This story is unavailable.

Disclosure: I’m not of the left, and I have little use for the left’s existence; to my mind, libertarian and conservative are the only legitimate politico-social ideologies (at least in a nation where the premise of Constitutional government is that the federal government is restricted to limited, enumerated powers; that does not necessarily preclude other forms of nonsense, er, politics, on a state or local level), and are sufficient alternative to one another to limit corruption or ossification.

Having said that: IMO, shaming is largely counterproductive, although letting people know what community standards are, is not.

But expecting the advantaged or privileged to surrender advantage or privilege is IMO misguided in two ways:

  • it’s contrary to human nature to expect someone to reduce their own prospects for the sake of strangers and competitors, except perhaps to assist for the duration of a brief emergency;
  • it exaggerates the competition; the answer to shortage is not to re-slice the pie, but to bake more pie. The disadvantaged are also those with the most room for growth, and _most_ of the responsibility for improving their lives rests on them. The vast bulk of what other individuals or institutions can do is simply refrain from getting in the way of their lawful and productive activity. Aside from disasters, or those disabled in public service (military, police, firefighters, etc), that assistance which cannot be provided by voluntary private means probably should not be provided by government. Not all can be rescued, and the attempt will inevitably become a corrupt pursuit of power in and of itself; and the attempt will also create or exacerbate resentment. However, that does not preclude public and private cooperation to increase opportunities for upward mobility, albeit mostly by indirect means, and almost never by handouts, quotas, etc. Only when individual living malefactors can be held accountable in court for their misdeeds is there cause for specific redistribution-like corrective measures; not even a thousand generations of historical wrongs will justify harming one class of persons that may have benefited from those wrongs for the sake of another class that still suffers in part due to the consequences of those wrongs. Is a recent legal minority immigrant due reparations for slavery here 160 years ago? Is a recent non-minority immigrant in any way responsible for it? Almost certainly not. Cataloging the categories of exceptions would rapidly escalate into the absurd.
One clap, two clap, three clap, forty?

By clapping more or less, you can signal to us which stories really stand out.