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?
Thursday, February 2, 2012
Monday, January 30, 2012
Pure Philosophy: Nuture or Nature: Are we locked into one station in life?
On the face of it, especially to conservative thought, this question is so ridiculous as to have no meaning. The United States of America was founded on the principle that you can make of your life whatever you want, given the effort and ability. Not for us, those silly notions of "the Nobility" or the "Aristocracy." We don't subscribe to the ideas of Castes or Classes.
And yet.
Our normal rhetoric embraces some of these concepts. What is "The Rich" other than an epithet for "High Born?" What is "poor" other than a euphemism for "low class?" Oh, certainly those terms have their own meanings. We just rarely use their actual meanings.
The problem here is an old one. We can trace it back to the days before our Great Republic, if not even further. Perhaps at its height in the Middle Ages, the idea of being born "high" or "low" was hardly new even then. The Founding Fathers rejected this notion, and believed that everyone was "Created Equal." That is, that personal wealth was not the same as personal worth. There were still those, however, who believed that people were "born to a station." That someone born to the Nobility was, simply by birth, of more worth than someone born to a common family.
This is an important distinction which exists even today.
Though they won't admit it, Liberals believe (or, at least, much if their philosophy is based upon the idea) that a person born into certain circumstances is locked there for life. At the least, they won't be able to "move up in life" without assistance and/or extreme measures. Thus the idea that the poor go into the army to escape their poverty. It is this belief that leads them to the idea that Government must "do something" about poverty. Since those "low born waifs" have no prospects of advancement on their own, the Aristocracy must (noblesse oblige) assist (read: subsidize) them.
Conservatives, however, believe that a person is what a person does. We believe that your birth station does not limit your options, in itself. We believe that a struggling college kid, selling custom built computers out of his car, can become a CEO of a leading computer company. We believe in upward mobility. We believe that the Aristocracy, even granting it the highest motives, does more to harm those born to lower circumstances than it can ever do to help them. We believe that the best way to help the poor is to enable them by getting government out of the way, and letting them find their own solutions to their poverty.
And yet.
Our normal rhetoric embraces some of these concepts. What is "The Rich" other than an epithet for "High Born?" What is "poor" other than a euphemism for "low class?" Oh, certainly those terms have their own meanings. We just rarely use their actual meanings.
The problem here is an old one. We can trace it back to the days before our Great Republic, if not even further. Perhaps at its height in the Middle Ages, the idea of being born "high" or "low" was hardly new even then. The Founding Fathers rejected this notion, and believed that everyone was "Created Equal." That is, that personal wealth was not the same as personal worth. There were still those, however, who believed that people were "born to a station." That someone born to the Nobility was, simply by birth, of more worth than someone born to a common family.
This is an important distinction which exists even today.
Though they won't admit it, Liberals believe (or, at least, much if their philosophy is based upon the idea) that a person born into certain circumstances is locked there for life. At the least, they won't be able to "move up in life" without assistance and/or extreme measures. Thus the idea that the poor go into the army to escape their poverty. It is this belief that leads them to the idea that Government must "do something" about poverty. Since those "low born waifs" have no prospects of advancement on their own, the Aristocracy must (noblesse oblige) assist (read: subsidize) them.
Conservatives, however, believe that a person is what a person does. We believe that your birth station does not limit your options, in itself. We believe that a struggling college kid, selling custom built computers out of his car, can become a CEO of a leading computer company. We believe in upward mobility. We believe that the Aristocracy, even granting it the highest motives, does more to harm those born to lower circumstances than it can ever do to help them. We believe that the best way to help the poor is to enable them by getting government out of the way, and letting them find their own solutions to their poverty.
Thursday, January 26, 2012
For Mitt
First, let me say I will not vote for Willard "Mitt" Romney in the Primary. I absolutely refuse. However, over at the Ace of Spades HQ (link in my side bar), a brawl has been going on over Mitt vs. Newt, and I thought I would illustrate my point here. My point is that Mitt Romney has run, from the beginning of this race, as if he was entitled to be our nominee. He was aloof and stand-off-ish, he was a "cold fish," and he ran only on his "electability," a quality which does not, apparently, mean the ability to win multiple elections. Somehow.
Now that he's no longer the clear front-runner, he and his supporters are getting nasty. If you don't support Mitt, it can't be because of anything Mitt has done, or because of Mitt's ever-changing standpoints, or anything else- no, it must be because you are flawed and/or you want Obama to win another term.
Well, ladies and gentlemen, that's not a winning tactic. You don't insult those whose support you need, you woo them. You explain why your guy is so much better than the other guy- and I've never once heard any argument that Mitt is better than anyone else- simply that they are also flawed and he polls better.
So, since they obviously don't understand my point, I thought I would illustrate by posting what I think Mitt and his supporters should have been saying from the beginning.
1) Mitt is a highly successful Capitalist. He made millions of dollars providing real value- in the form of greater efficiency- to real companies that then saw real profits. Those profits were then turned into new investment- often in personnel (that is: jobs). The net jobs created is very, very difficult to calculate, because such results are often only distally related to Mitt's actions- but the causal relationship still exists.
2) Mitt, as a successful Capitalist, understands that the government cannot create jobs- and to speak as if it can is delusional. He knows, instead, that the Government can simply create an environment which is either conducive, or harmful, to job creation. To do this, he proposes to lower taxes generally, especially corporate income taxes. **I would do more here, but I frankly haven't heard very many details of Mitt's economic plan: which is yet another problem with his campaign**
3) Mitt's experience with Health Care in Massachusetts has shown him that Government Mandates don't work. They may be marginally better than pure socialization or requiring all employers to provide coverage, but they're still not effective. Real world, private sector based solutions are the answer. Reducing regulation and coverage mandates would allow for an "a la carte" approach to insurance coverage- which would be the first step in reducing the general cost of health insurance. Removing the ability for people to avoid paying for health care (no longer require any hospital or doctor to treat "regardless of ability to pay") would also reduce the instances of people using the Emergency Room as their Primary Care Provider. ***I don't think Mitt even believes this, but he's the one who has the example he could use 'We tried it this way- it doesn't work!'***
4) Mitt, as a successful Capitalist, understands that government, generally, is too big and it's reach too great. Meaningless, redundant bureaucracy and "red tape" not only make it harder for businesses to operate, they ensnare our people in a web of laws such that one can't avoid breaking a law at least sometimes. Cutting through that redundancy will not only allow businesses and the People to operate more freely, it will reduce the costs of compliance and enforcement.
I could go on, but that should be enough to get them started.
I'll also point out- I believe that if Mitt Romney actually believed this stuff, he would already have been saying it. So, as for wooing me, he's lost his chance. But, hey, it may work with others, and I'm certainly under no illusions about the reach of my blog here. So they could at least give it a try.
Now that he's no longer the clear front-runner, he and his supporters are getting nasty. If you don't support Mitt, it can't be because of anything Mitt has done, or because of Mitt's ever-changing standpoints, or anything else- no, it must be because you are flawed and/or you want Obama to win another term.
Well, ladies and gentlemen, that's not a winning tactic. You don't insult those whose support you need, you woo them. You explain why your guy is so much better than the other guy- and I've never once heard any argument that Mitt is better than anyone else- simply that they are also flawed and he polls better.
So, since they obviously don't understand my point, I thought I would illustrate by posting what I think Mitt and his supporters should have been saying from the beginning.
1) Mitt is a highly successful Capitalist. He made millions of dollars providing real value- in the form of greater efficiency- to real companies that then saw real profits. Those profits were then turned into new investment- often in personnel (that is: jobs). The net jobs created is very, very difficult to calculate, because such results are often only distally related to Mitt's actions- but the causal relationship still exists.
2) Mitt, as a successful Capitalist, understands that the government cannot create jobs- and to speak as if it can is delusional. He knows, instead, that the Government can simply create an environment which is either conducive, or harmful, to job creation. To do this, he proposes to lower taxes generally, especially corporate income taxes. **I would do more here, but I frankly haven't heard very many details of Mitt's economic plan: which is yet another problem with his campaign**
3) Mitt's experience with Health Care in Massachusetts has shown him that Government Mandates don't work. They may be marginally better than pure socialization or requiring all employers to provide coverage, but they're still not effective. Real world, private sector based solutions are the answer. Reducing regulation and coverage mandates would allow for an "a la carte" approach to insurance coverage- which would be the first step in reducing the general cost of health insurance. Removing the ability for people to avoid paying for health care (no longer require any hospital or doctor to treat "regardless of ability to pay") would also reduce the instances of people using the Emergency Room as their Primary Care Provider. ***I don't think Mitt even believes this, but he's the one who has the example he could use 'We tried it this way- it doesn't work!'***
4) Mitt, as a successful Capitalist, understands that government, generally, is too big and it's reach too great. Meaningless, redundant bureaucracy and "red tape" not only make it harder for businesses to operate, they ensnare our people in a web of laws such that one can't avoid breaking a law at least sometimes. Cutting through that redundancy will not only allow businesses and the People to operate more freely, it will reduce the costs of compliance and enforcement.
I could go on, but that should be enough to get them started.
I'll also point out- I believe that if Mitt Romney actually believed this stuff, he would already have been saying it. So, as for wooing me, he's lost his chance. But, hey, it may work with others, and I'm certainly under no illusions about the reach of my blog here. So they could at least give it a try.
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.
Friday, January 20, 2012
From the HQ
Andrew Breitbart is reported as having said he reads the Ace of Spades Headquarters (permalinked in my side bar), but that he only reads the comments.
This, from prolific and long-time poster 'Vic' is a prime example why. I'm posting it here because I believe that it deserves its own post somewhere:
This, from prolific and long-time poster 'Vic' is a prime example why. I'm posting it here because I believe that it deserves its own post somewhere:
We are left with zip dog shit for candidates. Year after year after year under the stagnated BS Republican Party primary rules we get stuck with shitty candidates. The primaries are preloaded with almost ALL blue States all the way up to the damn Super Tuesday date. This is why we get stuck with lackluster, its my turn “moderates”. Yet there are some here who keep saying this is all wingnut “conspiracy theory”. I throw the bullshit flag on that. Once is OK, twice may be a coincidence, three times is enemy action. Decades worth is Party design.
We are now left with Mutt Romney who they are still saying is the designated winner although he has only won one Primary in virtually his own home State and it appears he will NOT win SC despite all the MFM hoopala. He hasn’t got a conservative bone in his body. He is not electable because he will split the Party and likely result in a third Party run. The base hates him yet if he does win it will be the same damn way McShitty won. A plurality of about 30%.
Then there is Eye of Newt. More baggage than an overloaded airport train headed for a wide body 747. He has a couple of finger bones that may be conservative.
Coming up third will probably be Santorum (at least in SC). He is arguably more conservative than Gingrich (maybe) but he so alienated his own State so bad he was routed in his last election attempt. His stress on anti-gay and on social con issues is so hard that he is virtually unelectable in any tight State like VA. The same way Mutt will cause conservatives to stay at home, he will cause some fiscal cons who don’t give a shit for social ideas to stay at home. If he would keep his mouth shut on this score he would be a lot better off. Swing into that shit AFTER the election dumb ass. Do like the Dems do, run to the center and then after election go hard right social con.
Fourth is Crazy Racist Uncle. Not a chance of getting elected anywhere but he has a following of loud and obnoxious pot heads and skin heads.
This is what our Republican Party primary rules has given us. This and endless fucking bullshit debates hosted by the MFM designed not to allow the candidates to debate, but to pose “gotcha” questions, stir up controversy for ratings, and just generally damage the Republican party. Hell, the ONLY reason Newt has climbed out of the gutter is by attacking the debate assholes. Is this how we want to pick candidates; seriously?
All you Mutt-Mashers can bitch about this all you want, but I am about fed up with the Republican Party. They are not just the Party of Stupid, they are the Party of semi-Democrats. I am about to agree with Glenn Beck, there is not much difference between them but degree of how far left they want to go. Whether it is big government socialism for the Republicans or bigger government communism for the Democrats. Either damn way we are going off the cliff.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)