I picture any retrenchment of absorbed social welfare like this:
Do you remember back in school days when a teacher would pass back an assignment or a test and review it with the class? Or perhaps he/she didn’t review it but the individual students looked over the test to see what questions they got wrong. Occasionally a student would point out a teacher’s error which would alter some students’ scores for the better but others’ for the worse. But no teachers that I can remember – from elementary school up through college – would ever fully recalibrate the test scores. They’d always assume the error and leave the now-wrong students’ scores the same while increasing the now-right students’ scores.
Teachers didn’t take back the points of the now-wrong students because they knew that those students would either be humiliated by having their wrongness directly pointed out (a direct redistribution of points is difficult for students to swallow), or they would whine saying that it wasn’t fair that they had their points taken away. Passing up the opportunity to teach students about rights, the teacher naturally capitulates; since test points aren’t mutually exclusive (grade on a curve? Do you want to keep your job?) there is no reason not to give as many points to as many students as possible.
To me, this is a microcosm of our social value system which becomes more entrenched with each socially liberal government policy. Money to pay someone not to work or to have more children grows on trees; test points can be handed out like Smartie’s on state examination day. Once something has been imbibed and digested as a piece of property or a right, taking it away is an affront to rights. Crying and whining – like that displayed in Wisconsin earlier this year and in U.K. during the student protests – are weak manifestations of this; rioting and looting are stronger reactions to this perceived slight.
Like this:
Like Loading...
Surprise, surprise, liberals actually have a theory for what you describe: the One-Way Ratchet Theory of Contitutional Rights (http://definitions.uslegal.com/r/ratchet-theory/). And of course they pulled this out of their collective asses.
My very quick and dirty take on the London riots:
Why do they riot? Why do they eat, drink, fuck? They do these things because they enjoy it. The rioters are uncivilized people. Uncivilized people really do not require any reason to riot, that is the essence of being uncivilized.
Here’s the First Amendment to the US Constitution:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
….
These are some of our rights, and they are very important. But notice that they don’t cost anything, for me or anyone else. If a person chooses to exercise these rights, it doesn’t cost anyone anything. Other rights exist, of course (keep and bear arms, jury trial, protection against self-incrimination, unreasonable searches and seizures, etc.), and these are important, too. But they cost nothing, or almost nothing (jury trials involve some expenses, obviously, but so what?). This stuff is essentially free to all. And when I say free, I mean really free – these things do not cost anything.
When liberals create “rights,” they always involve costs to someone else. Is there a “right” to enough to eat, free health care, free education, free housing, free money? Liberals think so, but they don’t like to talk about who pays for them, other than “the rich.” I’m not necessarily opposed to all of these things, but it’s dishonest to pretend that they don’t have costs. When liberals start talking about “rights,” get ready to have your pocket picked.
@Black Death,
I’ve heard ethicists refer to those 1) positive rights, and 2) negative rights. Negative rights are more powerful and enforceable than positive rights.
@Black Death and jz – Yep, one big complaint of liberals is that the Constitution is too focused on negative rights and needs to be updated so that it is more focused on positive ones. Several presidents, I think FDR and one other, started outlining plans to rewrite the Constitution so it would focus on positive rights. The current president has of course discussed this as a necessary goal as well. It all flows from the asinine position that freedom requires a basic level of food security, health security, etc. Otherwise, people are not really free.
Everybody knows there is a good reason for not allowing patrons to feed the popcorn they purchased at the concession stand to the zoo animals.
……and while we “update” the Constitution, let’s update the Bible, the Magna Carta, and remodle the Egyptian pyramids.
I believe you are right completely
What a frankly great read!