Failure by Design

In the case for liberty, there is certainly some tolerance for error or failure, as it is generally suffered by the individual and not brought upon anyone by design. Wherever anyone seeks to empower government, however, one must be reasonably certain of the designs, the logic and the costs, and he must be equally honest about the unknowns as with the foreseeable consequences; after all, there is no margin for error where those designs are administered by the barrel of a gun. 

One must necessarily remember that government is a monopoly on force and coercion, that force and coercion serve together as the modifying distinction between government and enterprise. It is a kind of force and coercion not by spirit or intention of written law but in accordance with the letter and understanding of the enforcers in their own time, in their own limited judgment and impaired conscience. As opposed to a state of liberty, where mistakes, failures and crimes are unavoidable in the face of human fallibility, a state of socialism condemns the people to a shared state of misery, failure and crime by design. A system so brutal, so uncompromising and violent cannot afford any measure of uncertainty. 

For this reason, the Leftist must, for the sake of humanity and as a matter of good scientific practice, satisfy the highest threshold of certainty so as to erase all reasonable doubts and apprehensions about the attending risks and potential failures. The burden of proof is likewise his; a burden everywhere, and on every single occasion, to be assumed by the Leftist or, more generally, any who seeks to undermine or otherwise threaten or redefine the terms for life, liberty, or property.

Of course, if the Leftist were to theoretically satisfy this standard, and if he were to, by some miracle, have a moment of honesty and sobriety — perhaps some revelation by the Grace of God — he would no longer be a Leftist but a staunch advocate and defender of liberty, or at minimum a far more cautious advocate for social control; he would have a standard subject to betrayal for the sake of his open-ended protest.

There is then not a single Leftist who can maintain or satisfy such a standard, who can remain beholden to one which would inevitably expose a contradiction or dampen the spirit of protest; and, indeed, there is no case for entertaining Leftism at all, especially where such an alternative as liberty is at our fingertips, especially where is has been so clearly articulated by our Forbears and the fruits so bountifully produced throughout history. We need not commit the mistake of entertaining that which has so afflicted our ancestors, which has killed so many tens of millions, and which simply cannot be made to work. 

As for the celebrants and the advocates of Leftism, they are often, if not in every case, found lacking: whether lacking in knowledge, intellect, integrity, or imagination, they are lacking some quality which would otherwise enable them to appreciate the risks and the costs of that which they imagine they can design. In many cases, the Leftists stand to benefit directly from the policies they advocate, otherwise indirectly from catering to their target audience, stacking the deck, or conveniently enforcing rules while exempting themselves. 

It is also true that many great intellects and talented artists have mistakenly confused their prowess and their ability in their own fields as affording them sufficient knowledge to comment on greater issues; too often, for instance, they mistaken society for a system or a project which, by their own limited imaginings, can be manipulated to their own particular liking, or in many cases condensed into more familiar contexts. This, unfortunately, keeps them ever confident in their designs while condemning their contemporaries and their heirs to the costs of both the oversights of the well-meaning and the calculated expectations of those with more sinister motives.