the result.

Which brings us to our correspondent’s description of the Conservative Party: it “has a fundamental principle that small government and lower taxes is the best way forward and the private sector will use their wealth to the benefit of society.”

Which thought he dismisses out of hand. Why would they?

His description is at least partially true: Adam Smith’s “invisible hand” argues that, in a free market, even though everyone is pursuing their self-interest, the actions of all participants will tend towards the general benefit. Goods and services will be as abundant and as cheap as possible. In this sense, each individual participant is using their “wealth,” such as it is, to the benefit of society. 

If Bob, or someone else, finds Smith’s reasoning here flawed, they need to address it; not dismiss it out of hand.

But the simpler calculation, for liberals (currently often, as here, called “conservatives”), is simply that each of us has a better idea of our own needs than some distant government official, however well-intentioned. Therefore, it is less efficient and more expensive to transfer your property to him, and then let him look after us. Even assuming that no government officials take any salaries or have any self- or class interest.

If one is poor enough, granted, one may personally benefit financially. Money is taken from the relatively rich, and given to you. But this is selfish; it is at the cost of the general good.

And the example of the Indians (used here as the correct legal term) suggests where this leads.