|
|
|
October 06, 2010
"for the good for society"? Or for the good of the state?
Damn it I hate definitions -- especially when the definitions lurk within definitions. In yesterday's post about the definitions of work and the work ethic" I fell into a trap of my own inadvertent creation by treating the word "society" as almost a synonym for government. the weaselly phrase "the work ethic" avoids taking sides on the "work hard, and you'll make more money" versus the "work hard for the good of society" argument. It is not surprising that the more the government takes, the more people are questioning the value of the work ethic.The more I thought about, the more I thought it merited a new post because the underlying issue is very serious. The words "society," "government" and "state." They are not the same. So I was wrong, right? Actually, it depends on your point of view. To many people (ever growing in number), "society" is indistinguishable from state. I think much of this conflation between society and state is being accomplished by the tax system. The bigger a chunk of money is owed to the state, the less relevant it is to talk about society. Society and the state are one. And because of the redistributionist philosophy the ethic of "work hard so that society benefits" means work hard so that we all benefit. And "we all" means the state, because the state is the common purse-holder. It's an all-encompassing formula. All that the state owes is owed by all of us and all that we all owe is ultimately owed by and/or to the state. So according to that philosophy, whether we are said to work to benefit the state or to benefit society is a distinction without a difference. It's odd that I would miss such an egregious error, because the other day I was discussing whether "social" could be separated from "state". The more the state regulates us, the more society and government become indistinguishable. No doubt the ruling class wants it that way. (For all the right "public policy" reasons, of course. While it's an issue beyond this post, few words are deadlier to freedom than those two. If there is anything that does not involve public policy, I have not found it. ) posted by Eric on 10.06.10 at 02:45 PM
Comments
Terminologically, this bothers me. The state doesn't merge with, subsume, become, or even ape society (except rhetorically). It displaces it. What's left is a field of battle for power and favor, not society—unless that's what "society" means to you.* You can tell how much the social has been driven out of life by how much of human interaction isn't the subject (or object) of law, politics, causes, or political identities: almost none. I mean, are you ever even alone? Not even on the toilet. Every bathroom is a nexus of law, regulation, identity, etc. Society is voluntary, optional, emergent—and can be left. You can't get away from that thing in the bathroom. guy on internet · October 6, 2010 04:53 PM Statists like to talk about "giving back to society." After all, if you are successful, then it's because "society" made it possible, and you should give something back. Now, you could argue that you becoming wealthy is society's way of "giving back" to you for being valuable to society. But a statist would reject that. Nope. Successful (particularly wealthy successful people) "owe" society. OK, fine. But why does "giving back" ONLY mean taxation? The government never wrote me a check, so why is money the only way to give back that counts? Growing up, I had wonderful parents, good neighbors, and good teachers. In daily life, I've benefited from a mostly civil society of people who have, for the most part, done me no harm. My employers have always paid me as agreed. Etc. All of these have contributed to the success I have thus far enjoyed. So, wouldn't "giving back to society" simply mean be a good parent/citizen/employee/neighbor? Put the education I've received to good use? Be a producer? Respect people's rights, don't defraud anyone, whether they be customer, employee, etc. Start a business and create jobs. And so on. The point is, there are many substantial ways that successful people can "give back" that don't involve writing a check to the IRS. But to a statist, society = government. They just want your money. Jack Klemperer · October 6, 2010 06:04 PM You're on to something important. The society/state distinction is important because the various units in society, such as economic ones, religious ones, municipal ones, etc., provide a bulwark between the citizen and the state and mediate between the citizen and the state. The relationship is: citizen:social units:state. So, for instance, we see religion mediating or standing between the citizen and the state. Such mediation is especially important when the state tries to take over too much of the citizens' lives. For instance, in Nazi Germany, many Protestant church spokesmen did speak out strongly and at length against the Nazi statutes that claimed that mentally-handicapped or mentally-ill persons were of no worth to the state and should be put to death (the Nazis did end up killing the people in mental institutions even before they moved on to the Jews). In totalitarian states, the state tries to destroy all of these agencies/organizations/institutions that stand between the citizen and the state. Gloria · October 6, 2010 06:38 PM I have done a riff on Veeshir's comment here: http://www.classicalvalues.com/archives/2010/10/thank_you_frien.html M. Simon · October 6, 2010 10:15 PM Let's keep it simple: society is everything besides the government. Once past the size of the defense of nation and individual rights, it becomes an anti-social entity. Brett · October 7, 2010 02:14 PM Post a comment
You may use basic HTML for formatting.
|
|
October 2010
WORLD-WIDE CALENDAR
Search the Site
E-mail
Classics To Go
Archives
October 2010
September 2010 August 2010 July 2010 June 2010 May 2010 April 2010 March 2010 February 2010 January 2010 December 2009 November 2009 October 2009 September 2009 August 2009 July 2009 June 2009 May 2009 April 2009 March 2009 February 2009 January 2009 December 2008 November 2008 October 2008 September 2008 August 2008 July 2008 June 2008 May 2008 April 2008 March 2008 February 2008 January 2008 December 2007 November 2007 October 2007 September 2007 August 2007 July 2007 June 2007 May 2007 April 2007 March 2007 February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003 August 2003 July 2003 June 2003 May 2003 May 2002 AB 1634 MBAPBSAAGOP Skepticism See more archives here Old (Blogspot) archives
Recent Entries
• A smoking chimp is a slippery slope
• Nothing • Thank You Friend • Mark Kirk Ad • Why The Ultra-Keynesians Are Almost Certainly Wrong • I Have Done A Terrific Job • "for the good for society"? Or for the good of the state? • The Golden Rule Of Politics • I Had Hopped • we have always been seriously at war with humor
Links
Site Credits
|
|
In America we think that improving our society does improve our country.
But there's a hidden assumption that many other countries' populations don't make.
Most countries seem to define their country as their gov't.
We have a country so we had to put a gov't in charge.
So working for the gov't and working for society aren't the same thing the way they are in other countries.
It seems to me that when Americans wanted to improve things, they did it themselves, they didn't go to the gov't.
We used to be more likely to try to keep the gov't from "helping" us than getting it to help us.
Certain statists (of all parties) are trying to change that. They're seeing the pushback now.
I'm rooting for us, but the pushback will take the decades it's taken to get here.
Or one huge cataclysm.
I don't think we have the attention span and the will for the first and the second would mean serious ugliness.