Skip to main content

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 designA 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.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Trump Victorious in 2024 Presidential Election

As of this hour, former President and now President-elect Donald Trump has secured his second term as the forty-seventh President of the United States. Trump’s victory comes after winning key battleground states Wisconsin, Michigan, Nevada, Arizona, Pennsylvania, and Georgia.  As for the popular vote, Trump was victorious there as well, winning by a one-and-a-half-percent margin. Despite these results, it’s evident that there remains a significant social and political problem in the United States, where politically-motivated violence, social unrest, crime and general instability have become rampant over the years since the death of George Floyd.  However, I’d say the fact that it was even this close is ominous for the years ahead. This was as clear as it gets for an election, that the incumbents (both Biden and Harris) are wholly unfit for any office, that they present a real and present danger where they’re allowed within twelve thousand miles of a school zone, let alone any...

Legacy Betrayed: The Monetization of Mike Tyson

On the night of November 15, 2024, boxing fans from around the globe had their eyes set on a long-awaited match featuring one of the all-time greatest boxers and one of the biggest names in sports: Mike Tyson. Known as “Iron Mike” and “The Baddest Man on the Planet”, Tyson is the youngest boxer ever to win a heavyweight title, but that was thirty-eight years ago, November 22nd, 1986, when Tyson was all of twenty years old. As for the fifteenth of November, 2024, Iron Mike, now all of fifty-eight years, was scheduled to go toe-to-toe with “YouTube sensation” Jake Paul, 27, who’s made a “career” out of reckless antics and childish online videos and, as far as professional boxing goes, coaxing old fighters to come out of retirement.  Despite all of the hype and anticipation in the lead-up to the match, one between old school and new school, one buoyed by nostalgia, conjuring up memories of a bygone era in sports, and capturing the imaginations of the many who witnessed Tyson in h...