Jeg har tidligere henvist til den konservative økonom Thomas Sowells klummer, der altid er præget af stor præcision og en skarp pen. Således også i hans seneste indlæg på townhall.com, hvor han under overskriften “Freedom and the left” indleder med følgende præcise analyse:
“Most people on the left are not opposed to freedom. They are just in favor of all sorts of things that are incompatible with freedom.”
Meget mere præcist kan det ikke gøre. I klummen undrer Sowell sig med god grund over den udbredte praksis, at der er obligatorisk “community service” i en del highschools – ligesom det kan være afgørende at man har udført dette for at komme ind på en række universiteter.
Ganske politisk ukorrekt (på disse breddegrader), skriver Sowell videre, at
Working in a homeless shelter is widely regarded as “community service”– as if aiding and abetting vagrancy is necessarily a service, rather than a disservice, to the community. Is a community better off with more people not working, hanging out on the streets, aggressively panhandling people on the sidewalks, urinating in the street, leaving narcotics needles in the parks where children play?”
Og spørger herefter: “What in the world qualifies teachers and members of college admissions committees to define what is good for society as a whole, or even for the students on whom they impose their arbitrary notions?
What expertise do they have that justifies overriding other people’s freedom? What do their arbitrary impositions show, except that fools rush in where angels fear to tread?”
Og før nogen nu skulle tænke, nåh ja, og hvad så, det er der kun godt, at man kræver af de unge mennesker, at de skal gøre noget for andre mindre heldige medborgere, det kan man da ikke diskutere, så overvej følgende:
I am sure those who favor “community service” requirements would understand the principle behind the objections to this if high school military exercises were required.
Indeed, many of those who promote compulsory “community service” activities are bitterly opposed to even voluntary military training in high schools or colleges, though many other people regard military training as more of a contribution to society than feeding people who refuse to work.
In other words, people on the left want the right to impose their idea of what is good for society on others– a right that they vehemently deny to those whose idea of what is good for society differs from their own.
The essence of bigotry is refusing to others the rights that you demand for yourself. Such bigotry is inherently incompatible with freedom, even though many on the left would be shocked to be considered opposed to freedom.”
Mere præcist kan det ikke skrives.
OPDATERET: Overskrift ændret til hvad den skulle have været, venstrefløjen og frihed – havde skrevet venstrefløjen og demokrati, og det er jo ikke helt det samme.