You've probably heard or seen commercials from the National Association of Realtors about "the benefits of home ownership." These include better grades for kids, more cohesive family units, higher employment, and unicorns (I think I made that last one up). To hear them tell it, if everyone just bought a house, everything would be better.
Even granting them the best of motives, this is irresponsible advertising and giving people false expectations. And I don't grant them the best of motives.
You see, the premise of these commercials is a fallacious conflation of causal relationships. For my Liberal readers: it gets cause and effect backwards.
In the early days of my blog, I addressed it this way: frugality fosters wealth, not the other way around. You see, the fact is that couples who are committed to each other and their children, who work hard and save money, and who have the personal habits associated with those things will tend to own homes. It is not owning the home that makes them committed and hard working. Exactly the opposite, it's the commitment and hard work that makes them good candidates for home ownership.
Unfortunately, this disease does not simply effect the NAR. It seems to have spread everywhere. Colleges tell you that getting a degree will enhance your prospects, when the truth is (especially in this age of degrees in Underwater Basket Weaving), that the kind of people who are likely to be successful are the same ones who will tend to get college degrees. More over, they will tend to get STEM degrees, not Liberal Arts degrees.
This really gets to the heart of our "because I deserve it!" society. We have ceased being a society of personal responsibility and liberty- the society that built this nation into the greatest on earth- and have become a society of "steps to success" and "easy money." Our grandparents and great-grandparents did not believe that there were certain steps that would lead to wealth and prosperity. Rather they realized that accomplishing certain goals would require certain steps. Our parents, for various reasons, began getting that backward, and they imparted that to my generation.
Now, people believe that if they go to college, they are owed a job when they graduate. They believe that once they sign to purchase a house, they are owed prosperity and a good school and a job.
It's completely backwards, and it will change. The only question is if it will change because we, as a society, set out to change it, or if it will change because the gods of the copy-book headings will force it on us.
Showing posts with label Simple Truths. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Simple Truths. Show all posts
Tuesday, January 22, 2013
Monday, November 12, 2012
Simple Truth: Direct Taxes are Tyrannical
Government runs on taxation. While a sovereign government can print its own currency, that currency means nothing if its people produce nothing of value. Taxation is a charge on the value someone creates. Taxes are necessary to the functioning of government, and a government which does not raise enough in taxes to cover its obligations is doomed, eventually, to failure.
There are two methods to raise these taxes, they are Direct Taxation and Indirect Taxation. In general, Indirect Taxes will be conducive to Liberty and Direct Taxes will be conducive to Tyranny. It behooves us to understand why.
Indirect taxation taxes the value created by a good or service. In general, these will be sales taxes (a general tax on the value of any transaction) or a duty or levy (a specific tax on an item or category of items). If you want to think of them that way, indirect taxes are a commercial transaction which takes place on top of another commercial transaction.
In any commercial transaction, payment is rendered for some good or service. If you are the one who is "selling" then you are rendering a good or service in exchange for a different good- usually money. If you are the one who is "buying" then you are rendering a good (again, usually money) for some other good or service.
In the case of indirect taxes, the "good or service" you are "purchasing" is the Government. Specifically, it is to be hoped that what is being funded is the necessary operation of, or payment for, government obligations. In theory, the taxes should have some baring on the item or transaction taxed. As a specific example, gasoline taxes are supposed to be used to pay for road maintenance and new roads. Another specific example would regulatory charges which pay for the operation of the regulatory agencies. A more general example- a sales tax- simply pays for the operation of government generally. It is assumed that the operation of government assists the sale in some way- for instance, by providing enough peace and stability for a money economy to function.
These are conducive to Liberty for two main reasons.
The first is that there is a limit to the amount of money an indirect tax can raise. While a government can theoretically set any level of fee or taxation on any specific good, service, or transaction, the reality is that people do consider those fees and taxes into the cost of items before they purchase them. Raising sales taxes too high will serve only to kill your money economy. Barter and under-the-table economies will quickly rise to replace the "official" economy and thus deny funds to the Government all together. To some degree this happens already.
The second reason is that indirect taxes are, to some degree, voluntary. No one has to purchase cigarettes, or alcohol, or even gasoline for that matter. Certainly many people do purchase these things. Many people even view them as "necessities," but they are not. The British Government thought of tea as a "staple item." Weren't they surprised when some men in Boston most emphatically said, "no, it's not?" So to the extent that various goods, services, and transactions can be avoided, so can those taxes be avoided. That gives me many legal options for keeping more of my own money.
Direct taxes, however, are inherently tyrannical. They are taxes on one of two things, in either case the tax is a form of tyranny. Direct taxes are either a tax on simply being alive, or they are a tax on a person's labor.
Note that taxes, in these cases, would still be "commercial transactions." That is, you're paying a good (money) for something- but what is that "something," and do you have the option to avoid that tax by not partaking in that something? In the case of a "capitation" or "per-head" tax, the tax is simply on your life. You are, in essence, paying the government just because you are alive. Note that this is the kind of "tax, but not-a-tax" written into ObamaCare to enforce the individual mandate. Simply being alive is enough to force you (in that particular case) to purchase a product or pay a tax. Income taxes, however, are taxes on your labor. Again, conceptually, you are paying the government for the right to produce something of value and reap the benefits of it.
In either case, the government is taxing one of your Natural (or "inalienable") Rights. It taxes your right to Property in the case of income taxes, while it taxes your right to Life in the case of per-head taxes.
Now, that in itself is tyrannical. Indeed, it is the definition of tyranny- you either live only at the sufferance of the State, or you work directly for the good of the State. But beyond that, the same things that make indirect taxes conducive to Liberty are reversed in direct taxes.
Limit on taxation? Well, there is a practical limit, in that those with means will eventually expatriate and renounce their citizenship if necessary to avoid insanely high taxation. But those without means have no ability to avoid those taxes. There is no surety against a 100% income tax and total redistribution of wealth. Indeed, some on the Left have prescribed exactly that.
Voluntary? Only insofar as you could always choose to commit suicide, or refuse to engage in any labor. That is, they are only voluntary to the extent you can volunteer not to live, and not to obtain property.
I, personally, have been skeptical of the practical way in which a national sales tax could be implemented. With the re-election of Barack Obama I no longer care. Direct taxes are tyrannical. Indirect taxes are not. It is time to force the Government out of sectors it shouldn't be in in the first place, and back to its first principles. Direct taxes, with their correspondingly lower revenues, are the best way to do that.
There are two methods to raise these taxes, they are Direct Taxation and Indirect Taxation. In general, Indirect Taxes will be conducive to Liberty and Direct Taxes will be conducive to Tyranny. It behooves us to understand why.
Indirect taxation taxes the value created by a good or service. In general, these will be sales taxes (a general tax on the value of any transaction) or a duty or levy (a specific tax on an item or category of items). If you want to think of them that way, indirect taxes are a commercial transaction which takes place on top of another commercial transaction.
In any commercial transaction, payment is rendered for some good or service. If you are the one who is "selling" then you are rendering a good or service in exchange for a different good- usually money. If you are the one who is "buying" then you are rendering a good (again, usually money) for some other good or service.
In the case of indirect taxes, the "good or service" you are "purchasing" is the Government. Specifically, it is to be hoped that what is being funded is the necessary operation of, or payment for, government obligations. In theory, the taxes should have some baring on the item or transaction taxed. As a specific example, gasoline taxes are supposed to be used to pay for road maintenance and new roads. Another specific example would regulatory charges which pay for the operation of the regulatory agencies. A more general example- a sales tax- simply pays for the operation of government generally. It is assumed that the operation of government assists the sale in some way- for instance, by providing enough peace and stability for a money economy to function.
These are conducive to Liberty for two main reasons.
The first is that there is a limit to the amount of money an indirect tax can raise. While a government can theoretically set any level of fee or taxation on any specific good, service, or transaction, the reality is that people do consider those fees and taxes into the cost of items before they purchase them. Raising sales taxes too high will serve only to kill your money economy. Barter and under-the-table economies will quickly rise to replace the "official" economy and thus deny funds to the Government all together. To some degree this happens already.
The second reason is that indirect taxes are, to some degree, voluntary. No one has to purchase cigarettes, or alcohol, or even gasoline for that matter. Certainly many people do purchase these things. Many people even view them as "necessities," but they are not. The British Government thought of tea as a "staple item." Weren't they surprised when some men in Boston most emphatically said, "no, it's not?" So to the extent that various goods, services, and transactions can be avoided, so can those taxes be avoided. That gives me many legal options for keeping more of my own money.
Direct taxes, however, are inherently tyrannical. They are taxes on one of two things, in either case the tax is a form of tyranny. Direct taxes are either a tax on simply being alive, or they are a tax on a person's labor.
Note that taxes, in these cases, would still be "commercial transactions." That is, you're paying a good (money) for something- but what is that "something," and do you have the option to avoid that tax by not partaking in that something? In the case of a "capitation" or "per-head" tax, the tax is simply on your life. You are, in essence, paying the government just because you are alive. Note that this is the kind of "tax, but not-a-tax" written into ObamaCare to enforce the individual mandate. Simply being alive is enough to force you (in that particular case) to purchase a product or pay a tax. Income taxes, however, are taxes on your labor. Again, conceptually, you are paying the government for the right to produce something of value and reap the benefits of it.
In either case, the government is taxing one of your Natural (or "inalienable") Rights. It taxes your right to Property in the case of income taxes, while it taxes your right to Life in the case of per-head taxes.
Now, that in itself is tyrannical. Indeed, it is the definition of tyranny- you either live only at the sufferance of the State, or you work directly for the good of the State. But beyond that, the same things that make indirect taxes conducive to Liberty are reversed in direct taxes.
Limit on taxation? Well, there is a practical limit, in that those with means will eventually expatriate and renounce their citizenship if necessary to avoid insanely high taxation. But those without means have no ability to avoid those taxes. There is no surety against a 100% income tax and total redistribution of wealth. Indeed, some on the Left have prescribed exactly that.
Voluntary? Only insofar as you could always choose to commit suicide, or refuse to engage in any labor. That is, they are only voluntary to the extent you can volunteer not to live, and not to obtain property.
I, personally, have been skeptical of the practical way in which a national sales tax could be implemented. With the re-election of Barack Obama I no longer care. Direct taxes are tyrannical. Indirect taxes are not. It is time to force the Government out of sectors it shouldn't be in in the first place, and back to its first principles. Direct taxes, with their correspondingly lower revenues, are the best way to do that.
Thursday, June 7, 2012
Apropos of Nothing
When, in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the laws of nature and of nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security. --Such has been the patient sufferance of these colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former systems of government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute tyranny over these states. To prove this, let facts be submitted to a candid world.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security. --Such has been the patient sufferance of these colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former systems of government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute tyranny over these states. To prove this, let facts be submitted to a candid world.
Monday, February 13, 2012
Simple Truth: Moral Hazard is a direct consequence of Government "protection."
Illustration:
When Government offers to "bail out" underwater homeowners, some of those homeowners who could make their mortgage payments if they simply prioritized will choose not to do so- because there is profit to them in accepting the taxpayers' money. When Government forces Insurers to guarantee coverage to those with "Pre-Existing Conditions," many will see that it benefits them not to obtain insurance coverage until they've already experienced some traumatic and/or catastrophic event.
Explanation:
Over at the Ace of Spades, we have a morning "DOOM!" thread Mon - Thurs. (DOOM! Always seems to take a 3 day weekend. Wish I could do that.) Over there, the concept of Moral Hazard arises from time to time. I think it's important enough that I'm going to spend some time talking about it, and explaining why it's important to conservatism.
Wikipedia (I know) defines Moral Hazard thus: "moral hazard is a situation where the behavior of one party may change to the detriment of another after the transaction has taken place." In less wordy form, Moral Hazard is when I change my behavior due to shared risk- especially in a way that will screw you over. They then cite false examples of insurance companies (people smoking in bed being a moral hazard for homeowners insurance, for example). A much better example of moral hazard is insurance based arson. Not just risky behavior- the likelihood is you would have done that, if to a lesser extent, anyway. Moral Hazard is when you see an advantage for yourself in screwing someone over due to legal or contractual provisions.
Now, this is important to Conservatism, because Moral Hazard is one of the things we group under "unintended consequences." For instance, when people see that homeowners are not being foreclosed upon for non-payment of their mortgage, and public policy is such that proceeding with those foreclosures is more difficult or frowned-upon, more people will stop paying their mortgages. When people know that they can get insurance at any time, they're more likely to go without insurance. Any time the Government (at any level) offers to pay- or make someone else pay- for bad things that have happened to you, there will be people who allow those "bad things" to happen to them so they can get their payday.
Now, we could attempt to fix this through yet more regulation and more laws- but we've been trying that since at least the 1960's, and it's not working. Funnily enough, there's always someone who has some other clever way to screw over the tax payers based on new laws and regulations. A better way is to admit that it's not the Government's job to ensure that you receive medical care, or that you have a house, or any number of other things. The better way is to get Government out of the way, and allow people to suffer the consequences of their choices. This will lead to some people being adversely affected through no fault of their own (I think we can all agree that people adversely affected through their own fault are not worthy of assistance), but there are already ways to take care of that. Charities, Churches, and communities have banded together for centuries to help the poor, the distressed, and the afflicted.
Indeed, if we'll get government out of their way, they'll do so much better and much more efficiently than the Government can today.
Moral Hazard is a bug that exists any time government tries to protect people from the consequences of their risky, or down-right destructive, behavior. This bug cannot be fixed. Indeed, I believe that Liberals- in their quest to relieve you of yet more of your Liberty- see it not as a bug at all, but as a feature. Far better to deal, as was once said, with the problems attending too much Liberty than those attending too little.
When Government offers to "bail out" underwater homeowners, some of those homeowners who could make their mortgage payments if they simply prioritized will choose not to do so- because there is profit to them in accepting the taxpayers' money. When Government forces Insurers to guarantee coverage to those with "Pre-Existing Conditions," many will see that it benefits them not to obtain insurance coverage until they've already experienced some traumatic and/or catastrophic event.
Explanation:
Over at the Ace of Spades, we have a morning "DOOM!" thread Mon - Thurs. (DOOM! Always seems to take a 3 day weekend. Wish I could do that.) Over there, the concept of Moral Hazard arises from time to time. I think it's important enough that I'm going to spend some time talking about it, and explaining why it's important to conservatism.
Wikipedia (I know) defines Moral Hazard thus: "moral hazard is a situation where the behavior of one party may change to the detriment of another after the transaction has taken place." In less wordy form, Moral Hazard is when I change my behavior due to shared risk- especially in a way that will screw you over. They then cite false examples of insurance companies (people smoking in bed being a moral hazard for homeowners insurance, for example). A much better example of moral hazard is insurance based arson. Not just risky behavior- the likelihood is you would have done that, if to a lesser extent, anyway. Moral Hazard is when you see an advantage for yourself in screwing someone over due to legal or contractual provisions.
Now, this is important to Conservatism, because Moral Hazard is one of the things we group under "unintended consequences." For instance, when people see that homeowners are not being foreclosed upon for non-payment of their mortgage, and public policy is such that proceeding with those foreclosures is more difficult or frowned-upon, more people will stop paying their mortgages. When people know that they can get insurance at any time, they're more likely to go without insurance. Any time the Government (at any level) offers to pay- or make someone else pay- for bad things that have happened to you, there will be people who allow those "bad things" to happen to them so they can get their payday.
Now, we could attempt to fix this through yet more regulation and more laws- but we've been trying that since at least the 1960's, and it's not working. Funnily enough, there's always someone who has some other clever way to screw over the tax payers based on new laws and regulations. A better way is to admit that it's not the Government's job to ensure that you receive medical care, or that you have a house, or any number of other things. The better way is to get Government out of the way, and allow people to suffer the consequences of their choices. This will lead to some people being adversely affected through no fault of their own (I think we can all agree that people adversely affected through their own fault are not worthy of assistance), but there are already ways to take care of that. Charities, Churches, and communities have banded together for centuries to help the poor, the distressed, and the afflicted.
Indeed, if we'll get government out of their way, they'll do so much better and much more efficiently than the Government can today.
Moral Hazard is a bug that exists any time government tries to protect people from the consequences of their risky, or down-right destructive, behavior. This bug cannot be fixed. Indeed, I believe that Liberals- in their quest to relieve you of yet more of your Liberty- see it not as a bug at all, but as a feature. Far better to deal, as was once said, with the problems attending too much Liberty than those attending too little.
Thursday, February 2, 2012
Simple Truth: Personal Wealth is not the same as Personal Worth
Complaining about "the rich" is worthless, complain, rather, about the idle.
Illustration: Dale Carnegie. Norman Rockefeller. By today's standards, these men would be hated and castigated for their wealth. Indeed, History books today try to turn them into evil men who oversaw the virtual slavery of hundreds. Yet these men did more for our current society than all the Paris Hiltons, Sean Penns, and Danny Glovers combined.
Explanation: When we talk about "the rich" or "the poor" we're normally talking about net value in assets. Someone like Donald Trump is rich, someone like yours truly is roughly "middle class," and someone on welfare is thought of as "poor." However, that does not- and cannot, for a variety of reasons- take into account mental/non-actuarial assets. It cannot take into account your intelligence and education or your drive and dedication.
In an ideal America, there would be little or no barrier to entry to the "upper class." The only barrier to wealth would be your own aptitudes and attitudes. Now, this ideal America is impossible, simply because the world does not work that way. However, we have gone so far from that ideal that most people can't even imagine it, anymore. They know that stories like those of Richard Sears or (in more modern times) Bill Gates are factually true, but they simply cannot imagine- in any realistic way- themselves accomplishing anything similar. They have been taught -indoctrinated, really- that the Rich are the Rich and the Poor are the Poor, and only rare, quasi-magical exceptions can change one's station.
This, of course, goes against almost all of American History- and certainly ignores even modern facts on the ground. Wealth is accumulated over a life-time, in most cases. The elderly, as a demographic, hold much more wealth per capita than the young- and this simply makes sense: they've had more time to accumulate wealth. Indeed, there are some born to wealth, but you will find- with few exceptions- that these "trust fund babies" (as they were called for so long) usually fall into one of two groups: those who learned the lessons of frugality and industry, and the "elites."
You almost never hear about the ones who actually learned to be productive. A cynical man (hey! That's me!) would say because it doesn't "fit the narrative" of the independently affluent as mooches and vampires on society. Someone less cynical would say it's simply because their lives are not "news worthy" and they are rather boring. In either case, we have ceased raising them up as examples to emulate, and replaced them with vapid, entitled, worthless creatures who no more understand the word "duty" than they understand what poverty really means.
The fact is, however, that the worth of the worthy is not in their wealth- it is in their industry, and drive, and determination. By corollary, the poor are not worthy simply because of their poverty. Neither are they mooches or vampires simply because of their poverty. What determines whether someone is a host or a parasite is the same for the poor as it is for the wealthy. Industry, frugality, drive, determination, character, honor, faithfulness- all the virtues we used to laud and seem to have forgotten.
Indeed, by practicing these virtues, the poor will generally find that they can lift themselves out of poverty. Their virtue will reward them, and those dependent upon them. It is still possible in America to become the next mega-millionaire: through hard work.
But Liberals would have you believe this is all a lie. They would have you believe that, in normal circumstances, the only thing standing between the poor and utter desolation is the all beneficent government. They enable the parasites, and hamper the hosts, and then change the discussion from one of worth to one of wealth. It is easy, in such circumstances, to see why the poor feel resentment toward the rich.
It is our job to reset the conversation on the correct foundation.
What have you done, of worth, today?
Illustration: Dale Carnegie. Norman Rockefeller. By today's standards, these men would be hated and castigated for their wealth. Indeed, History books today try to turn them into evil men who oversaw the virtual slavery of hundreds. Yet these men did more for our current society than all the Paris Hiltons, Sean Penns, and Danny Glovers combined.
Explanation: When we talk about "the rich" or "the poor" we're normally talking about net value in assets. Someone like Donald Trump is rich, someone like yours truly is roughly "middle class," and someone on welfare is thought of as "poor." However, that does not- and cannot, for a variety of reasons- take into account mental/non-actuarial assets. It cannot take into account your intelligence and education or your drive and dedication.
In an ideal America, there would be little or no barrier to entry to the "upper class." The only barrier to wealth would be your own aptitudes and attitudes. Now, this ideal America is impossible, simply because the world does not work that way. However, we have gone so far from that ideal that most people can't even imagine it, anymore. They know that stories like those of Richard Sears or (in more modern times) Bill Gates are factually true, but they simply cannot imagine- in any realistic way- themselves accomplishing anything similar. They have been taught -indoctrinated, really- that the Rich are the Rich and the Poor are the Poor, and only rare, quasi-magical exceptions can change one's station.
This, of course, goes against almost all of American History- and certainly ignores even modern facts on the ground. Wealth is accumulated over a life-time, in most cases. The elderly, as a demographic, hold much more wealth per capita than the young- and this simply makes sense: they've had more time to accumulate wealth. Indeed, there are some born to wealth, but you will find- with few exceptions- that these "trust fund babies" (as they were called for so long) usually fall into one of two groups: those who learned the lessons of frugality and industry, and the "elites."
You almost never hear about the ones who actually learned to be productive. A cynical man (hey! That's me!) would say because it doesn't "fit the narrative" of the independently affluent as mooches and vampires on society. Someone less cynical would say it's simply because their lives are not "news worthy" and they are rather boring. In either case, we have ceased raising them up as examples to emulate, and replaced them with vapid, entitled, worthless creatures who no more understand the word "duty" than they understand what poverty really means.
The fact is, however, that the worth of the worthy is not in their wealth- it is in their industry, and drive, and determination. By corollary, the poor are not worthy simply because of their poverty. Neither are they mooches or vampires simply because of their poverty. What determines whether someone is a host or a parasite is the same for the poor as it is for the wealthy. Industry, frugality, drive, determination, character, honor, faithfulness- all the virtues we used to laud and seem to have forgotten.
Indeed, by practicing these virtues, the poor will generally find that they can lift themselves out of poverty. Their virtue will reward them, and those dependent upon them. It is still possible in America to become the next mega-millionaire: through hard work.
But Liberals would have you believe this is all a lie. They would have you believe that, in normal circumstances, the only thing standing between the poor and utter desolation is the all beneficent government. They enable the parasites, and hamper the hosts, and then change the discussion from one of worth to one of wealth. It is easy, in such circumstances, to see why the poor feel resentment toward the rich.
It is our job to reset the conversation on the correct foundation.
What have you done, of worth, today?
Monday, January 23, 2012
Simple Truth: Frugality fosters wealth, wealth does not foster frugality
You cannot give someone the habits which lead to wealth by giving them something for nothing, or very little.
Illustration:
We all know these stories: The poor family that wins the lottery, or a major legal settlement, or receives a large inheritance, but then squanders it quickly and is reduced to poverty as bad as, or worse than, they knew before their sudden windfall. The rich family thought of as misers and penny-pinchers who don't pay for anything they don't have to, and pay as little as possible for what they do require.
The fact is the first family will never be wealthy, no matter how many windfalls they receive, until and unless they learn the habits of frugality. Contrariwise, the second family will never be poor for very long, no matter how bad things become, because they already know how to be thrifty and frugal.
Explanation:
In the decades leading to the housing collapse of 2008, the Federal Government had decided that it should foster upward mobility by making housing more affordable. The theory went that people who owned homes tended to be thrifty, frugal folk who lived within (or mostly within) their means, and therefore letting people who would otherwise not have qualified for home mortgages purchase homes would instill in them those virtues. The causal relationship between these two things- frugality and home ownership- was reversed. As a result, countless families received home loans they could barely afford, and did not become wiser for it. When things looked rough, they could not afford their mortgage payments and thus began the collapse of 2008.
It is not just in home mortgages, however, where this is at work. All types of loans are affected, as are credit cards. The Government has turned the world upside down in this respect. They know that people who own homes are more likely to be more economically successful, and so they attempt to force people into a socio-economic status for which they are not ready. This does a disservice to the families chosen for the dubious honor and for the country as a whole as well.
However, if we were to force back the Government and get them out of the business of "picking winners and losers," more people would still become homeowners. They would learn the habits and character traits of those who have the economic wherewithal to purchase homes, and would move up within the economic strata at their own pace. There is plenty of room in the affluent classes, and no one is holding the poor back- except the Government by their own policies, however well intentioned. As with so many things, the Government has become a hurdle instead of a step-stone.
If you want people to own homes, find ways to help them become more economically stable and literate. But, as with all virtues, these cannot be forced upon anyone. People must choose to put forth the effort to learn them.
Illustration:
We all know these stories: The poor family that wins the lottery, or a major legal settlement, or receives a large inheritance, but then squanders it quickly and is reduced to poverty as bad as, or worse than, they knew before their sudden windfall. The rich family thought of as misers and penny-pinchers who don't pay for anything they don't have to, and pay as little as possible for what they do require.
The fact is the first family will never be wealthy, no matter how many windfalls they receive, until and unless they learn the habits of frugality. Contrariwise, the second family will never be poor for very long, no matter how bad things become, because they already know how to be thrifty and frugal.
Explanation:
In the decades leading to the housing collapse of 2008, the Federal Government had decided that it should foster upward mobility by making housing more affordable. The theory went that people who owned homes tended to be thrifty, frugal folk who lived within (or mostly within) their means, and therefore letting people who would otherwise not have qualified for home mortgages purchase homes would instill in them those virtues. The causal relationship between these two things- frugality and home ownership- was reversed. As a result, countless families received home loans they could barely afford, and did not become wiser for it. When things looked rough, they could not afford their mortgage payments and thus began the collapse of 2008.
It is not just in home mortgages, however, where this is at work. All types of loans are affected, as are credit cards. The Government has turned the world upside down in this respect. They know that people who own homes are more likely to be more economically successful, and so they attempt to force people into a socio-economic status for which they are not ready. This does a disservice to the families chosen for the dubious honor and for the country as a whole as well.
However, if we were to force back the Government and get them out of the business of "picking winners and losers," more people would still become homeowners. They would learn the habits and character traits of those who have the economic wherewithal to purchase homes, and would move up within the economic strata at their own pace. There is plenty of room in the affluent classes, and no one is holding the poor back- except the Government by their own policies, however well intentioned. As with so many things, the Government has become a hurdle instead of a step-stone.
If you want people to own homes, find ways to help them become more economically stable and literate. But, as with all virtues, these cannot be forced upon anyone. People must choose to put forth the effort to learn them.
Thursday, January 19, 2012
Simple Truth: When your Primary Virtue is 'Tolerance' you cannot see any other Principles as Virtuous.
Illustration:
A man speaks in strong support of monogamous relationships, of waiting until marriage to have sex, and of the virtues of such lifestyle choices. He speaks of the bad things so often associated with the alternative lifestyle choices- broken relationships, broken families, multi-generational poverty. Advising people to make the former choices of the latter, he is labelled 'intolerant.'
A man speaks out against practices strongly correlated with institutionalized poverty and lawlessness. He decries the habit of some young men of wearing their pants around their thighs. He explains that numerous tattoos and a lack of proper grammar can limit your station in life. He is labelled 'intolerant.'
Explanation:
When someone sets 'tolerance' up as their primary virtue, it necessarily prevents any other virtue from being virtuous. To someone who's main virtue is tolerance, courage is not a virtue to be lauded, it is intolerance to be stopped. In this case, honesty is not a virtue, it is intolerance. Inasmuch as all virtues are necessarily supportive of some behaviors, neutral towards others, and exclusive of yet others, all virtues are, to greater or lesser extent, intolerant. Courage does not tolerate cowardice. Honesty does not tolerate dishonesty.
However, of all the virtues, the pseudo-virtue of 'Tolerance' is the least tolerant of any. Tolerance cannot remain neutral on any issue. On every issue, it must make a statement, because all actions, all issues, apply to one or more virtues. A man who was truly 'Tolerant' of all views could never have an opinion. Yet there is no such person.
It turns out, in fact, that cries for 'tolerance' are not cries for tolerance at all, but cries of intolerance: intolerance of some other, truer virtue.
Indeed, 'tolerance' is not a virtue at all. Tolerance is not something one can believe, it is something one has, or does. We tolerate those things we do not like. It is not possible to 'tolerate' something with which you disagree, because tolerance, at its heart, is putting up with something that bothers you. You can tolerate pain, or an annoying voice, or smoking (if you're a non-smoker). You cannot tolerate happiness, or wealth, or a soothing voice. These are things people like; they are things that require no tolerance.
Once this misconception is cleared up, it is easy to see that it is not intolerant to speak in favor of one virtue, and against its opposite vice. Tolerance has nothing to do with our opinions, or our philosophical stances. I am 'tolerant' of smoking in that I believe it to be gross (you don't 'tolerate' something with which you like) but that I am not going to condemn any given smoker. If asked about the issue (or, as in this case: as illustration) I will mention that I believe smoking is a disgusting habit. Tolerance has not entered the picture here, at all. Tolerance comes in when we get to the question of "what will you do about it." And the correct 'tolerant' answer is: "nothing."
I will not go on some anti-smoking crusade, attempting to paint smokers as evil. I will not claim that cigarette companies are evil. Neither will I condone smoking, or get terribly upset when a community- as the community, through its city council- decides to ban smoking in public places or restaurants. Tolerance says I will put up with it when someone chooses to smoke, it doesn't say I have to agree that there is some God-given right to smoke.
This is true of all issues. All issues have some relation to one or more virtues or opinions. Virtues and opinions are, by their nature exclusive. Therefore, to have an opinion, or to uphold a virtue is 'intolerant' to some degree.
A man speaks in strong support of monogamous relationships, of waiting until marriage to have sex, and of the virtues of such lifestyle choices. He speaks of the bad things so often associated with the alternative lifestyle choices- broken relationships, broken families, multi-generational poverty. Advising people to make the former choices of the latter, he is labelled 'intolerant.'
A man speaks out against practices strongly correlated with institutionalized poverty and lawlessness. He decries the habit of some young men of wearing their pants around their thighs. He explains that numerous tattoos and a lack of proper grammar can limit your station in life. He is labelled 'intolerant.'
Explanation:
When someone sets 'tolerance' up as their primary virtue, it necessarily prevents any other virtue from being virtuous. To someone who's main virtue is tolerance, courage is not a virtue to be lauded, it is intolerance to be stopped. In this case, honesty is not a virtue, it is intolerance. Inasmuch as all virtues are necessarily supportive of some behaviors, neutral towards others, and exclusive of yet others, all virtues are, to greater or lesser extent, intolerant. Courage does not tolerate cowardice. Honesty does not tolerate dishonesty.
However, of all the virtues, the pseudo-virtue of 'Tolerance' is the least tolerant of any. Tolerance cannot remain neutral on any issue. On every issue, it must make a statement, because all actions, all issues, apply to one or more virtues. A man who was truly 'Tolerant' of all views could never have an opinion. Yet there is no such person.
It turns out, in fact, that cries for 'tolerance' are not cries for tolerance at all, but cries of intolerance: intolerance of some other, truer virtue.
Indeed, 'tolerance' is not a virtue at all. Tolerance is not something one can believe, it is something one has, or does. We tolerate those things we do not like. It is not possible to 'tolerate' something with which you disagree, because tolerance, at its heart, is putting up with something that bothers you. You can tolerate pain, or an annoying voice, or smoking (if you're a non-smoker). You cannot tolerate happiness, or wealth, or a soothing voice. These are things people like; they are things that require no tolerance.
Once this misconception is cleared up, it is easy to see that it is not intolerant to speak in favor of one virtue, and against its opposite vice. Tolerance has nothing to do with our opinions, or our philosophical stances. I am 'tolerant' of smoking in that I believe it to be gross (you don't 'tolerate' something with which you like) but that I am not going to condemn any given smoker. If asked about the issue (or, as in this case: as illustration) I will mention that I believe smoking is a disgusting habit. Tolerance has not entered the picture here, at all. Tolerance comes in when we get to the question of "what will you do about it." And the correct 'tolerant' answer is: "nothing."
I will not go on some anti-smoking crusade, attempting to paint smokers as evil. I will not claim that cigarette companies are evil. Neither will I condone smoking, or get terribly upset when a community- as the community, through its city council- decides to ban smoking in public places or restaurants. Tolerance says I will put up with it when someone chooses to smoke, it doesn't say I have to agree that there is some God-given right to smoke.
This is true of all issues. All issues have some relation to one or more virtues or opinions. Virtues and opinions are, by their nature exclusive. Therefore, to have an opinion, or to uphold a virtue is 'intolerant' to some degree.
Monday, January 16, 2012
Simple Truth: Responsibility Cannot be Forced or Mandated
Illustration: A responsible child keeps his or her room clean regularly. You can generally find the floor, and you're not worried about stepping on GI Joe (or Barbie) in your bare feet. A responsible parent forces (mandates) their child keep their room clean. However, if I tell my son or daughter "Clean up your room," and they do so, that does not make my children responsible- it makes them obedient.
Likewise, if the Government says, "You must buy health insurance," this does not make someone Responsible who buys health insurance, it simply makes them obedient.
Explanation: Republicans claim to be the party of "self responsibility." Yet, when faced with the choice of promoting self responsibility or promoting the nanny state, they often conflate the actions of someone who is responsible with being responsible, and thus choose to promote the nanny state. A responsible person doesn't smoke or drink to excess. A responsible person will normally wear a seat belt. A responsible person will not, under normal circumstances, drive 120mph down the freeway. However, in some misguided attempt to "foster" responsibility, the Government, usually including Republican support, will often mandate behavior seen as responsible.
While it passed largely without Republican support, the current Health Care law's Individual Mandate to purchase health insurance is a prime example. Rather than accept that people have no inherent right to health care (more on that in a future post), Congress decided that, instead, they would force everyone to purchase a private product which is normally purchased by responsible people. Prior to that, even the very conservative Heritage Foundation had supported the idea of Insurance Mandates to "make people be responsible." When, in truth, the only thing it does is increase the demand for a product (health insurance) while not providing any way for supply to increase- which will always necessarily lead to price increases. Massachusetts is a prime example of this phenomenon.
The thing about responsibility is that it is only and always a personal virtue. No one can force you to be responsible. You choose to be responsible, or not. If the government were truly interested in fostering responsibility in the citizenry, the correct way to do it would be allow people to face, on their own, the consequences of their choices. If someone chooses not to get health insurance, then they should be the ones who face the consequences of those actions. This means we also have to remove the mandates from the other side of the ledger. We cannot force health insurance companies to insure people who should not qualify, but we we also cannot force doctors and hospitals to serve those who cannot pay.
The later will do so anyway, by-and-large, and there are numerous charities already which help those who need care they cannot afford. The former exist to help spread, or diversify, risk- and forcing them to insure people who are too risky only hurts those who are at less risk. Someone will rise up to fill that gap as well, if only the government will get out of the way.
Again it comes down to a question of Liberty vs Tyranny (a good book, by the way): if people are largely left alone, they'll take care of themselves and those around them. When the Government interferes, people become less concerned with those around them, and more people are harmed over all.
Likewise, if the Government says, "You must buy health insurance," this does not make someone Responsible who buys health insurance, it simply makes them obedient.
Explanation: Republicans claim to be the party of "self responsibility." Yet, when faced with the choice of promoting self responsibility or promoting the nanny state, they often conflate the actions of someone who is responsible with being responsible, and thus choose to promote the nanny state. A responsible person doesn't smoke or drink to excess. A responsible person will normally wear a seat belt. A responsible person will not, under normal circumstances, drive 120mph down the freeway. However, in some misguided attempt to "foster" responsibility, the Government, usually including Republican support, will often mandate behavior seen as responsible.
While it passed largely without Republican support, the current Health Care law's Individual Mandate to purchase health insurance is a prime example. Rather than accept that people have no inherent right to health care (more on that in a future post), Congress decided that, instead, they would force everyone to purchase a private product which is normally purchased by responsible people. Prior to that, even the very conservative Heritage Foundation had supported the idea of Insurance Mandates to "make people be responsible." When, in truth, the only thing it does is increase the demand for a product (health insurance) while not providing any way for supply to increase- which will always necessarily lead to price increases. Massachusetts is a prime example of this phenomenon.
The thing about responsibility is that it is only and always a personal virtue. No one can force you to be responsible. You choose to be responsible, or not. If the government were truly interested in fostering responsibility in the citizenry, the correct way to do it would be allow people to face, on their own, the consequences of their choices. If someone chooses not to get health insurance, then they should be the ones who face the consequences of those actions. This means we also have to remove the mandates from the other side of the ledger. We cannot force health insurance companies to insure people who should not qualify, but we we also cannot force doctors and hospitals to serve those who cannot pay.
The later will do so anyway, by-and-large, and there are numerous charities already which help those who need care they cannot afford. The former exist to help spread, or diversify, risk- and forcing them to insure people who are too risky only hurts those who are at less risk. Someone will rise up to fill that gap as well, if only the government will get out of the way.
Again it comes down to a question of Liberty vs Tyranny (a good book, by the way): if people are largely left alone, they'll take care of themselves and those around them. When the Government interferes, people become less concerned with those around them, and more people are harmed over all.
Monday, January 9, 2012
Simple Truth: You have no Right to what Someone Else must Produce.
Illustration: Let's say the US Government established a Right to Cookies. At any time, you could go to some place that sold cookies and say, "I want a cookie," and they'd have to give you one. Then, one day, all the cookie shops closed down. Places would still sell cake, or pie, or brownies, but no more cookies. What Right would you then have to a cookie? And what Right did government have to say that cookie bakers had to give away the produce of their labor for free?
Explanation: When we speak of "Rights" we often confuse Natural (or "Inalienable") Rights with other things. Life is a Right because you are free, all on your own, to attempt to secure your own life (food, shelter, etc.). When it comes to the things that secure your life, you may or may not have a right to any given one of them. Food, for instance, must be grown and harvested, and then processed for eating. If you can do all of those things yourself, then you have a "right" to food. You're spending your labor directly to produce food for your family. Unless you're going to live in a cave somewhere, housing requires that building materials be harvested, that the building be designed, and that the harvested materials be put together in such a way as to produce said building. Again: if you can do all of these things yourself, then you have a "right" to housing. You would be spending your labor directly to produce housing for your family.
If you cannot do all of those things for yourself, then you have no right to them. If someone else has to harvest the material, you have no right to it- whoever harvested it does. They can then decide (in a Free society) how best to use that material. Some they may keep, and some they may sell. If they are selling some, and you both can come to a mutually beneficial arrangement, then, once the bargain is struck, you have a right to whatever materials you purchased.
The reason for this is that I have a right to direct my own labor. If I choose to live on a farm, and build my own house, and live completely off-the-grid, then I have that option. However, if I must secure some item or service, I have no right to it. Because everyone has the right to direct his or her own labor, there is no guarantee that the item or service I need will even exist- or that enough will be available, if it does exist. I cannot simply will more cookies into existence. Someone has to grow wheat which will then be ground into flour. Someone else has to grow and harvest sugar, yet another person harvests vanilla, or salt, or whatever the ingredients in that cookie are.
This is especially true of health care. Beyond simple first-aid, how many of us can provide ourselves with any health care worth discussing? Some. There are some who are capable of providing their own care- at least the basics. But beyond the basics, how many? Even a Neurosurgeon can't provide himself with service- it being rather difficult to operate on one's own brain. He must secure the labor (and expertise) of someone else. But what if no one else is capable? Does he have a "right" to brain surgery then? What if other people exist, but no longer desire to practice medicine? Does he have a right to impress their service anyway?
We have a word for forced service, and it isn't nice.
Until we understand, and can articulate, why a whole litany of things are not "rights" (education, health care, and so forth) we cannot begin to roll back the government leviathan.
Explanation: When we speak of "Rights" we often confuse Natural (or "Inalienable") Rights with other things. Life is a Right because you are free, all on your own, to attempt to secure your own life (food, shelter, etc.). When it comes to the things that secure your life, you may or may not have a right to any given one of them. Food, for instance, must be grown and harvested, and then processed for eating. If you can do all of those things yourself, then you have a "right" to food. You're spending your labor directly to produce food for your family. Unless you're going to live in a cave somewhere, housing requires that building materials be harvested, that the building be designed, and that the harvested materials be put together in such a way as to produce said building. Again: if you can do all of these things yourself, then you have a "right" to housing. You would be spending your labor directly to produce housing for your family.
If you cannot do all of those things for yourself, then you have no right to them. If someone else has to harvest the material, you have no right to it- whoever harvested it does. They can then decide (in a Free society) how best to use that material. Some they may keep, and some they may sell. If they are selling some, and you both can come to a mutually beneficial arrangement, then, once the bargain is struck, you have a right to whatever materials you purchased.
The reason for this is that I have a right to direct my own labor. If I choose to live on a farm, and build my own house, and live completely off-the-grid, then I have that option. However, if I must secure some item or service, I have no right to it. Because everyone has the right to direct his or her own labor, there is no guarantee that the item or service I need will even exist- or that enough will be available, if it does exist. I cannot simply will more cookies into existence. Someone has to grow wheat which will then be ground into flour. Someone else has to grow and harvest sugar, yet another person harvests vanilla, or salt, or whatever the ingredients in that cookie are.
This is especially true of health care. Beyond simple first-aid, how many of us can provide ourselves with any health care worth discussing? Some. There are some who are capable of providing their own care- at least the basics. But beyond the basics, how many? Even a Neurosurgeon can't provide himself with service- it being rather difficult to operate on one's own brain. He must secure the labor (and expertise) of someone else. But what if no one else is capable? Does he have a "right" to brain surgery then? What if other people exist, but no longer desire to practice medicine? Does he have a right to impress their service anyway?
We have a word for forced service, and it isn't nice.
Until we understand, and can articulate, why a whole litany of things are not "rights" (education, health care, and so forth) we cannot begin to roll back the government leviathan.
Monday, January 2, 2012
Simple Truth: The Common Good Isn't.
Illustration:
As an attempt to serve the Common Good, the United States implemented the so-called "War on Poverty" back in the 1960's. This "war" began major wealth transference from the productive to the unproductive and incentivized broken families and the very poverty on which it was claiming to do war. As a result, we have more generational poverty, more broken families, and a national debt greater than our GDP.
Explanation:
When people look at the economy, they see that it acts in certain ways and it is easy to assume that there is some central thing controlling it. They look at society and, again, it's easy to assume there is some unified force that drives it. This is not the case. What we see as "the economy" or "society" is simply the Brownian motion of people's every day choices. I decide to purchase something, or not, based on its current price. Millions of other people across the country making that same choice then translate into higher or lower demand for that item, and thus to possible changes in its price.
What this means is that any centralized action will necessarily upset the environment that allows that Brownian motion to occur. However well intentioned welfare is, it is undeniable that it pays people not to be productive. If my choices are flipping burgers for minimum wage, or playing x-box in my parents basement for the same amount, it's hard to make the case for flipping burgers. And, since this same choice is repeated throughout the economy and throughout society, and many people will choose the option for which the Government is providing an incentive, the net result will be more poverty and more dependence.
Viewed that way, anything done "for the common good" is inherently harmful.
"But," I can hear people saying, "What about Defense? That's for the common good!" No, it's not. We may refer to it that way out of convenience, but in reality Defense is specifically in the National Interest. That is, there is a single, specific entity (in this case, the United States of America- which happens to be a Federation of States, which are themselves composite entities) which will directly and purposefully benefit. Such targeted policies, being much more limited in scope, are easier to craft and much less likely to run afoul of the Law of Unintended Consequences.
We cannot aim policies toward "the Common Good," or "the Public Welfare," we must recognize that any policy legislatively enacted will have a discrete set of targets with concrete results. Another good example is the Healthcare legislation: leaving aside the problems with its Constitutionality (which are myriad) there is the fact that, by trying to be comprehensive and "for the common good" it is instead simply byzantine and confusing, such that even the Government doesn't completely understand what it does. This is the problem with all Big Government solutions, in the end: by attempting to provide some panacea to some perceived problem, the Government instead simply makes the issue more complicated, and creates more problems than it solves.
As an attempt to serve the Common Good, the United States implemented the so-called "War on Poverty" back in the 1960's. This "war" began major wealth transference from the productive to the unproductive and incentivized broken families and the very poverty on which it was claiming to do war. As a result, we have more generational poverty, more broken families, and a national debt greater than our GDP.
Explanation:
When people look at the economy, they see that it acts in certain ways and it is easy to assume that there is some central thing controlling it. They look at society and, again, it's easy to assume there is some unified force that drives it. This is not the case. What we see as "the economy" or "society" is simply the Brownian motion of people's every day choices. I decide to purchase something, or not, based on its current price. Millions of other people across the country making that same choice then translate into higher or lower demand for that item, and thus to possible changes in its price.
What this means is that any centralized action will necessarily upset the environment that allows that Brownian motion to occur. However well intentioned welfare is, it is undeniable that it pays people not to be productive. If my choices are flipping burgers for minimum wage, or playing x-box in my parents basement for the same amount, it's hard to make the case for flipping burgers. And, since this same choice is repeated throughout the economy and throughout society, and many people will choose the option for which the Government is providing an incentive, the net result will be more poverty and more dependence.
Viewed that way, anything done "for the common good" is inherently harmful.
"But," I can hear people saying, "What about Defense? That's for the common good!" No, it's not. We may refer to it that way out of convenience, but in reality Defense is specifically in the National Interest. That is, there is a single, specific entity (in this case, the United States of America- which happens to be a Federation of States, which are themselves composite entities) which will directly and purposefully benefit. Such targeted policies, being much more limited in scope, are easier to craft and much less likely to run afoul of the Law of Unintended Consequences.
We cannot aim policies toward "the Common Good," or "the Public Welfare," we must recognize that any policy legislatively enacted will have a discrete set of targets with concrete results. Another good example is the Healthcare legislation: leaving aside the problems with its Constitutionality (which are myriad) there is the fact that, by trying to be comprehensive and "for the common good" it is instead simply byzantine and confusing, such that even the Government doesn't completely understand what it does. This is the problem with all Big Government solutions, in the end: by attempting to provide some panacea to some perceived problem, the Government instead simply makes the issue more complicated, and creates more problems than it solves.
Thursday, December 29, 2011
Simple Truth: Additional Laws will not Sway the Lawless
Illustration: It is well known that students on the Virgina Tech campus are not allowed to posses or carry weapons. It is a "gun free zone." And yet, in 2009, and, more recently, just in the beginning of December 2011, gunmen terrorized the campus.
Explanation: This is not a defense of gun ownership, or a tretise on the Second Amendment. Though those are parts of a valid topic, they are not the point here. The point here is that, in both cases, the criminal knew he was breaking the law. The law did not prevent him from doing what he wanted. He chose to violate the law by carrying a weapon on campus, and again to violate the law by murdering someone[s].
The same is true of the Mob, or some gas-station robber, or a man who beats his wife and/or children. These people all know the law. They know they are in violation of it. They know, and they don't care.
Given that criminals know they are criminals: indeed, most of them consciously choose to break the law, we must ask ourselves, "why do we need more laws?" It is already illegal to murder, why should we also restrict gun ownership? The "results" of drug use (theft, property damage or destruction, and so forth) are already illegal, why do we need additional laws against what we see as the seed of those behaviors (this is not to say there aren't good reasons to outlaw certain drugs- those just aren't them)? You are already liable for any damage done when you cause an accident in your car, why should you be criminally liable for talking on your cellular phone?
Across the spectrum, Government's first reaction to someone breaking the law is to add more laws. And, as previously discussed, any time Government expands, it does so at the cost of your Liberty. When Lehman Brothers failed, and the whole crash of October 2008 occurred, we were told we needed more regulation. More Government, we were told, would have stopped the catastrophe. Nevermind the layers upon layers of regulation that already exist. Never mind that banks were only doing what was in their best interest, in light of things like the Community Reinvestment Act and other Government mandates. Never mind that fraudulent accounting practices, and purjury are already crimes: we needed more regulation.
And, at the end of the day, our banking system is no more secure, our economy is not substantially better off, and banks are suffering financially because of "more regulation." Moreover, the regulations are harder to enforce, as they have become yet more byzantine. A prime example is the tax-code. Tax enforcement is anything but standardized, and three different IRS agents will give you four different answers to the same question. They are no more "sure" of the law than you are. Yet we need more regulation. We need more laws.
At the end of the day, we need fewer laws. We need to gut the current system and return it to the minimalist system which worked for over a century. Outlaw specific acts, and then enforce those laws. From illegal immigration, to fraud, to money laundering, to property destruction or murder. Outlaw the act, enforce the law. By maintaining as minimalist a government as possible, we will begin to regain our Liberty.
UPDATE: Thanks, AoSHQ, for the link!
Explanation: This is not a defense of gun ownership, or a tretise on the Second Amendment. Though those are parts of a valid topic, they are not the point here. The point here is that, in both cases, the criminal knew he was breaking the law. The law did not prevent him from doing what he wanted. He chose to violate the law by carrying a weapon on campus, and again to violate the law by murdering someone[s].
The same is true of the Mob, or some gas-station robber, or a man who beats his wife and/or children. These people all know the law. They know they are in violation of it. They know, and they don't care.
Given that criminals know they are criminals: indeed, most of them consciously choose to break the law, we must ask ourselves, "why do we need more laws?" It is already illegal to murder, why should we also restrict gun ownership? The "results" of drug use (theft, property damage or destruction, and so forth) are already illegal, why do we need additional laws against what we see as the seed of those behaviors (this is not to say there aren't good reasons to outlaw certain drugs- those just aren't them)? You are already liable for any damage done when you cause an accident in your car, why should you be criminally liable for talking on your cellular phone?
Across the spectrum, Government's first reaction to someone breaking the law is to add more laws. And, as previously discussed, any time Government expands, it does so at the cost of your Liberty. When Lehman Brothers failed, and the whole crash of October 2008 occurred, we were told we needed more regulation. More Government, we were told, would have stopped the catastrophe. Nevermind the layers upon layers of regulation that already exist. Never mind that banks were only doing what was in their best interest, in light of things like the Community Reinvestment Act and other Government mandates. Never mind that fraudulent accounting practices, and purjury are already crimes: we needed more regulation.
And, at the end of the day, our banking system is no more secure, our economy is not substantially better off, and banks are suffering financially because of "more regulation." Moreover, the regulations are harder to enforce, as they have become yet more byzantine. A prime example is the tax-code. Tax enforcement is anything but standardized, and three different IRS agents will give you four different answers to the same question. They are no more "sure" of the law than you are. Yet we need more regulation. We need more laws.
At the end of the day, we need fewer laws. We need to gut the current system and return it to the minimalist system which worked for over a century. Outlaw specific acts, and then enforce those laws. From illegal immigration, to fraud, to money laundering, to property destruction or murder. Outlaw the act, enforce the law. By maintaining as minimalist a government as possible, we will begin to regain our Liberty.
UPDATE: Thanks, AoSHQ, for the link!
Monday, December 26, 2011
Simple Truth: Liberty Exists in Inverse Proportion to the Size & Scope of Government
Illustration:
Explanation: I actually had a hard time coming up with an illustration for this topic. Not because there were too few examples, but because there were so many it was hard to pick one. It is almost axiomatic that More Government leads to Less Liberty. Liberty is about not being told what to do. It is about being free to choose your own path, and responsible for the consequences of those decisions. Liberty is a cross-roads where only your choices determine the destination.
Any time Government expands its power, it can only do so at the cost of some of your Liberty. The absolute of Liberty is Anarchy- which is Liberty gone so amok that it no longer even resembles Liberty. The absolute of Government is Despotism.
We gave up some of our Liberty (like, Liberty to shoot one another over a fence-post, for example) to our Government to allow it to enforce the societal contract. It, in return, was supposed to protect us, and to make itself as little a burden as possible. That was the entire part of the Republican Federalist system the Founders Established. Instead, it grew. It grew slowly, at first. People who were alive for the Founding kept things in check. Their children as well. Then, everything changed. First, the Civil War effectively abolished the 10th Amendment. Without discussing the "reasons" for the war, it is undeniable that, until that point, it was accepted by virtually all parties that States had the power to remove themselves from the Union. The Civil War changed that. From that point over, we have had an ever growing Government, and ever less Liberty.
Now, Government tells us what we can and cannot eat. It tells us where we can and cannot build homes, or businesses. It decides if we are worthy of self-protection in the form of gun ownership. It restricts our movements, it mandates certain purchases, and all the while it grows larger, ever larger.
One day, it will be to late to kill the Leviathan. This beast we have created and allowed to run amok will, one day, strangle the last of our Liberties. That can be stopped, but we must first accept that is happening, we must understand the reasons, and we must stand up and shoulder the Responsibilities that Government has oh-so-generously taken from us: at the cost of our Liberty.
Explanation: I actually had a hard time coming up with an illustration for this topic. Not because there were too few examples, but because there were so many it was hard to pick one. It is almost axiomatic that More Government leads to Less Liberty. Liberty is about not being told what to do. It is about being free to choose your own path, and responsible for the consequences of those decisions. Liberty is a cross-roads where only your choices determine the destination.
Any time Government expands its power, it can only do so at the cost of some of your Liberty. The absolute of Liberty is Anarchy- which is Liberty gone so amok that it no longer even resembles Liberty. The absolute of Government is Despotism.
We gave up some of our Liberty (like, Liberty to shoot one another over a fence-post, for example) to our Government to allow it to enforce the societal contract. It, in return, was supposed to protect us, and to make itself as little a burden as possible. That was the entire part of the Republican Federalist system the Founders Established. Instead, it grew. It grew slowly, at first. People who were alive for the Founding kept things in check. Their children as well. Then, everything changed. First, the Civil War effectively abolished the 10th Amendment. Without discussing the "reasons" for the war, it is undeniable that, until that point, it was accepted by virtually all parties that States had the power to remove themselves from the Union. The Civil War changed that. From that point over, we have had an ever growing Government, and ever less Liberty.
Now, Government tells us what we can and cannot eat. It tells us where we can and cannot build homes, or businesses. It decides if we are worthy of self-protection in the form of gun ownership. It restricts our movements, it mandates certain purchases, and all the while it grows larger, ever larger.
One day, it will be to late to kill the Leviathan. This beast we have created and allowed to run amok will, one day, strangle the last of our Liberties. That can be stopped, but we must first accept that is happening, we must understand the reasons, and we must stand up and shoulder the Responsibilities that Government has oh-so-generously taken from us: at the cost of our Liberty.
Thursday, December 22, 2011
Simple Truth: Privilege is the Antithesis of Liberty
Illustration: Consider two families living in the same country. The first family can only work where the government allows, they can only go where the government allows. The phrase "Papers, please" is something they hear, or expect to, regularly. The second family can do more-or-less whatever they want. The work where they want, or not at all. They go where they please.
The second family does not have Liberty, they have Privilege. You can see it today in North Korea and China, as the Government's lackeys have wealth, and power, and status, and the normal people have nothing. You could see it in the old USSR. You can see it in Viet Nam. More and more you can see it in European nations which seem Hell-bent on embracing neo-Marxism. You see it in our own Governing class.
Explaination: Privilege is not Liberty. Liberty is a state of being in which no one has any claims on you. This state can exist in more or less absolute forms, until it even reaches pure anarchy- which loses any semblance of true Liberty. Privilege is when some have what is disallowed to others. It exists when the majority are not allowed to have a certain thing, or do a certain thing, but that a special class can. This mostly exists in government: our Congress regularly exempts itself from its own laws, for instance. In a Socialist State it can exist at the bottom as well.
When those who do not make enough, on their own, to support their families reject jobs which pay more- because the increase will be enough to remove them from welfare eligibility, but not enough to sustain them at the lifestyle to which they have become acustomed, that is an instance of Privilege. When those who do not produce anything of value are given the fruits of my produce. When they are allowed, even encouraged, to consume without contributing, that is Privilege.
At every turn Privilege clashes with Liberty. Privilege says that some can take without giving; Liberty says that some will give at the risk of no return. Privilege gives security to few; Liberty promises the chance for security, but the chance of privation, to all. Only in a land without Liberty can Privilege truly flurish. That is why its existence here is so much harder to detect than in despotic countries. Here it must hide. It must take less for itself, because, at root, we still believe in Liberty and Justice. We believe that what one man has, another should have a legitimate chance at obtaining. In those countries, the people believe- or are said to believe- that what they have is only due to the beneficence of their government, and that those in Government should have more so they can take better care of The People. Privilege does not have to hide: it comes out openly and brazenly. It masks itself as Nationalistic Pride, and snears at those who would question it.
The quote: "Give me Liberty or give me death," is not a call to freedom. The Colonists were largely free. It was a cry against privilege. It was a cry against a consuming class who produced nothing of value. It was a cry against Tyranny.
The second family does not have Liberty, they have Privilege. You can see it today in North Korea and China, as the Government's lackeys have wealth, and power, and status, and the normal people have nothing. You could see it in the old USSR. You can see it in Viet Nam. More and more you can see it in European nations which seem Hell-bent on embracing neo-Marxism. You see it in our own Governing class.
Explaination: Privilege is not Liberty. Liberty is a state of being in which no one has any claims on you. This state can exist in more or less absolute forms, until it even reaches pure anarchy- which loses any semblance of true Liberty. Privilege is when some have what is disallowed to others. It exists when the majority are not allowed to have a certain thing, or do a certain thing, but that a special class can. This mostly exists in government: our Congress regularly exempts itself from its own laws, for instance. In a Socialist State it can exist at the bottom as well.
When those who do not make enough, on their own, to support their families reject jobs which pay more- because the increase will be enough to remove them from welfare eligibility, but not enough to sustain them at the lifestyle to which they have become acustomed, that is an instance of Privilege. When those who do not produce anything of value are given the fruits of my produce. When they are allowed, even encouraged, to consume without contributing, that is Privilege.
At every turn Privilege clashes with Liberty. Privilege says that some can take without giving; Liberty says that some will give at the risk of no return. Privilege gives security to few; Liberty promises the chance for security, but the chance of privation, to all. Only in a land without Liberty can Privilege truly flurish. That is why its existence here is so much harder to detect than in despotic countries. Here it must hide. It must take less for itself, because, at root, we still believe in Liberty and Justice. We believe that what one man has, another should have a legitimate chance at obtaining. In those countries, the people believe- or are said to believe- that what they have is only due to the beneficence of their government, and that those in Government should have more so they can take better care of The People. Privilege does not have to hide: it comes out openly and brazenly. It masks itself as Nationalistic Pride, and snears at those who would question it.
The quote: "Give me Liberty or give me death," is not a call to freedom. The Colonists were largely free. It was a cry against privilege. It was a cry against a consuming class who produced nothing of value. It was a cry against Tyranny.
Monday, December 19, 2011
Simple Truth: Responsibility is the Inverse of Liberty
If you want Liberty, you must shoulder the burden of Responsibility. The two cannot be separated- Liberty without Responsibility is Privilege (to be discussed in a future post), Responsibility without Liberty is slavery.
Illustration:
A man drives his car late at night. It's been a long day, and he's tired. The light is bad. It's been raining, so the roads are slick. He loses control of his car and crashes into a home. Who is responsible for repairing the home?
Explanation:
With all the words I've written on Liberty, I would be remiss if I did not mention that even Liberty comes with a price. That price is Responsibility. The two are inseperable. In our example, of course the driver is responsible for repairing the home. He may have insurance which pays for the damage, or he may have to pay himself. If the loss of control was not due to any error on his part, it is possible that he could hold the company which made the vehicle responsible.
Our Liberties require that we accept Responsibility for our actions and for their consequences. A man who uses his Liberty of gun-ownership to commit murder should be held responsible and punished appropriately. A man who uses his Liberty of free association to hang with gangsters and hoodlums, or to become a member of the KKK, or pal around with anti-Semites, must be held responsible for the company he keeps, and be ready to accept any consequences of that choice.
People who smoke should be held responsible, and should be willing to shoulder the consequences thereof: from cancer, to emphysema.
People who drink should be held responsible, and should be willing to shoulder the consequences thereof: whether a DUI, or Drunk-and-disorderly, or other, non legal consequences.
Anyone who would have you believe that Liberty comes without responsibility is lying to you; so is anyone who suggests that Conservatives believe that. Indeed, that is why we believe in harsher justice than Liberals- we believe that people make choices because of the Liberty, and must take Responsibility for those choices.
Indeed, only if Liberty was removed, could Responsibility also be removed. If I do not have liberty, if I cannot make choices, then how can I justly be held accountable for my actions? They weren't "my" actions any more than the car drove itself off the road, or any more than the gun aimed and fired itself.
So, on the one hand: beware of anyone offering you liberty without Responsibility. On the other, beware anyone who tells you they will relieve you of your Responsibility- the only way they can do that is to relieve you of your Liberty.
Illustration:
A man drives his car late at night. It's been a long day, and he's tired. The light is bad. It's been raining, so the roads are slick. He loses control of his car and crashes into a home. Who is responsible for repairing the home?
Explanation:
With all the words I've written on Liberty, I would be remiss if I did not mention that even Liberty comes with a price. That price is Responsibility. The two are inseperable. In our example, of course the driver is responsible for repairing the home. He may have insurance which pays for the damage, or he may have to pay himself. If the loss of control was not due to any error on his part, it is possible that he could hold the company which made the vehicle responsible.
Our Liberties require that we accept Responsibility for our actions and for their consequences. A man who uses his Liberty of gun-ownership to commit murder should be held responsible and punished appropriately. A man who uses his Liberty of free association to hang with gangsters and hoodlums, or to become a member of the KKK, or pal around with anti-Semites, must be held responsible for the company he keeps, and be ready to accept any consequences of that choice.
People who smoke should be held responsible, and should be willing to shoulder the consequences thereof: from cancer, to emphysema.
People who drink should be held responsible, and should be willing to shoulder the consequences thereof: whether a DUI, or Drunk-and-disorderly, or other, non legal consequences.
Anyone who would have you believe that Liberty comes without responsibility is lying to you; so is anyone who suggests that Conservatives believe that. Indeed, that is why we believe in harsher justice than Liberals- we believe that people make choices because of the Liberty, and must take Responsibility for those choices.
Indeed, only if Liberty was removed, could Responsibility also be removed. If I do not have liberty, if I cannot make choices, then how can I justly be held accountable for my actions? They weren't "my" actions any more than the car drove itself off the road, or any more than the gun aimed and fired itself.
So, on the one hand: beware of anyone offering you liberty without Responsibility. On the other, beware anyone who tells you they will relieve you of your Responsibility- the only way they can do that is to relieve you of your Liberty.
Thursday, December 15, 2011
Simple Truth: Private Property is one of the pillars of Liberty
A man who works to no gain, no matter how free his actions, is still a slave. A man coerced into a line of work who sees a gain from his labor may well be free.
Illustration:
Consider two men. One chose his profession. He was free to make any choice he desired. But now he works only for those over him. Whether the government, or some private employer, he spends his labor, but sees no profit. He produces, but his employer gains. The other man was "forced" by circumstance, or law, or tradition into some form of work. He had no real choice in the matter. However, he works and sees a profit from his labor. What he makes is his, and he disburses it as he sees fit, in exchange for whatever he agrees.
Which of these men has Liberty?
Explanation:
In many ways, the right to accumulate property- the right to work for oneself- is the essence of Liberty. Once I can work for myself (say, by starting up a blog and running Ads on my site. Or by selling my labor to an employer), I am the master of my own destiny. My decisions, and even happenstance, may make my life less than perfect, but I always have the choice of doing something differently. If I cannot work for myself, if I must work only for another's gain, then I am a slave. My life is not my own, because I cannot work for my own property. This applies to money as well as other forms of wealth.
When we seek to restrict private ownership of any kind of property, we are restricting Liberty. Sometimes, in the case of illegal drugs, for instance, Society has made the choice that this particular Liberty-for-Security trade is worth it. Only God and Time will be able to tell for sure. Other times, those restrictions are forced on us without explanation, or without our having a voice. When that occurs, someone is usurping, or attempting to usurp, our Liberty. From gun ownership, to land zoning, to mineral rights, to HOAs, to any number of other things: these are all restrictions on our Liberty.
Not all of those are unreasonable, or unnecessary. But you must remember, whenever you say, "There ought to be a law!" that you are advocating for the reduction of Liberty. That reduction, once made, is hard or impossible to reverse. We should be very careful about under which circumstances we will agree to such reductions.
When you advocate for higher taxes "on the rich," you are advocating for reduced Liberty.
When you ask that your HOA stop someone from building a tool-shed, or erecting a flag-pole: you are advocating for reduced Liberty.
When you request that the Government set prices for Health Care, and for increased regulations on how doctors and hospitals may practice: you are advocating for reduced Liberty.
When you want that Liberty back, the price may be terribly high.
Illustration:
Consider two men. One chose his profession. He was free to make any choice he desired. But now he works only for those over him. Whether the government, or some private employer, he spends his labor, but sees no profit. He produces, but his employer gains. The other man was "forced" by circumstance, or law, or tradition into some form of work. He had no real choice in the matter. However, he works and sees a profit from his labor. What he makes is his, and he disburses it as he sees fit, in exchange for whatever he agrees.
Which of these men has Liberty?
Explanation:
In many ways, the right to accumulate property- the right to work for oneself- is the essence of Liberty. Once I can work for myself (say, by starting up a blog and running Ads on my site. Or by selling my labor to an employer), I am the master of my own destiny. My decisions, and even happenstance, may make my life less than perfect, but I always have the choice of doing something differently. If I cannot work for myself, if I must work only for another's gain, then I am a slave. My life is not my own, because I cannot work for my own property. This applies to money as well as other forms of wealth.
When we seek to restrict private ownership of any kind of property, we are restricting Liberty. Sometimes, in the case of illegal drugs, for instance, Society has made the choice that this particular Liberty-for-Security trade is worth it. Only God and Time will be able to tell for sure. Other times, those restrictions are forced on us without explanation, or without our having a voice. When that occurs, someone is usurping, or attempting to usurp, our Liberty. From gun ownership, to land zoning, to mineral rights, to HOAs, to any number of other things: these are all restrictions on our Liberty.
Not all of those are unreasonable, or unnecessary. But you must remember, whenever you say, "There ought to be a law!" that you are advocating for the reduction of Liberty. That reduction, once made, is hard or impossible to reverse. We should be very careful about under which circumstances we will agree to such reductions.
When you advocate for higher taxes "on the rich," you are advocating for reduced Liberty.
When you ask that your HOA stop someone from building a tool-shed, or erecting a flag-pole: you are advocating for reduced Liberty.
When you request that the Government set prices for Health Care, and for increased regulations on how doctors and hospitals may practice: you are advocating for reduced Liberty.
When you want that Liberty back, the price may be terribly high.
Monday, December 12, 2011
Simple Truth: No Government can show Compassion.
Compassion is a unique trait. It must be voluntary, or it is not compassion.
Illustration:
Imagine a family, poor by American standards, seeing before them a bleak Christmas. Few if any gifts, an old, sad-looking plastic Christmas tree. Mom and dad both work long hours, the kids are what we used to call "latch-key kids." They live a very humble life. Very few could look on these people with anything other than sympathy. Those of us who have been blessed want to help them; especially those of us who have seen similar hard times. "They need help!" we think. And they get it. They get it from private organizations, but they also get it in the form of WIC, Food-Stamps, and other government assistance.
Down the street is another family. This one somewhat more prosperous, but looking at a similar christmas. Mom got sick this year, and the car died. The furnace went out, and the refigerator, too. They make plenty of money, on paper, but unexpected costs have killed them this year. We look at them, too, with sympathy- yet they get far less help. Large organizations, as well as the government, look at income to determine if someone qualifies for assistance. They have limited resources, after all, and must prioritize. Individuals and smaller organizations, such as their local Church, may help some, but their resources are even more limited.
Considering this, why is it "compassionate" to provide tax-payer funded assistance to the first family, and deny to the other? That isn't compassion, especially since the second family is partially responsible for that tax-payer funded assistance the first family receives. We are literally taking from those in need to give to others in need.
Explanation:
When someone in the Government starts talking about "compassion" your best bet is to cover your wallet and run the other way. No bureaucracy, and especially not one which can demand funding, can be compassionate. They must, by definition, take from someone to give to someone else. It is not compassion if I take ten dollars from you, and give it to some homeless guy. It is, and can be, compassion only when you- knowing the cost to yourself- make the decision to give the ten dollars. Compassion, in fact, must be voluntary. It must be an individual choice.
George W. Bush, as much as I admired him for many things, made this mistake. He believed that we needed a "Compassionate Conservatism." This is quite the wrong track. "Conservatism" as a philosophy is completely independent of "Compassion." Neither is required for the other, nor are they mutually exclusive. I, as a Conservative, am compassionate. Conservatism itself cannot speak to "compassion" at all. Any given Liberal may be compassionate (if, statistically speaking, less so than any given Conservative). Liberalism itself cannot speak to "compassion" at all.
When we allow the Government to cloak redistribution in the rhetoric of "Compassion" what we are really doing is allowing them to steal from the productive and give to the unproductive. There are many fine people who rely on Tax-payer-funded assistance of many varieties, and my heart weeps for them. But they do not have the right to coerce me to pay for their upkeep. If you are working, and trying to get by, then any number of local, private organizations exist to help you. Indeed, if less of our money was being stolen to pay for those who are milking the system, they would be both willing and able to help you more. As long as Government remains in the business of wealth redistribution, whether in the name of "fairness" or "compassion," or anything else, true compassion will be limited and- ultimately- snuffed-out.
Illustration:
Imagine a family, poor by American standards, seeing before them a bleak Christmas. Few if any gifts, an old, sad-looking plastic Christmas tree. Mom and dad both work long hours, the kids are what we used to call "latch-key kids." They live a very humble life. Very few could look on these people with anything other than sympathy. Those of us who have been blessed want to help them; especially those of us who have seen similar hard times. "They need help!" we think. And they get it. They get it from private organizations, but they also get it in the form of WIC, Food-Stamps, and other government assistance.
Down the street is another family. This one somewhat more prosperous, but looking at a similar christmas. Mom got sick this year, and the car died. The furnace went out, and the refigerator, too. They make plenty of money, on paper, but unexpected costs have killed them this year. We look at them, too, with sympathy- yet they get far less help. Large organizations, as well as the government, look at income to determine if someone qualifies for assistance. They have limited resources, after all, and must prioritize. Individuals and smaller organizations, such as their local Church, may help some, but their resources are even more limited.
Considering this, why is it "compassionate" to provide tax-payer funded assistance to the first family, and deny to the other? That isn't compassion, especially since the second family is partially responsible for that tax-payer funded assistance the first family receives. We are literally taking from those in need to give to others in need.
Explanation:
When someone in the Government starts talking about "compassion" your best bet is to cover your wallet and run the other way. No bureaucracy, and especially not one which can demand funding, can be compassionate. They must, by definition, take from someone to give to someone else. It is not compassion if I take ten dollars from you, and give it to some homeless guy. It is, and can be, compassion only when you- knowing the cost to yourself- make the decision to give the ten dollars. Compassion, in fact, must be voluntary. It must be an individual choice.
George W. Bush, as much as I admired him for many things, made this mistake. He believed that we needed a "Compassionate Conservatism." This is quite the wrong track. "Conservatism" as a philosophy is completely independent of "Compassion." Neither is required for the other, nor are they mutually exclusive. I, as a Conservative, am compassionate. Conservatism itself cannot speak to "compassion" at all. Any given Liberal may be compassionate (if, statistically speaking, less so than any given Conservative). Liberalism itself cannot speak to "compassion" at all.
When we allow the Government to cloak redistribution in the rhetoric of "Compassion" what we are really doing is allowing them to steal from the productive and give to the unproductive. There are many fine people who rely on Tax-payer-funded assistance of many varieties, and my heart weeps for them. But they do not have the right to coerce me to pay for their upkeep. If you are working, and trying to get by, then any number of local, private organizations exist to help you. Indeed, if less of our money was being stolen to pay for those who are milking the system, they would be both willing and able to help you more. As long as Government remains in the business of wealth redistribution, whether in the name of "fairness" or "compassion," or anything else, true compassion will be limited and- ultimately- snuffed-out.
Thursday, December 8, 2011
Simple Truth: Distrust of Government is not 'anti-government.'
The fact I do not "trust" the government does not mean I question the necessity of its existence.
Illustration:
In the 1990's, Congress "Fixed" Social Security by placing the funds from your FICA taxes in a "Lock Box." This let everyone feel nice and safe, and believe that Social Security would exist for them 25, 30, or even 50+ years later. However, those paying attention at the time knew there was no "Lock Box." There was a special account, as such things go in Washington, but all funds were going first to the general fund, and then IOUs were being placed "in the account" for Social Security instead of actual money.
Explanation:
It is this kind of obfuscation of the facts that make conservatives distrustful of government. We do not believe that government is not necessary. We do not believe in anarchy (indeed: most anarchists are socially very liberal). We do believe that "power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely." We believe that man's fallen nature makes him predisposed to do things for his own benefit with little or no regard for the harm it causes others.
That is why we advocate for smaller government. A government which is relatively small and weak is a government with less power to enrich itself at the cost of the citizenry. A limited government is one that has less (ideally: no) power to "pick winners and losers," or skew the marketplace. A limited government is one that cannot lie to the people, because it is governed by them as much as they are governed by it.
This is also why we advocate for Federalism. A fragmented government, not just among three branches, but also among several levels, is easier to keep in check. A citizen, just trying to live his life, often doesn't have the time or inclination to keep an ever-watchful eye on Washington DC, their State capitol, and their local city hall. So, with true federalism, and strong States, this responsibility is cut by a third. We still have to mind both our local and our State governments, but the State government then becomes a check on the Federal government- and the semi-antagonistic nature that is inherent in 50 (or even 13) states each preventing the others from getting some "unfair" advantage makes it relatively easy for a citizen simply to check occasionally.
Illustration:
In the 1990's, Congress "Fixed" Social Security by placing the funds from your FICA taxes in a "Lock Box." This let everyone feel nice and safe, and believe that Social Security would exist for them 25, 30, or even 50+ years later. However, those paying attention at the time knew there was no "Lock Box." There was a special account, as such things go in Washington, but all funds were going first to the general fund, and then IOUs were being placed "in the account" for Social Security instead of actual money.
Explanation:
It is this kind of obfuscation of the facts that make conservatives distrustful of government. We do not believe that government is not necessary. We do not believe in anarchy (indeed: most anarchists are socially very liberal). We do believe that "power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely." We believe that man's fallen nature makes him predisposed to do things for his own benefit with little or no regard for the harm it causes others.
That is why we advocate for smaller government. A government which is relatively small and weak is a government with less power to enrich itself at the cost of the citizenry. A limited government is one that has less (ideally: no) power to "pick winners and losers," or skew the marketplace. A limited government is one that cannot lie to the people, because it is governed by them as much as they are governed by it.
This is also why we advocate for Federalism. A fragmented government, not just among three branches, but also among several levels, is easier to keep in check. A citizen, just trying to live his life, often doesn't have the time or inclination to keep an ever-watchful eye on Washington DC, their State capitol, and their local city hall. So, with true federalism, and strong States, this responsibility is cut by a third. We still have to mind both our local and our State governments, but the State government then becomes a check on the Federal government- and the semi-antagonistic nature that is inherent in 50 (or even 13) states each preventing the others from getting some "unfair" advantage makes it relatively easy for a citizen simply to check occasionally.
Monday, December 5, 2011
Simple Truth: Inequality does not exist because of Liberty. Liberty exists to minimize inequality.
The ones at the top always have Liberty. The only question is if those at the bottom do as well.
Illustration:
Consider two men of middle stature. Both are professionals; both have wives and children. Both have houses and food. Above both men, in society, are "the rich and powerful." Politicians, successful businessmen, kings, and queens. He knows they wield money, and therefore power and influence. The first man, however, has no hope of ever joining that elite group. He is told where to live, what to eat, and what to do. He has no choices, or they are so limited that he may as well have none. The other man has hope. He could, tomorrow, if he chose, sell his possessions, go into business for himself, and possibly enter the rolls of the Rich and Powerful. Which of these men would you rather be?
Consider two more men. Both are considered "poor" by their respective societies. The first eats a subsistence diet, going hungry on many days. His clothes are old. He has no heat or air conditioning in his domicile. He relies solely on his feet or public transportation to get from point A to point B. The second man eats at least two, and probably three meals a day. He has a car, a television, and complains when his AC or Furnace need repair. He consumes more information in a day than most people throughout human history would have been able to consume in a year.
Explanation:
In both of these cases, the difference is Liberty. In the first case, the second man has the Liberty to chart his own course; to decide his own destiny. Certainly, he may fail, but it is only because of the possibility of failure that the possibility of upward mobility exists. They are opposite faces of the same coin. In the second case, the second man benefits from the Liberty he shares with those who are more successful. Because he lives in a society of Liberty, goods are more plentiful and, therefore, less expensive.
In every society there will be those with wealth and power. It is simply a fact of human existence that the majority of society's wealth will belong to a relatively small group of people. Nothing in Man's history has changed this, and nothing suggests it can change. To complain about that fact is the same as complaining about gravity or the tides. Even in Communist Russia and China, those at the top had power and wealth. So the question of Liberty is not whether those men will exist, it is whether it will be possible to join their ranks.
In a society with Liberty, where I can enjoy the fruits of my own labor, I can choose to take risks and reap any rewards. It is in a Liberated society that a college drop-out can decide to start the most ubiquitous computer company in the world. It is in a Liberated society that poor black man can feed the south by discovering the vast uses of a native legume. In a controlled society, in a society without that liberty, no incentive exists to do those things. One cannot keep the rewards of their endeavors, so why take risks?
Remember when one is offered "comfort" and "equality" at the cost of liberty- you will not be equal with those on top. It will not happen. And your comfort will depend on the benevolence of men with means greater than yours. However, at the cost of guaranteed, if minimal, comfort, and at the cost of the trivial equality of shared misery, you can have the chance at the rewards of true comfort- comfort from your own labor, and guaranteed true equality- the equality of opportunity, and self determination.
Illustration:
Consider two men of middle stature. Both are professionals; both have wives and children. Both have houses and food. Above both men, in society, are "the rich and powerful." Politicians, successful businessmen, kings, and queens. He knows they wield money, and therefore power and influence. The first man, however, has no hope of ever joining that elite group. He is told where to live, what to eat, and what to do. He has no choices, or they are so limited that he may as well have none. The other man has hope. He could, tomorrow, if he chose, sell his possessions, go into business for himself, and possibly enter the rolls of the Rich and Powerful. Which of these men would you rather be?
Consider two more men. Both are considered "poor" by their respective societies. The first eats a subsistence diet, going hungry on many days. His clothes are old. He has no heat or air conditioning in his domicile. He relies solely on his feet or public transportation to get from point A to point B. The second man eats at least two, and probably three meals a day. He has a car, a television, and complains when his AC or Furnace need repair. He consumes more information in a day than most people throughout human history would have been able to consume in a year.
Explanation:
In both of these cases, the difference is Liberty. In the first case, the second man has the Liberty to chart his own course; to decide his own destiny. Certainly, he may fail, but it is only because of the possibility of failure that the possibility of upward mobility exists. They are opposite faces of the same coin. In the second case, the second man benefits from the Liberty he shares with those who are more successful. Because he lives in a society of Liberty, goods are more plentiful and, therefore, less expensive.
In every society there will be those with wealth and power. It is simply a fact of human existence that the majority of society's wealth will belong to a relatively small group of people. Nothing in Man's history has changed this, and nothing suggests it can change. To complain about that fact is the same as complaining about gravity or the tides. Even in Communist Russia and China, those at the top had power and wealth. So the question of Liberty is not whether those men will exist, it is whether it will be possible to join their ranks.
In a society with Liberty, where I can enjoy the fruits of my own labor, I can choose to take risks and reap any rewards. It is in a Liberated society that a college drop-out can decide to start the most ubiquitous computer company in the world. It is in a Liberated society that poor black man can feed the south by discovering the vast uses of a native legume. In a controlled society, in a society without that liberty, no incentive exists to do those things. One cannot keep the rewards of their endeavors, so why take risks?
Remember when one is offered "comfort" and "equality" at the cost of liberty- you will not be equal with those on top. It will not happen. And your comfort will depend on the benevolence of men with means greater than yours. However, at the cost of guaranteed, if minimal, comfort, and at the cost of the trivial equality of shared misery, you can have the chance at the rewards of true comfort- comfort from your own labor, and guaranteed true equality- the equality of opportunity, and self determination.
Thursday, December 1, 2011
Simple Truth: Liberty is hard, and subjugation is easy.
There is a cost for everything. The cost of Liberty is the shouldering of personal responsibility. The cost of subjugation is your humanity.
Illustration:
Imagine a man faced with two choices. On the one hand is a life of plenty. A job, a house, food on the table, everything he "wants" is his for the taking. All he has to do is give up the ability to make some of his own choices. He will be told where to live, he'll be told where to work, and he'll be told what to eat. On the other hand is a life of hardship. He'll have a chance for a house, but it won't be guaranteed. He'll have a chance to be richer than Croesus, but he may instead live in poverty. He might have so much food he'll have to give it away before it goes bad, but he might live in hunger, little more than a beggar.
Explanation:
This is the choice between subjugation and liberty. The first man is a subject, at best. At worst, he is a slave. He may have plenty to eat, a warm bed, and relatively useful employ, but he has no choices, no chances, and no future. There is no chance for him to grow; no chance for him to become "the next..." anything. The second man is a free man. His life and path are his own to choose. He may not have food, but then again, he may. He may live in a cheap apartment, or he may live in a lavish mansion. He may be unemployed, or may be the owner of his own, successful, business.
Today's neo-Marxists would have you believe that the first man is better off. "See?" they say, "Come with us, and you will wont for nothing. We will feed you, clothe you, house you." But there is a cost for everything. It was not men with nothing to gain who invented the automobile, the electric light, the telegraph and telephone, the rubber tire, penicillin, acetaminophen, nylon, Teflon, or those little dangly air fresheners you hang in your car. Or fuzzy dice. Whatever. It was men who could determine their own destinies. It was men who knew that they would be rewarded -that they would profit- from their discoveries and inventions.
Even explorers did not explore for some love of country, or some form of altruism. They explored because they believed they could become rich, or that they would be rewarded. Sometimes they explored because they believed they could gain something- that same Freedom that would let them starve.
It may seem that the way of ease is better. Indeed, many would choose it freely. But the world has been made better by those who chose Liberty, and only those with Liberty are ever able to become successful.
Illustration:
Imagine a man faced with two choices. On the one hand is a life of plenty. A job, a house, food on the table, everything he "wants" is his for the taking. All he has to do is give up the ability to make some of his own choices. He will be told where to live, he'll be told where to work, and he'll be told what to eat. On the other hand is a life of hardship. He'll have a chance for a house, but it won't be guaranteed. He'll have a chance to be richer than Croesus, but he may instead live in poverty. He might have so much food he'll have to give it away before it goes bad, but he might live in hunger, little more than a beggar.
Explanation:
This is the choice between subjugation and liberty. The first man is a subject, at best. At worst, he is a slave. He may have plenty to eat, a warm bed, and relatively useful employ, but he has no choices, no chances, and no future. There is no chance for him to grow; no chance for him to become "the next..." anything. The second man is a free man. His life and path are his own to choose. He may not have food, but then again, he may. He may live in a cheap apartment, or he may live in a lavish mansion. He may be unemployed, or may be the owner of his own, successful, business.
Today's neo-Marxists would have you believe that the first man is better off. "See?" they say, "Come with us, and you will wont for nothing. We will feed you, clothe you, house you." But there is a cost for everything. It was not men with nothing to gain who invented the automobile, the electric light, the telegraph and telephone, the rubber tire, penicillin, acetaminophen, nylon, Teflon, or those little dangly air fresheners you hang in your car. Or fuzzy dice. Whatever. It was men who could determine their own destinies. It was men who knew that they would be rewarded -that they would profit- from their discoveries and inventions.
Even explorers did not explore for some love of country, or some form of altruism. They explored because they believed they could become rich, or that they would be rewarded. Sometimes they explored because they believed they could gain something- that same Freedom that would let them starve.
It may seem that the way of ease is better. Indeed, many would choose it freely. But the world has been made better by those who chose Liberty, and only those with Liberty are ever able to become successful.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)