RM Hill writes:
The real issue to discuss here are these social ills you refer to, but you do not name nor point to a base cause. At rock bottom, all social ills are the result of people being bad. Mankind is fallen, as the patriarch would surely agree. And if you agree, then the question becomes what is the cure? Is there a cure? Is there at least symptom reducing balm in the political bag? And once we have it, is it possible for the very sickness that plagues society to corrupt the remedy as well?
I would say yes, of course. Furthermore, if society is sick because mankind is corrupt, I’m not at all sure a strong state is much help in the long run. In fact, it may make things far worse than a limited state, one which is strong in a very limited set of powers.
The argument that all social ills are the result of human sin begs the question of whether a better system or a better world can be created and it implies that life will suck under any system because bad humans will be in charge. But this is just wrong. From the point of view of the Left, we certainly feel that some systems (from the Left) are much better for workers, consumers, society and the environment than other systems (from the Right) that attack workers, consumers, society and the environment in order to wage reverse class war and transfer middle and lower class income to the rich.
The argument is similar to “they are all the same, there is nothing we can do. We are screwed any way things happen. Both or all political parties are bad and are basically interchangeable. Any one system is as bad as any other.” It leads to apathy and people dropping out voting and politics.
It is a completely hopeless, pessimistic, hand-wringing, sky is falling attitude that encourages doomsday thinking and inaction.
And it is very, very wrong. The Right certainly feels that some systems are better for them, and indeed they are. The Left also feels that some systems are better from their point of view, and they are correct.
There is no evidence, even if men area basically bad, that a weak state will help matters. Indeed a weak state would simply lead to a total Wild West state of affairs with no state to help even things out, promote equality, protect workers, consumers, the environment and society.
Only a strong state can help the poor, the struggling, the sick.
Only a strong state can look out for the interests of workers, consumers, society and the environment because those things are always attacked by the free market as obstacles to profit.
Only a strong state can promote equality in society by redistributing income from rich people who have far more money than they need to those folks who need that money and services far more than the rich do.
Only a strong state reduces poverty.
Only a strong state promotes, encourages and sustains a strong middle class.
