Left Is Right and Right Is Wrong（2）

Left Is Right and Right Is Wrong（2）

文：林炎平

The Wall – Nothing Wrong with It

Trump made quite loud about his policy of building a wall on the border of Mexico to prevent people from entering the USA illegally. The media cried against this even louder than Trump’s vow. What is wrong with a wall? Don’t you live between walls? Does not your yard have fences? Your yard has fences to prevent unwanted people from entering. Your parents work hard to make it possible for you to live within walls, so that you do not have to live wall-less streets.

No one needs fences if safety is not a concern. No nation needs a defended border if no unwanted people cross it. Look at the border between the USA and Canada,undefended and free border of 5,000kms, which means the USA is not a lover of wall if not for running out of options. The ultimate question is “Why should a nation allow unwanted people to come freely?”  This question is the equivalent to this one: “Why should a family allow uninvited people to enter freely?”

Why should a family allow uninvited people to enter freely?

Building a fence to prevent uninvited people from entering is justified, just like your home and your backyard. It is a home. If you build a wall to prevent the people inside from getting out, then it is wrong, because it is a jail.

That is why the wall or fences Trump wants to build on Mexico border is justified and that is why the Berlin wall built by the communist region was not.

Two Issues that the Left Went too Far

As we mentioned before, left is pro-changes. It is never a bad thing to progress, but it is indeed bad to change for the sake of change. Here are two issues that the left obviously went too far in my view.

I also want you to know that I am not a social conservative. Every time I made tests to see my position in the political spectrum my results put me in the liberal side rather than conservative side. My values on LGBT and minority rights have always scored as liberal. But it is the liberal in extreme that I am against.

The LGBT – an Over Protected Group

LGBT can stage a parade that is literally erotic, which straight people can never be allowed to do. LGBT groups have already been enjoying greater rights than the straight. Of course you will argue that this is the only thing that may look unusually more favourable to the LGBT than the straight ones. Yet, it is not. We have to conclude that LGBT groups are no longer the vulnerable ones.

Do we still have systemic discrimination against LGBT? No. They already have the equal rights as the others. The only thing that can be argued is the marriage issue. They already have the equivalent to the legal marriage, which is “civil union”.i.e. they can enjoy everything that a legal marriage provides, e.g. tax benefit and others for legally married couples. The only thing that they still do not have somewhere is the name of “marriage”.

But they want to call their union “marriage”. Why should they call it marriage? If they want to call their union marriage, we have to redefine “marriage”.

In short, LGBT is no longer a vulnerable group. Rather, it is an over protected and over promoted one.

BLM - A Real Racist Organization

BLM ( Black Lives Matter ) is a racist group, which is not a surprising matter. But it is that it is not only a legally existing racist organization but also a promoted one that is astonishing. Its very existence shows the justice is leaning against European Americans. If one dares to change the B to W, he will immediately be labelled “racist”.

This organization shouted killing the whites and police. This is bad enough yet the worse is that such behaviour has no consequences and drew little criticism from media or intellectuals, which is extremely worrisome.

This is also where Obama has failed miserably during his presidency. He had the best opportunity to fix, or at least improve, the racial relation between Black and White. He is black and his very presidency is the proof that there is no systemic racism in the USA. However, he did the complete opposite, fanning up the racial hatred by the African Americans towards the European Americans. After his 8 years in Oval office, the relation between White and Black reaches its lowest point and the rift between them at its widest, in decades. The rise of the racist group of BLM is just a superficial symptom. Deep inside is a dark current against the European Americans promoted by the left.

Left and Right in Politics

Someone said that if you are not “left” at your 20s, you have no heart; if you are not “right” at your 40s, then you have no brain. I forgot who exactly said such first, but I remember a friend of mine said to me with his own experience. He is a French Canadian named Denis.

One day about 20 years ago a strange guy dropped into my office. Soon we became friends partially because his infectious laugh. He told me that he went to China during Cultural Revolution and he was a member of Canadian Communist Party Central Committee.

“Not anymore.” Seeing I was surprised, he continued.

“Why?” I was curious.

“If you are a communist when you are 20, then you could be generous. If you are still a communist when you are 40, then you are stupid.” He finished with aquite laugh, followed by mine.

Left when You Are Young

It makes it look like there is a learning curve between 20s and 40s. The question is: You are right (justice) when you are “left”, or you are right (justice) when you are “right” (politics)?

So, which one is right (justice) and which one is wrong?

If the political view at your 40s, which is right (politics), is right (justice), then the one at your 20s, which is left, is wrong. We certainly cannot justify being wrong by the excuse of being young. After all, when you are 18, you already have the right to vote, which means you should make a right decision for you, your family, your society and your country. If all young people at their 20s are wrong and feel justified, it is enough to take a country to a wrong direction. We certainly can use the youth and less experiences as the excuse to mitigate our guilt and responsibility for being on the wrong side, which is left (politics), but is this really justifiable?

It is considerably easy to promote generosity when you do not have much, since it is not going to make you pay dearly. I would be the most generous person in the world if I were a panhandler. I would promise you the whole world “if I had it”. Since I do not have it, I can only serve you with my words, which does not cost me anything. That is also why when you are a student you tend to be on the left.

Things will change when you get something. You get a job, you get a house, you get a family and you get your savings. At this moment, will you deliver what you promised before? Forget about the world that you promised to give. You will probably not give up you house. Statistically, no. People will not donate everything then live on street themselves. This should not be criticized. It is the original promising that should be denounced as being hypocritical. But I know the hypocrisy is genuine, since the youngsters who made the promises really meant it. Only later when they find out they are not willing to deliver when they really possess themselves valuable somethings.

When a young student who promise the society with the whole world when he has nothing, he knows that he has nothing to offer but his words. The real instinct intention is that he wants the society to offer him everything, e.g. free education, free living, and free everything. They sincerely believe that, since they genuinely offer the society the whole world once they have it but they do not have now, then the society really owes them everything the world has now.

“Since I am so generously offer you the whole world in future, why should you offer me with everything that I need now?” This is what their mentality and I was one of them but just was not addicted to it as long as them. They indeed feel responsible for the society too, so they would work as volunteers with genuine enthusiasm. However, it is the mentality that they are saving the world and the others are ruin it that gets them think that they are on the right (justice) side of the world and history, which is left (politics).

Left on Campus

Yes, young people are more likely to be misled. With their enthusiasm, they can accept different ideas, right ideas and wrong ideas. With their already left leaning in instinct, they can be easily led into this direction with minimum efforts.

Our campuses are usually on the left (politics). More professors are on the left than right. This is especially true in the social and arts sections. Why are the professors and students more prone left in arts and social science? According to my observation and understanding, it is that these disciplines require less science and engineering training. Those who without such proper trainings tend to be unrealistic and fanatic. They think things are easy: “As long as you have a right attitude, which is left, you are on the right (justice) side of the world and history. Once the society has the right (justice) attitude, which is left, all the problems of the world will be solved.”

Sartre, a French philosopher, is a typical intellectual who led the students into a wrong political direction. Since it is not the right direction, it must be the opposite direction to the right, i.e. left. He was extremely fanatic about the left, and was very much obsessed with Soviet Union, so much so that even after he knew what catastrophe the Soviet caused and what crimes the Soviet committed, he continues to praise it and led the followers to the direction, which is the left.

May 1968 events in France influenced by Satre

In science and engineering, however, you cannot distort an observation or make a machine work by boasting or merely by enthusiasm. You simply cannot brag a machine into working condition. Regardless how fanatic you are, the machine will not work unless you design it and make it right. Since they cannot make the machine right (justice), they have to be on the left (politics). Once you are on the left, you do not have to be responsible for making the things right. It sounds like a joke but it is exactly like this.

It is very difficult to make things right (justice), which is why it is difficult to be on the right (politics). On the other hand, it is so easy to make thing swrong, which is why it is easy to stay opposite to right, which is the left. However, the difficulties caused by the left will occur later with much more serious consequences. Famine is one of them. If we examine the human history, we know that every extreme left caused famine. Unfortunately, the young students in the West have probably never heard of famine, let alone experiencing one. They do not have even any remote idea about what it is like.

Equality vs. Justice

Left (politics) is always more attractive in appearance than right (politics). The most attractive part of the left usually starts with equality.

There are two great values in humanity, which are liberty and equality. Together with fraternity, they give us the most beautiful values: liberty, equality and fraternity.

The first two are the rights of people, the third one is responsibility. Young people are enthusiastic yet less wealthy. They have too much hormone to spend and too little wealth to share. Thus, equality is the most attractive idea to them, economically, along with fraternity. Young people have less, so equality means they will take in more than share out.

Then thing will go wrong from here. Why? The first value is liberty, which means everyone has its right to be free to do what he wants. But freedom has aboundary because you cannot deprive the other people’s freedom. i.e. your freedom cannot be expended at the cost of others’ freedom. It is for this sake, equality is important. It simply means that the other people are as free as you are.

Equality can be readily understood with liberty as: liberty is your freedom and equality is others’ freedom.

The problem I just mentioned is caused by the reversed priority, i.e. equality prevailing liberty. If liberty is second to equality, all the problems occur.

Once liberty is inferior to equality, equality is no longer the equal start rather is reduced to equal finish.

Let us talk about Matthews's law: For unto every one that hath shall be given, and he shall have abundance; but from him that hath not shall be taken even that which he hath. It basically justifies that deprive those who have less to reward those who have more. In human society, this law must be artificially limited, otherwise we are like animals and vegetables.

However, once we need competition, this law must be followed. Let us observe the scenario in a Marathon competition at its start line. The best record holders are placed in the most front position, which are for two obvious reasons: preventing the slower runners from hindering them, and rewarding the faster ones for their previous achievements.

It means your hard work and good performance are appreciated and rewarded. Without this mechanism, evolution of society stops. But without limiting this mechanism, we would be in a society of social Darwinism, in which the weak will be let perish. So, between total competition (no protection for the weak) and total protection (no reward for the strong), there should be an optimal point to take care both sides. An ideal society should be “the stronger can prosper with glory and the weaker can survive with dignity”.

Where should be the line drawn? This is the question.

We can understand now: so called left is that it values more equality than liberty; so called right is the opposite.

The left at its extreme is the communism, where everyone is getting the same regardless his contribution. The right at its extreme is the Darwinism, where everyone is free to pursue his goal even at the cost of the others.

The right at its extreme is exactly like our normal Marathon competition, and the left at its extreme is like a Marathon that forces every competitor to finish at the same time. The latter is of course really ridiculous. No one will really watch this kind Marathon as spectator. And no one will really make any effort as competitor, because there is no winner, or you can call everyone winner, or more accurately, loser.

( to be continued )