Posted by
Andrews on Wednesday, June 20, 2007 8:03:51 AM
I have a question that has always troubled me about the leftist world view:
The left often argues that the government needs to intervene in the economy, provide for retirement, control the media, etc. because people are not able to recognize their own best interests. OK, fine, as far as it goes, that is a valid world view. I disagree with it, but it is a consistent, logically tenable perspective on humanity.
My question is how the leftists can then support an elective government. Assuming people are as incompetent as they say, then how does being elected to office suddenly turn one of these morons into a genius who can divine not only his own best interest but also the best interest of all of his fellow citizens?
If one truly believes the government needs to protect us from ourselves, then elective government would seem to be unthinkable. The citizens in this philosophy are essentially idiots, and, elected or not, should not be entrusted with governing. If you truly believe we need the government to protect us from acting against our own interests, then it seems you would have to support something akin to Plato's philosopher king, as entrusting government to an incompetent citizen elected by other incompetent citizens seems an unacceptable choice.
Well, perhaps a leftist can correct me and explain how they can believe we are competent to elect our leaders but need the government to veto our other choices for our own good.