Recently, Mitt Romney, in a larger context said, "I like being able to fire people..." Specifically, he was talking about the ability to stop doing business with one entity, and start doing business with another. Again, in particular, he was speaking of health insurance.
Now, I do not believe this was a particularly adroit way to make the point, but that's not the focus of this post. Full Disclosure: I do not like Mitt Romney, I will not vote for him in the Primaries for any reason.
One of the keys of Capitalism is competition. Whether competition among applicants for a specific job, or competition between companies to provide a specific service, competition is an unimaginably important ingredient. A key of competition is the ability to "fire" someone. Whether a specific employee who is not providing enough value or a company that is not providing adequate service, if I'm unable to "fire" anyone, competition does not actually exist.
We see this in regulated industry and in Government. For decades, cable companies had no real competition. As a result, their customer service was mediocre, at best, and their prices were high. With the advent of affordable satellite TV, and now with Fiber-optic TV options, and Internet TV stations, cable companies are having to compete. It is quite obvious they don't like this competition, as it has shifted the power away from themselves and to the respective stations who wish to control (that is: get paid for) their own content. Any time you hear that TV provider X has "dropped the Y channel," you can be sure that the Y channel wanted more money per viewer, and the cable company (or satellite provider, or whoever) did not want to pay the increased rate.
Now, this is all well and good. It is part and parcel of Capitalism. If anyone believes otherwise they are deluded. That does not make it pleasant. People getting fired or companies losing business does have a real negative impact on people's lives. To forget this is to forget the purpose of Liberty- to enable as many as possible to live as free and as well as possible. No one should "like" to be able to fire people. That's a negative thing. That they should like the consequences of that ability- more competition, better service, more efficiency, and so forth- is not a negative thing, but let's be clear about what we like.
If Mitt Romney truly likes the ability to fire people for itself (I see no evidence that he does- I simply believe this was less-that-adroit way to make his point), then that is a bad thing. It's not something we want, because it indicates he enjoys being able to inflict negative consequences on others. If he doesn't like that negative, and was attempting to assert the positive, he chose a particularly clumsy way (in my view) to do so.
Thursday, January 12, 2012
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.
Thursday, January 5, 2012
United States Constitution: A Time for Choosing
Well, it was a good run, wasn't it? Right around 225 years. However, with Barack Obama's announcement on Wednesday that he had "recess appointed" four appointees while the Senate was not actually in recess, the United States Constitution has received a major wound. Unless Congress as a whole steps up to defend their authority, our beloved Constitution will die. It will not be worth the paper on which it is written.
The Constitution clearly gives each chamber of the legislature the authority to create their own rules- including what constitutes a "recess." Indeed, the only time the Constitution speaks to what a recess may or may not mean is when it says that neither chamber can recess for more than three days without the consent of the other chamber. Pro-forma sessions have long been used in Congress- yes, as a largely political move. However, they are legitimate sessions of Congress, for all that. When Barack Obama claims that he gets to decide that "an effective recess" is occurring, he is acting like a King with his Parliament, not a President who must work with a co-equal Congress.
When faced with the same issue during his presidency, George Bush complained about what congress was doing, but he never claimed they couldn't do it, or that he had some magical power over them to declare them in recess. Barack Obama could have done the same. The fact is, however, he and the Democrats realize that the people don't care about yet another unaccountable government bureaucrat who is ostensibly there "to look out for them," as though the American people have not been able to look out for ourselves for the last 225 years, or so. They don't care about the NRLB- many of them believe it is antiquated, at best. And so Barack Obama and the Democrats in congress knew they would not win that battle- so instead they choose another.
This battle, they're sure they'll win, because they are sure the Republicans won't fight them. This autocratic, dictatorial move by the President is nothing less than a defacto attempt to annul the United States Constitution. If the Constitution does not protect the Federal Government from itself, how can it be expected to protect the citizenry from the Federal Government?
The Democrats are sure the Republicans won't fight them, because the Republicans act like scared rabbits any time a substantive issue comes up. From the various budget and debt-limit battles, to Eric Holder's obvious contempt of Congress, to the various unconstitutional power-grabs by this President, they have largely remained silent, or tried to downplay the problem. Supposedly wiser heads continue telling us that the Election is the most important thing, and actually opposing Barack Obama might turn off independent voters.
Well, I have news for you, Congressional Republicans- we have come to a time of choosing. You can choose to fight this fight, and attempt to communicate with the American people instead of just accepting that they will remain asleep, or you can choose to let the Constitution, the very foundation of our Country, slip quietly into the night. If you make the former choice, be assured that Conservatives will support you. We will scream from the roof-tops that what the Democrats are doing is unconstitutional, and that it ultimately harms the people when the Rule of Law means nothing. If you choose the latter option, you will be responsible for throwing the Republican Party on the trash heap of history- yet another movement which promised to safeguard the people, but became too obsessed with safeguarding its own privilege.
The Constitution clearly gives each chamber of the legislature the authority to create their own rules- including what constitutes a "recess." Indeed, the only time the Constitution speaks to what a recess may or may not mean is when it says that neither chamber can recess for more than three days without the consent of the other chamber. Pro-forma sessions have long been used in Congress- yes, as a largely political move. However, they are legitimate sessions of Congress, for all that. When Barack Obama claims that he gets to decide that "an effective recess" is occurring, he is acting like a King with his Parliament, not a President who must work with a co-equal Congress.
When faced with the same issue during his presidency, George Bush complained about what congress was doing, but he never claimed they couldn't do it, or that he had some magical power over them to declare them in recess. Barack Obama could have done the same. The fact is, however, he and the Democrats realize that the people don't care about yet another unaccountable government bureaucrat who is ostensibly there "to look out for them," as though the American people have not been able to look out for ourselves for the last 225 years, or so. They don't care about the NRLB- many of them believe it is antiquated, at best. And so Barack Obama and the Democrats in congress knew they would not win that battle- so instead they choose another.
This battle, they're sure they'll win, because they are sure the Republicans won't fight them. This autocratic, dictatorial move by the President is nothing less than a defacto attempt to annul the United States Constitution. If the Constitution does not protect the Federal Government from itself, how can it be expected to protect the citizenry from the Federal Government?
The Democrats are sure the Republicans won't fight them, because the Republicans act like scared rabbits any time a substantive issue comes up. From the various budget and debt-limit battles, to Eric Holder's obvious contempt of Congress, to the various unconstitutional power-grabs by this President, they have largely remained silent, or tried to downplay the problem. Supposedly wiser heads continue telling us that the Election is the most important thing, and actually opposing Barack Obama might turn off independent voters.
Well, I have news for you, Congressional Republicans- we have come to a time of choosing. You can choose to fight this fight, and attempt to communicate with the American people instead of just accepting that they will remain asleep, or you can choose to let the Constitution, the very foundation of our Country, slip quietly into the night. If you make the former choice, be assured that Conservatives will support you. We will scream from the roof-tops that what the Democrats are doing is unconstitutional, and that it ultimately harms the people when the Rule of Law means nothing. If you choose the latter option, you will be responsible for throwing the Republican Party on the trash heap of history- yet another movement which promised to safeguard the people, but became too obsessed with safeguarding its own privilege.
The Real World: The Health Insurance Mandate
It has been said by Mitt Romney that a Health Insurance Mandate is a conservative idea. His supporters tend to back him up on this and, while I haven't been able to speak to Mr. Romney directly ('cause he even knows who I am, or something), most of his supporters suggest that it is a conservative idea because it requires everyone to be responsible.
This false idea rests on three false premises: First, that health care is a right, second that increased purchase of health insurance will reduce the costs of health care, and third that someone can be forced to be responsible. I will consider these three premises in reverse order.
Simple Truth (yes, look for this in a ST post at some point): Responsibility cannot be forced or mandated. I can force my children to put some of any money they earn into a savings account. That doesn't make them "responsible" for having done so. I can force my children to clean their rooms, that doesn't make them responsible for having done so. Indeed, responsibility only exists when an option for irresponsible behavior exists. We call that existence of an irresponsible option "Liberty," and it is generally to be desired. Further, someone "forced" to do something "responsible" does not, as a rule, have the actual temperament or character that makes them responsible. Simply purchasing health insurance will not make them significantly less of a drain on the medical system. At best (and empirically, this has proven false in Massachusetts) it helps prevent meteoric rises in health care costs, because everyone "has skin in the game."
Health care costs and health insurance are linked in myriad ways, and attempting to decipher all of them is far beyond the scope of this blog, let alone a single post. However, one thing I can say with surity: providing more people broader cost-deferment for health care will only increase the demand for that health care. Given the relatively fixed supply of care, due to various regulatory issues, barrier to entry, and so forth, that will always force the price of healthcare hire. At best, forcing everyone to be insured simply means that everyone bears a slightly more "equal" burden of the cost of care. But, to be sure, someone is paying that cost- either through higher premiums, higher prices in general, or through reduced access to, and quality of, care.
Finally: Simple Truth (yep, I'll be doing this one, too): You have no right to what someone else must provide. I'll say that again because it is so important: you have no right to what someone else must provide. Whether its a house, a car, a job, health insurance, health care, a hot-air balloon, or a cup of coffee, if someone else had to provide it for you, you have no right to it. This gets to the heart of the matter. For decades, at least, we have premise that Healthcare is a right. We have accepted that all people, regardless of circumstance, can demand healthcare.
It is easy to see how this premise arose: medical professionals themselves are notoriously generous in the face of suffering and sickness, and Western Civilization, especially with its Christian-influenced values, is just as generous, as a whole. We ache in sympathy for those who are ill. Just the term "the uninsured," conjures images of poverty stricken families living in hovels, dying for lack of care.
For all that it is easy to understand how we came to believe this, that doesn't make it any less wrong. What "right"to Medical care does a lone man in the forest have when a tree has fallen on him? Certainly he desires care. Certainly if someone knows and can get to him on time he will receive care. If he cannot provide it himself, then his situation does not just mean some doctor magically appears to save him.
It is this premise that we must fight, and we must be ready for the hyperbolic and emotional black-mail tactics of the Liberals. The fact we wish to provide everyone with care does not mean that anyone has a right to it. And the simple fact is there will always be more demand for healthcare than there will be a supply of it. How do we distribute that supply? The liberal way- of health insurance mandates, insurance coverage mandates, and, ultimately, socialized healthcare- will lead, as it always has, to the same "equality of misery" that any other form of Socialism does. It is only the Capitalist, Conservative method of distributing based on prices and the market that will ensure the highest quality of care gets to the most people.
And don't be afraid of that method of distribution. It will do what it promises: the best care will get to the most people. And few, if any, will have to do with no care. Doctors and the American People will remain as generous as they ever were: they will assist those who need assistance. By removing the Government Leviathan from the equation, they'll be able to assist more people, and fewer will need the assistance.
This false idea rests on three false premises: First, that health care is a right, second that increased purchase of health insurance will reduce the costs of health care, and third that someone can be forced to be responsible. I will consider these three premises in reverse order.
Simple Truth (yes, look for this in a ST post at some point): Responsibility cannot be forced or mandated. I can force my children to put some of any money they earn into a savings account. That doesn't make them "responsible" for having done so. I can force my children to clean their rooms, that doesn't make them responsible for having done so. Indeed, responsibility only exists when an option for irresponsible behavior exists. We call that existence of an irresponsible option "Liberty," and it is generally to be desired. Further, someone "forced" to do something "responsible" does not, as a rule, have the actual temperament or character that makes them responsible. Simply purchasing health insurance will not make them significantly less of a drain on the medical system. At best (and empirically, this has proven false in Massachusetts) it helps prevent meteoric rises in health care costs, because everyone "has skin in the game."
Health care costs and health insurance are linked in myriad ways, and attempting to decipher all of them is far beyond the scope of this blog, let alone a single post. However, one thing I can say with surity: providing more people broader cost-deferment for health care will only increase the demand for that health care. Given the relatively fixed supply of care, due to various regulatory issues, barrier to entry, and so forth, that will always force the price of healthcare hire. At best, forcing everyone to be insured simply means that everyone bears a slightly more "equal" burden of the cost of care. But, to be sure, someone is paying that cost- either through higher premiums, higher prices in general, or through reduced access to, and quality of, care.
Finally: Simple Truth (yep, I'll be doing this one, too): You have no right to what someone else must provide. I'll say that again because it is so important: you have no right to what someone else must provide. Whether its a house, a car, a job, health insurance, health care, a hot-air balloon, or a cup of coffee, if someone else had to provide it for you, you have no right to it. This gets to the heart of the matter. For decades, at least, we have premise that Healthcare is a right. We have accepted that all people, regardless of circumstance, can demand healthcare.
It is easy to see how this premise arose: medical professionals themselves are notoriously generous in the face of suffering and sickness, and Western Civilization, especially with its Christian-influenced values, is just as generous, as a whole. We ache in sympathy for those who are ill. Just the term "the uninsured," conjures images of poverty stricken families living in hovels, dying for lack of care.
For all that it is easy to understand how we came to believe this, that doesn't make it any less wrong. What "right"to Medical care does a lone man in the forest have when a tree has fallen on him? Certainly he desires care. Certainly if someone knows and can get to him on time he will receive care. If he cannot provide it himself, then his situation does not just mean some doctor magically appears to save him.
It is this premise that we must fight, and we must be ready for the hyperbolic and emotional black-mail tactics of the Liberals. The fact we wish to provide everyone with care does not mean that anyone has a right to it. And the simple fact is there will always be more demand for healthcare than there will be a supply of it. How do we distribute that supply? The liberal way- of health insurance mandates, insurance coverage mandates, and, ultimately, socialized healthcare- will lead, as it always has, to the same "equality of misery" that any other form of Socialism does. It is only the Capitalist, Conservative method of distributing based on prices and the market that will ensure the highest quality of care gets to the most people.
And don't be afraid of that method of distribution. It will do what it promises: the best care will get to the most people. And few, if any, will have to do with no care. Doctors and the American People will remain as generous as they ever were: they will assist those who need assistance. By removing the Government Leviathan from the equation, they'll be able to assist more people, and fewer will need the assistance.
Wednesday, January 4, 2012
Red Letter Day
Thanks, once again to the Ace of Spades HQ (especially Ben, who posted the link to one of my posts yesterday). Here's a graph of my traffic taken from this morning:
You can see the spike yesterday: over 700 page views, more than 800 if you include when Blogger switched its "day" over.
A few more like that, and this Blog might just take off.
You can see the spike yesterday: over 700 page views, more than 800 if you include when Blogger switched its "day" over.
A few more like that, and this Blog might just take off.
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.
Sunday, January 1, 2012
New Year, New Direction
Well, it's a New Year, and time to evaluate the last month or so on Dedicated Tenther. I started the blog as a way to get out, in a relatively concise manner, some tenants of Conservative Philosophy. I hope I've succeeded at that.
However, more needs to be done. Starting this year, Dedicated Tenther will begin taking a look at world events, proposed legislation, and practical politics, in addition to my "pure" philosophy posts.
So the Simple Truth posts will continue, though less frequently. And the Monday/Thursday posts will continue- with the odd off-schedule post thrown in. But you'll begin seeing some new tags on posts as well as I consider practical matters, and what I believe Conservative Philosophy says our response should be.
Thank you for making my first month+ successful enough that I believe I can go forward with this blog, and perhaps make a miniscule, but real, difference.
However, more needs to be done. Starting this year, Dedicated Tenther will begin taking a look at world events, proposed legislation, and practical politics, in addition to my "pure" philosophy posts.
So the Simple Truth posts will continue, though less frequently. And the Monday/Thursday posts will continue- with the odd off-schedule post thrown in. But you'll begin seeing some new tags on posts as well as I consider practical matters, and what I believe Conservative Philosophy says our response should be.
Thank you for making my first month+ successful enough that I believe I can go forward with this blog, and perhaps make a miniscule, but real, difference.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)