I have often seen arguments from socialists that revolve around the concept of a family utilizing "socialism" to operate. The conclusions pushed change depending on what argument the person is trying to make, but ultimately, the concept is that, because families support one another by giving each other money and labor so that they all survive and benefit, this is basically socialism. I have seen the conclusion that we can't be against socialism as a government system if we "utilize socialism" in our family unit, the conclusion that socialism works on a large scale because of the success of the "socialist family unit", and many more.
Today, I saw the "family argument" in another light, from someone who is staunchly opposed to authoritarianism. This person argued that tyranny is ingrained so deeply in common people and parents that people do not question this materialization of authoritarianism within their own families, especially in regards to punishments toward children. There are many people who will die on the hill of whether spanking, shaming, or other punishments many argue to be too harsh are acceptable or not, but my point here is that this is the first time I saw what is basically the "is spanking acceptable" argument phrased in a way that insisted societal utilization and acceptance of authoritarianism is reflected in it.
The problem with both of these arguments, and any other "family argument" that I may ever see, is that the form and function of the family unit both does not reflect, and is not proof of concept for, any government system or operation. The fallacy is easy enough to see, and yet people still attempt to extrapolate "family -> society as a whole" constantly.
The first and foremost most important issue, and easily the only one that really needs to be said, with the family argument is that the government does not love you. The people in power over any number of other people are not invested emotionally in the happiness and success of their people. The guise of love, or at least concern, may appear, but it is merely the costume put upon the fact that the government needs its people to succeed. If there are no people, there is no state, and there is no one to rule over. People are required to labor for any value to come from the society in question. The government is against large swatches of their population dying, under normal circumstances, only because of "human capital". In democratic societies, the voter base for whichever politician in question is in power is important to that politician, only because they require those votes to remain in power.
This undercuts any "family argument" from either side of the spectrum. A parent who punishes their child (usually) does so out of the desire for them to grow up as a functional adult who understands right from wrong and understands the concept of consequences for their actions. This is love from the parent's side, as (the majority of) parents are not merely concerned with their child growing up to be productive and wealthy, but understands that failure to recognize that actions have consequences will more than likely lead that child to poor experiences in their adult lives. Which punishments are good or bad is - for better or for worse - going to be discerned by the parent in question, and their competence in choosing effective, fair punishments may not be the best. They may not understand that the punishment they have chosen is not actually "rehabilitating" their child, but the intentions of the parent and the intentions of the state are too far removed from each other to make this argument work. Governments and parents both suffer the same potential incompetencies in deciding the punishments of those who they have judged to be at fault, but the state does not love the person they have determined to be guilty and the state does not much care for the result of that person's life. They are unforgiving and unloving in their punishments, while the parent (ideally) truly seeks what is best for their child.
On the exact opposite of the spectrum, the family unit that shares wealth and labor does so out of love for each other and a desire for the people they love to prosper and be happy. The family will utilize the resources they have for the betterment of the family, and they may have to make tough financial decisions that not everyone is thrilled with if they lack the funds to provide everything desired. The attempt to attribute this concept to a socialist government fails horribly at this last point. Surely, we see few differences between a socialist government with plenty of money and a family unit, but what happens when the funds start to run thin? We have governments deciding that people are not worth the money to keep alive in hospitals, so far as not even allowing them to travel to a hospital in another country, even if that country has agreed to care for that patient. No parent would ever simply give up on their child, as we see here in these very examples. The NHS said they could not possibly provide anymore help to these children, so the parents sought to move entirely to another country to find the help they needed, and the socialist healthcare system of the UK explicitly disallowed them to do so. We see that the socialist government will sacrifice the weakest ones to save money, even when other options are available. People will spend years, even their entire lives, caring for their families, doing whatever it takes, including going into bankruptcy, to do so. The government does not love you and will let you die if you are too inconvenient. This attempt at extrapolation simply does not work.
There are many other reasons why the family argument does not work, but this is easily the strongest and most easily applicable to any argument that comes up. Further reasons the family unit cannot be extrapolated to government is because the family unit lives within the government - or in the case of a lack of a government, exists independently from the government, the family unit is far smaller than any given state or country, the family unit is a functionally necessary concept, and finally, the family unit cannot be absolved or overthrown. The family unit is not chosen and it exists for a different purpose than the government. A king can argue to have been born with the right to rule, but this is merely traditional, arbitrary nonsense. A president may be voted for, but then he may lose his position later after another vote. Even in the case of adoption, the person who birthed you is your mother and will always be and there is absolutely no possible way this can change. Family units are diverse in good and bad ways, but the weave that creates and holds them is cut from a different fabric than what creates a government. We cannot extrapolate "mother" into "president" - they are vast worlds different from one another.
No comments:
Post a Comment