While reflecting on my time as a Sunday School teacher, leading the group and teaching them the Bible, I began writing the following essay, but got stuck towards the end. First, my essay:
“An essay on leftism vs right and scale.
A while back, when I was still teaching the Sunday School (for high school students), I would often hold Bible memorisation competitions. The students would be given a set text (for example, Psalm 23), and told when the competition will be held, giving them 2-3 weeks to memorise and practice the recitation of the text. On the day of the competition, I would set independent judges (multiple!) to evaluate everyone’s performance as objectively as they can. We would time their recitation in seconds, and use penalties such as +5s per mistake, and give an overall score for fluency/delivery. I was quite proud of the way we were able to consistently evaluate everyone’s performance without showing favouritism.
In addition to the above, in order to motivate everyone to excellence, we would deliberately limit the number of prizes given. This was no “every participant gets an award!” affair. Only the very best would get the prize, and maybe there would be a runner-up prize. Given a fixed budget (which we did), this approach enabled the prize to be something everyone could covet (the very first competition had AirPod Pros as the First Prize!) and so it really became a motivator for excellence for all.
However, after running this competition successfully and giving out the winning prize several times, I quickly realised there was a ‘problem’. The winning student kept winning again and again. The fact was that not everyone had equal ability, and not everyone had equal level of motivation. The hardest part was those students who *were* clearly motivated, but they just didn’t have the same ability to be able to compete on a level playing field. And in all that time, the winning student was gaining more experience and confidence and even panache—she was getting so good and reaching a level that was now unassailable by all the others. We were literally beholding the ‘preferential attachment effect’ (also known as the ‘Matthew effect of accumulated advantage’, after what Jesus said in Matthew 25:29: “For to every one who has will more be given, and he will have abundance; but from him who has not, even what he has will be taken away.”).
And this got me thinking. A blind, fair, and objective playing field allowed for excellence (the winning performances at every competition was truly something to behold), and yet our social cohesion as a Sunday School community/body was at risk. Could this be a meaningful model for how we think about the political left/right spectrum of ideas in our society?
Before, we scale up, I think it would do well to actually scale down from the Sunday School and consider the family unit, with the children as the main constituents and the parents at its head. Clearly, no parent ought to run the family in a strictly politically-right sense. Can you imagine measuring up your children’s performance (at school? their manners/etiquette at home?) on an objective metric and rewarding them accordingly at each meal time?! Sure, we could have some gamified version of the above to motivate good behaviour/results both at home and at school, but to carry through with it with no regards to any other factors would be on the verge of child abuse! And so we conclude that a family should be run in a mostly leftist sense: the children are treated equally with love and respect, and they are allotted resources according to their needs, as much as the parent can afford, because we are all in this together. I believe this is why most young people who first enter the society (University) are leftists to begin with—this collectivist system is all they have been exposed to growing up.
However, can we then say that because this leftist approach (or some hybrid version of it) is the answer at the family and at the Sunday School level, that this is also the answer for the nation and the city?
My answer to this is a firm, resounding no! And here are the reasons why:
First of all, the idea that the state/council can even be seen as a ‘parent’ figure of the population is abhorrent to me. The Bible’s mandate for the state is limited to keeping the public law and order (enforcement of laws, punishing the wicked), as seen in Romans 13 and 1 Timothy 2:1-2. I am deeply skeptical of the idea that the state/government has my best interest at heart. Instead, it should get out of the way when it comes to private enterprise—let each law-abiding citizen figure out how best to participate in the economy/market, make his decisions, and reap the benefits of his decisions without interference from the state.
The state has no business in forcibly taking away a portion of some people’s property through taxation and re-distributing that to the rest of the populace in the name of ‘social justice’ (fighting inequality), but alas that is the society we live in today.”
As you can, see, I ran out of steam towards the end and the essay kind of peters out. So I turned to ChatGPT (don’t we all haha). I gave it the following prompt:
“Write an essay on why a family should be run on a leftist (fighting inequality) principle but this cannot be scaled up to a nation or city, where we have anonymous society and people (due to their greedy nature) can exploit the loopholes. Conclude with the statement that while a family ought to be run with leftism, a nation must be run on a strictly right wing principle which values hard work, freedom of the individual, and minimum state intervention.”
And this beauty is what it produced in 0.4s or so:
“Title: The Duality of Principles: Leftism in the Family, Right-Wing Governance for the Nation
Introduction
The dynamics of governance and principles that guide our societies often reveal a complex interplay between ideology and practicality. While the principles of leftism, which aim to fight inequality and prioritize collective well-being, can be considered ideal for the family unit, the same cannot be seamlessly scaled up to govern a nation or city. This essay explores the reasons why a family should be run on leftist principles but highlights the limitations of applying these principles to larger, anonymous societies. It ultimately argues that a nation must be governed with a strictly right-wing principle that values hard work, individual freedom, and minimal state intervention.
1. Leftism in the Family: Promoting Equality and Welfare
In a family, the application of leftist principles can foster a sense of equality and well-being. Parents often strive to provide equal opportunities and resources to their children, irrespective of their individual capabilities. This creates a nurturing and supportive environment where each family member’s needs are met, and collective welfare is prioritized over individual interests.
2. Scaling Leftism: The Challenge of an Anonymous Society
When we extend these leftist principles to the scale of a nation or city, the dynamics change. Anonymous societies are composed of diverse individuals with varying levels of ambition, abilities, and motivations. Leftist policies that focus on wealth redistribution and equality can, in some cases, create loopholes that individuals exploit for personal gain, potentially discouraging hard work and innovation.
3. The Greedy Nature of Humans
Human nature often leans towards self-interest and, at times, greed. In an anonymous society, where people are not connected by the familial bonds that promote mutual care, these natural inclinations can lead to exploitation of leftist policies. The risk of a minority exploiting the system at the expense of the majority becomes more pronounced.
4. Right-Wing Principles: Emphasizing Hard Work and Freedom
In contrast, right-wing principles prioritize individual freedom and personal responsibility. They encourage hard work, innovation, and entrepreneurship. The minimal state intervention ensures that individuals are free to make their own choices, but it also necessitates personal responsibility for the consequences of those choices.
5. Finding a Balance
While a family can thrive on leftist principles that promote collective welfare, a nation or city faces challenges that require a different approach. A strictly right-wing principle, which values individual freedom and hard work, helps create an environment where innovation and productivity flourish. However, this should be balanced with safety nets and social policies to provide a support system for those who may struggle in a competitive environment.
Conclusion
In conclusion, the dichotomy between leftist principles in the family and right-wing governance for a nation reflects the complexities of human nature and societal dynamics. Leftism in a family promotes equality and well-being, as familial bonds foster mutual care. However, as societies grow in scale and anonymity, leftism faces challenges stemming from human greed and self-interest. In these larger, diverse settings, a right-wing approach emphasizing individual freedom, hard work, and minimal state intervention becomes more practical. The key lies in striking a balance that recognizes the value of both principles, preserving individual freedoms while providing a safety net for those in need.”
I wish I could write as succinctly as ChatGPT. And as fast
