By John Pepin – February 22, 2023
It seems to me, regardless if central planning actually yielded a benefit to society, the economy or humanity, which it demonstrably has not, does not and will not… it would still be wrong to implement, because at its core, central planning is immoral. It is immoral because it takes agency from individuals and gives it to the elite. The presumption is, the elite are so much smarter, wiser and, gosh darn it, well, just better people than the rest of us. However, even if only saints and angels ruled under a central planning regime, it would still be morally wrong and yield catastrophe. All central planners must have one attribute, presumption. They presume to be better than everyone else. That presumption leads to pride, arrogance and envy… which brings oppression upon the people, always a wrong.
When a person takes agency from another it is a form of slavery. The act itself presupposes some innate superiority of the one over the other. Not only is the one assumed to be better than the other, but that superiority is so vast, the second has no right to his or her own life. Like the difference between a human being and a chicken. The chicken has no agency, freedom or even a right to life. We could therefore reckon that anything that is not afforded the right to life, would amount to a chicken, on the ethic metric. If that is the case, then it would be up to those assuming power over the other, to demonstrate that superiority. Which should be a simple act, if they are indeed so above us, we are like chickens to them. Making us the livestock of the worthless elite. Is that moral?
Morality is not ethereal, it is pretty obvious, those who want to do immoral things however claim it is nebulous. Posers have a thousand ways of saying nothing but sounding erudite. Once painted into a corner they lash out with ad homonym attacks. Lets face it, we all justify things in our own minds, and we do it all the time. Then we deal with the cognitive dissonance as best we can. Nevertheless, we all know what is moral and what is not, in our hearts. Those of us with hearts at least. If someone needs to wax poetic for hours, to justify a thing you know in your heart is wrong, then they are justifying evil. Defending a bad act that they want to do but need to twist logic to make it sound like a good thing. Because, most people want to think themselves good, while they commit despicable acts.
If some people really are better than others, then they could prove it under a regime of meritocracy. That they detest meritocracy shows, in their hearts, the elite know they are not better then us… they are less. Have you noticed the desire of someone to rule scales with their ineptitude? The more inept someone is the more they feel they are made to rule. Ruling others is their forte. Court clingers politic their way up the ladder instead of merit it with their work. When this happens in a corporate setting they become a drag on the company, when it happens in the bureaucracy they create friction for the economy, when it happens in public office, they scuttle a nation. How can we tell the court clingers from those with merit? You can reliably discern Court clingers by the disasters that trail behind them.
Central planning is immoral then, even if it did yield a benefit, which history proves… it doesn’t. The inept court clingers however understand they are not useful in any other capacity, so in their egoistic envy, they seek to rule. They are the kind of people who get political assistance from Communist agents, have a foreign spy as a driver for decades, leave the city they led on proverbial fire, have disturbing “art” in their homes, lie constantly and have a history of corruption and ineptitude. Pragmatism, if it were applied, would point them out quickly. Central planning, while immoral and yielding catastrophe, is coveted by the inept elite. People with advanced university degrees, who are utterly useless and stupid, need central planning to give their inept immoral empty lives, meaning.