The Invisible Hand vs. Chaos

The liberal left would like for “the people” to think there is power in numbers (the collective). The “power,” they claim, is for making changes in how society operates, or rather, a better term is what direction society travels (progressivism). In the liberal left’s misguided notion is a progressive direction in which society evolves, and that there will no longer be human inconveniences. The lack of retirement income for the elderly and social health care provisions to name just a few. A long list of liberal left concerns could fill this page.

On the other hand the conservative argument is to leave these “human inconveniences” to the individual that are effected by them. More to the point, those who are effected by life’s realities is more efficient for solving such problems only when society’s political leaders adhere to the principles of freedom.

As in the suggestion in the previous paragraph affords, altruistic ideas or notions, which are derived by the liberal left, always have an element of from whom, or what, these solutions come. If social resources are born out of the philanthropic heart of an individual, the idea of altruism is correct. The liberal left is very quick to bloviate the same philanthropic thread that comes from their collective heart.

The problem with this kind of false notion of altruism (collectivism) is that the collective concern for solving human inconveniences is empty of real social resources. This can be put into perspective by the following: my friends and I can come together to discuss our collective concern for dog owners to have an area for their pets to run free without the city leash ordinances applying. A suggestion is to have the city provide, through the park system, a plot of land. This solution was not altruistic and philanthropic. The plot of land did not come from my friend’s resources. The real resources that had to be fulfilled must come from somewhere. It came from another source, the public’s government. It would have been altruistic for an individual, hearing of the concern of my friends, and donated a plot of land.

This story can be analogous to a robber pointing a gun at a victim wanting cash. The resources that the robber was wanting had to come from somewhere else other then the robber. The robber most inevitably was in dire straight, to solve his inconvenience would have been better solved by obtaining a job; any job.

The invisible hand works within individual circumstances to solve social ills. The power of individual freedom, the conservatives argue, is better served when it is applied in this manner. The liberal left brushes this notion away by citing it as being chaos. The liberal left notion of altruism and philanthropy is dictatorial fascism, and progresses in the direction of elimination of individual freedom. In the end it is chaos for the real individual philanthropists.

Power in the hands of a collective in the name of altruism is dictatorial fascism. Power in the hands of a few individuals with resources for philanthropic endeavors is freedom. It is this “power” the liberal left desires in their hands is the argument.

For a post-script thought is that why is it that throughout human history evil doers always seem to harbor the need to control the good, and redefines the notion of control as being “good.” Chaos vs. the invisible hand places in whose hand the notion of what is good. The collectivist, i.e., the liberal left, argument is the need for power (the source of evil) on their side vs. the individual freedom (good) should always reside.