Paternalism in governance has taken on a whole new meaning. The Obama administration is the latest in a long line of over-achieving parents. This conjures up the modern trend of helicopter parenting, aptly displayed recently by the modern intellectual Homer Simpson. The operating principle of the helicopter parent is maintaining a close eye on a child's day-to-day activities and being ready to jump in to mow down any obstacles that my stand in the child's way. Though the actions may be misguided, the motivation is a noble one. Every parent wants to see their child succeed, and most cringe at the thought of their child's failures, even the small ones. Insofar as the parent has the means to help the child, he or she is the only one likely to be harmed by the process.
The motivation and operating principle translate directly to helicopter governance, but the nobility of the motivation does not. The Obama administration wants to make college and healthcare "affordable" to all of its children, even if the immutable laws of finance get in the way. Putting aside the obvious fallacy of considering the citizens of the several states to be the children of the federal government, the most insidious lie behind these utopian promises of milk and honey is that the parent in this case has no resources of its own to make good on them. The mother who desperately wants her daughter to attend private school may take on a second job, and we may look upon this as laudable. But, the mother who steals from the church collection plate to pay for her son's violin lessons should get no such praise from us. The father who raids Peter's savings to win Paul's affection with an Xbox deserves a special sort of shunning. Our sovereigns cannot work overtime, get a second job or put on a bake sale to mold the world closer to their heart's desires. Their only wealth is a claim on our sweat, and they've shown little aversion to spending it. They take the high moral ground in that they are merely securing the right to education and the right to healthcare, but these are no different than Paul's right to an Xbox. There is no such thing as the right to take a ride on your neighbor's back because rights are those things to be respected by others not provided by them.
Healthcare Spending Catastrophe
It seems to me that we should expect a society to spend more on healthcare as it grows more affluent. At one end of the spectrum there is the primitive hunter-gatherer who neither has the medical knowledge to treat injuries or infections nor the expendable wealth to administer it were it available. As we move up the scale we have developing countries who have either developed or imported medical knowledge and technology. In such a country there may be sufficient wealth to pay for antibiotics for some and chemotherapy for others, but by no means is there sufficient wealth to treat the ailments of all. When there is a trade off between treating cancer in its early stages and eating, eating always wins. This is the central issue that must be kept in mind when thinking about healthcare spending; prices do not exist for the sole purpose of enriching healthcare administrators but rather - as they do for any other product - to communicate preferences. As medical skill and technology continue to expand and as our wealth increases, our propensity to spend that wealth on healthcare approaches infinity. After all, who doesn't want to live forever? The problem comes, as you might expect, when those who wish to govern our lives attempt to collectivize risks and preferences while ensuring that everyone can have everything they want at an "affordable" price. For any society, as for any individual, operating within a delusion can be quite dangerous.
"The Cartel" Exposes Dangers Of Central Planning In Education
I just finished watching The Cartel which was a brilliant documentary of the state of publicly run schools in the US. As much as I may disagree with the notion that public funding of education is a necessity, there can be little doubt that the administration of education must not be left to the public sector. In the public sector there exists no robust mechanism for evaluating and communicating performance, and the greatest motivation against failure - the fact that it might happen - is entirely absent in a system where a school's revenue is determined solely by the population within its fiefdom.
There are few situations in American life more disturbing than that our youth are used by powerful unions and political machines to further their narrow interests. I consistently struggle to give union organizers the benefit of the doubt, but as they pay lip service to the educational interests of students I hear their most well crafted rhetoric and feel their greatest passion directed toward defending their monopoly. I am simply out of sympathy for them.
The Cartel is highly recommended viewing.
There are few situations in American life more disturbing than that our youth are used by powerful unions and political machines to further their narrow interests. I consistently struggle to give union organizers the benefit of the doubt, but as they pay lip service to the educational interests of students I hear their most well crafted rhetoric and feel their greatest passion directed toward defending their monopoly. I am simply out of sympathy for them.
The Cartel is highly recommended viewing.
Some Obvious Interpretations of the American Language
I was 20 years old when I realized that a quart is named as it is because it is a quarter of a gallon. I had known since grade school that there were four quarts in a gallon, but I had just never made the connection. Similarly, I realized just recently, at the age of 26, that we have States in the US and they have Provinces in Canada for a reason. It had not occurred to me that we still refer to them as States today because the founders of our federal government considered the States to be sovereign entities. The federal government was established as a peaceful agreement between these sovereigns to promote their general prosperity and provide for a common defense. This all seems fairly obvious in hindsight, and maybe it was to all of you reading this. But it has always been difficult for me to look beyond the historical framework in which we live, where the federal government is seen as the ultimate ruling power of the nation with the final say in whether we go to war, who pays what tax and what actions are legal and which are against the law. Maybe, in spite of all the clear language in the constitution and other documents of the time period, I never recognized the origin of our reference to States because in today's world they are more accurately described as provinces of the Federal government.
Similarly, I never paused to consider why the States of the "rebellion", who seceded from the Union leading up to the war between the States, referred to themselves as a "confederacy". Ostensibly, this is a manifestation of their disdain for a strong central government and their struggle to free themselves from one them as their fathers had. This leads me to my final epiphany that the difference between a "rebellion" and a "revolution" is whether or not you win.
Similarly, I never paused to consider why the States of the "rebellion", who seceded from the Union leading up to the war between the States, referred to themselves as a "confederacy". Ostensibly, this is a manifestation of their disdain for a strong central government and their struggle to free themselves from one them as their fathers had. This leads me to my final epiphany that the difference between a "rebellion" and a "revolution" is whether or not you win.
Attacking the Cult of Lincoln
I have recently had the pleasure of reading Thomas DiLorenzo's Lincoln Unmasked, which I highly recommend to anyone interested in the time period. Prior to reading the book I had never really questioned my knowledge or understanding of the "Civil War" as it was pretty boring and clear-cut. Whether it is a product of our educational system or my own proclivity towards math and science I feel there are a great many events of historical significance which I do not quite understand. The civil war is no exception. As a child growing up in a northern state, the message I got was that the southern states seceded from the union because they wanted to keep their slaves (occasionally the phrase "state's rights" was thrown in without explanation). Finally the good guys prevailed and Lincoln freed the slaves. Throw in some carpet baggers, reconstruction (which I never followed too closely) and the dastardly assassination of the noble Lincoln, and that pretty much wraps things up. Sympathy with the confederate cause was never something I considered.
Now, I want to state right of front that slavery is unequivocally the most reprehensible institution ever to exist within our shores. The fact that it was inflicted with such prejudice upon a particular people makes it so much worse. However, to focus an inordinate attention to this singular issue while ignoring the political and economic forces driving the southern states to secede from the union is to do ourselves a great disservice. More importantly I think we must pause to question why Lincoln would react to these actions with military invasion.
I am not an expert on the history of the war between the states, so I am not going to open a debate here on the causes of that war or the character of the men who started it. I am simply going to tip my hat to the author for opening my eyes to a series of questions I had never considered. I will close by imploring the reader to recognize the anti-southern bigotry that surrounds us on a regular basis. Challenge your preconceptions and you can't help but make the world a better place.
Now, I want to state right of front that slavery is unequivocally the most reprehensible institution ever to exist within our shores. The fact that it was inflicted with such prejudice upon a particular people makes it so much worse. However, to focus an inordinate attention to this singular issue while ignoring the political and economic forces driving the southern states to secede from the union is to do ourselves a great disservice. More importantly I think we must pause to question why Lincoln would react to these actions with military invasion.
I am not an expert on the history of the war between the states, so I am not going to open a debate here on the causes of that war or the character of the men who started it. I am simply going to tip my hat to the author for opening my eyes to a series of questions I had never considered. I will close by imploring the reader to recognize the anti-southern bigotry that surrounds us on a regular basis. Challenge your preconceptions and you can't help but make the world a better place.
How Can You Defend Capitalism?
The Protester: Capitalism is subjugation of those who have nothing to those who have everything. It is a never ending war between the workers and the bosses.
Capitalism is the consistent application of peace to every aspect of life. The result of this ideology is the material success that we see around us - the extended order that arises spontaneously when people are free to own property. This "economy" is the emergent property of the action of free people.
The Protester: But in free markets, the capitalists will rule the working class!
In a purely free society, a man's wealth is the product of helping his fellows by providing them with goods and services that they accept without coercion. His wealth is his power, and it is the product of his sweat, his genius and his benevolence to his fellows. He cannot conquer without convincing, and he cannot enslave without mutually agreed remuneration.
The Protester: But markets fail! We cannot allow the animal spirits to rule mankind.
Capitalism is not utopianism, and its consistent application will not provide everyone with increasing prosperity in perpetuity. Some will thrive while others fail, and prosperity will be guaranteed to noone in spite of good, honest, hard work. The economy is the emergent property of free people acting peacefully, and it is beyond foolish to try to steer it, stimulate it, regulate it or prop it up. It is simply wrong - intellectually and morally.
The Moderate: It's "crony-capitalism" that we are against!
Fair-enough, but what you are referring to is not capitalism. It is the power of the politician to regulate, to give and to take away that perverts the relationships of honest men. It is to the Senator's power that he owe's his flock of cronies. If you are against a social system in which government officials curry favor by dolling out "public" funds and "public" property, call it by its name - socialism. If you rail against politicians who support nationalistic economic policies by forcefully imposing their will, foreign and domestic, call them by their name - fascists. If you appose protectionist tariffs and quotas imparted upon us by the planners to prop up their pet industries, then stand against mercantilism. The only way to stop these evils is to cut off the power that feeds them.
Now, perhaps more than ever, capitalism is in need of a defense. As the 21st century beatniks "occupy" Wall Street, it is clear that the most active among us are not necessarily the most well informed. More disturbingly however, most Americans do not have a firm grasp of the position that they think they are supposed to hold - namely, that free markets function better and are more humane than the statist regimes of communism, socialism and fascism. It is the recognition of this fact, tempered by the moral sentiments of altruism, that drives the common American to hold in the highest regard our so-called mixed economy. This unseemly gargoyle, which we call the American system, is the bastard child of freedom and control - of enlightenment and despotism.
Welcome to My Corner
I am neither an economist nor a historian, nor am I running for public office. I am an engineer, living in a union of states who have lost their engine. You may be wondering what that engine is and why I have taken such a common title and turned it slightly on its edge. Perhaps it is a stretched metaphor and ill positioned poetic license by someone who knows no better. These are the things I wish to explain to you in our brief time together. The actions and policies of our governments are not strictly the purview of the formally trained, and with a little effort, every man, woman and child in every nook and cranny of the globe can learn to spot the foibles and fallacies those with the will to power inflict upon our world.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
