There are monster disputes over morality in America's political system in regard to how much control and responsibility the government should have over its citizens. Acutely in the field of regulation. Both sides have nothing but good intentions for America and its people. Both sides wish to grow America and see it compete at its highest level. Yet both sides see very differently when the word moral begins to get thrown around. Equality essentially is morality when it comes to the principles that this nation was founded on, and it is concerning that now partisans cannot agree on these basic principles. Let's look at both sides.
One partisan would say that moral is starting on the same slate, being given the same amount of opportunity as the man on his right and left. Once any man steps off this slate it is up to himself to provide his own fortune. This man can do whatever it is he deems necessary to be complacent with his life. He is given the liberty to control how hard he works, what choices he makes, etc. There is no one to fault but himself for his outcome. His government is there to oversee what decisions and transactions he makes and to ensure that they are conducted in a fair manner. One partisan ultimately calls this freedom and a moral approach to life.
Another partisan might argue that not every man starts on the same slate, and that some start on slates much higher or lower than others. This partisan would argue that the government should provide a crutch for those who were born onto lower slates, and provide other compassionate services. Not always is it one's own responsibility for their outcome. This partisans government is always looking out for its citizens and makes some decisions for them, because it needs to ensure its citizens safety. This is apparently the moral choice compared to the former. However this method of compassion and providing for its citizens creates a dependence between the government and the former.
When this relationship of dependency is seen, similar to a baby to its mother, it becomes reliant on the latter's services. Now of course a mother will one day send her baby off to support for itself, but when does the government "send off" its people to prosper for themselves? It ceases to happen. This is when the dependency becomes dangerous. This government's people will be complacent with mediocrity and walk on on a plateau until the end. The latter partisan might argue that he is fine with the level path of his route. The former partisan finds this constant to be depressing. For clarification of the prior analogy, one can look to the film directed by Adam Mckay, Stepbrothers. The two main characters demonstrate precisely the attitude that appears to be promoted by the dependency that Big Government - the dispenser of favors**- has to offer. The two are forty years old that live at home and are completely unambitious. An argument against the latter partisan's morals can be made. Steve Forbes puts it best when he asks readers in his book Freedom Manifesto, "...is it truly compassionate to create passivity and destroy human initiative?"
One's opinion will truly come down to their belief of morality. " 'To be moral,' says economist and Nobel laureate Edmund Phelps, 'is to foster the betterment of humankind.' " ** Ambition is a trait that has single handedly driven man kind to unparalleled achievements. Ambition brings competition which brings innovation. To take away ambition from man is to attempt to rob him of a piece of his identity; his soul. Not to better humankind.
**- Freedom Manifesto
Which side do you believe holds higher morals?
No comments:
Post a Comment