Thursday, October 15, 2009

A good friend once told me that part of the role of government is to intervene in large-scale Prisoner's-Dilemma type situations. I think that's a fantastically succinct way to put it.

Being categorically against that kind of government intervention basically outs you as someone who thinks you have some sort of "right" to snitch in a prisoner's dilemma. Even if it's worse for everyone, yourself included, in the long run. In Dawkinsonian terms, you're a cheat. And not only does this make you a right smart asshole, but you're also supporting a completely unsustainable strategy.

Forget Fear says it pretty damn well:

In essence [some conservatives] want to be able to live completely without care or regard for the plight or wellbeing of anyone but themselves (and sometimes the immediate family unit), and not have to worry about anything that happens outside their immediate geographic area. The hypocrisy is, they seek to enforce this socioeconomic model on everyone else to create the circumstances for them to setup a “little house on the prairie” style life for themselves. They put the wants of themselves (the few) over the needs of everyone else (the many), and will tell you that 1 > 2, if they are the 1, and mathematics can be damned.

This may not be what conservatives openly advocate, however if you look at the end-result of their policies this is what they are trying to establish. It’s plain as day, and if you follow conservative socioeconomics through to their logical conclusion, the above-described is what you end up with. It’s immoral, it’s hypocritical, it’s illogical, and it’s just plain selfish.


So what should we do? What’s the answer? Simple: Care. Care about other people, about their experiences, their happiness, their well being, and their safety. This may sound overly idealistic, and maybe it is, but it’s the only solution to modern conservativism.
Word.

No comments:

Post a Comment