The current debates surrounding various issues at all levels of government expose a fundamental tension inherent in self government. Who should reign supreme, the state (the collective) or the individual? The friction can be characterized in a number of ways, but one of the more common ones is “security versus freedom.” This is a false dichotomy because when one looses freedom, then security is at risk. In other words, when others make your choices for you, who will guarantee that those choices will be the optimal ones for you? As Ben Franklin stated,”Those who would sacrifice freedom for security deserve neither.”
In a political sense, the tug-of-war between the individual and society is fundamentally confined to democracies or republics, that is political systems that have a broad franchise with clear choices for voters. One-party states and tyrannies limit the individual and forces him or her into a collective mode. In an individually based structure, the citizen can choose to vote, act or think with or for the group. The collective or statist organization discourages or prohibits individual behavior. Thus, individually-centered communities can choose to become more collective or statist, but members of a tyrannical society cannot promote or encourage individualism without facing ostracism or bodily peril. To reiterate an old cliché: you can’t put the toothpaste back into the tube.
For a free people to ask the government to do more for them leads to an inevitable slide into tyranny. Each new role assumed by the state chips away at the bedrock of individual freedom. Again, an old cliché: the Golden Rule of business and government, he who has the gold…rules. They who have been ceded the power will wield it. After some time the state will not wait for the power to be given to it, it will assert its authority and assume the power. The nanny-state exercises power to protect the people from themselves, but as government continues to unabatedly become larger, the state begins to use power to protect itself from the people.
People who live in democratic societies may choose to become more collectivist for several reasons. A misplaced sense of compassion may lead them to conclude that “society” has an obligation to care for those in “need.” Human nature and our unique differences assure that the compassionate nirvana is never achieved. There are and always will be individuals whose circumstances place them out of the mainstream. The call for government remedies for an increasing number of perceived shortcomings leads to enhanced government power. Massive bureaucracies are developed to address the needs of the individuals, and after a time, it is discovered that some are “falling through the cracks.” New programs with greater government power are created to assure that all are treated fairly.
Political considerations are another motivation for increasing state influence. Often driven by ideology, statists believe that their way, their belief system, their method of governing is far superior to any alternative. Once they have their hands on the reins of power, they do not release them. They nurture the government leviathan so that they may exercise power and control. Dissent is either ridiculed or crushed.
Indifference is a major contributor to the loss of freedom and the growth of the state. Softball games, television shows, dining out, family vacations and a myriad other activities compete for thoughtful consideration. Fighting for individualism requires energy, passion and knowledge. It’s easier for people to leave the battle to others and kinda’ hope for a good outcome. Once individual rights have eroded to the tipping point, then the indifferent ones wring their hands and mutely cheer for the warriors who charge the barricades
Insolence is a big contributor to growth of government. Certain elites, either via education or wealth, determine that they alone are worthy for charting the course of the nation. The other citizens, they believe, lack the sophistication and knowledge to steer the state through perilous times. They implement programs that patronize the recipients, but none-the-less cause the government to grow as they make more people dependent on their largesse.
A final attribute that I will identify as a freedom-eroding, government bloating enabler is ignorance. Citizens don’t care, or they want more from government so they don’t have to do it themselves. They ignorantly sell themselves into serfdom because they believe they’re getting something for nothing from the government…or “I’ve paid taxes all my life, and they owe me this.” Some of them drool and grovel for government jobs because of minimal layoffs and rather slack work requirements.
Clearly, the descriptions that I have laid out above are not exclusive. Some big-state enhancers combine several of the categories. In my view, all are dangerous and toxic. In a future blog I will examine individualism and its motivations. Then, in a later one I will examine ways for freedom loving people to challenge the collective impulse.
Please feel free to comment. I cherish your feedback-positive or negative. If you prefer, you can email me at cnpearl@woh.rr.com
Friday, December 4, 2009
Wednesday, December 2, 2009
Vain musings
After experiencing a massive attack of brain freeze while pondering topics (too many) for today’s blog, I decided to do one similar to “Taking Shots” from two weeks ago. The reason for this title, Vain Musings, is that the President used the personal pronoun at least 36 times during his Tuesday evening address from West Point, so I (that’s two) thought that I (3) would try to match him.
Sane Musings:
Doesn’t it seem as if there are too many balls up in the air for us to have favorable outcomes? The economy, unemployment, erosion of manufacturing, shaky financial sector, falling home values, exploding national debt (long term), huge personal debt, massive deficits (annual), unfunded future liabilities, the baby boomers reaching retirement with escalating healthcare costs, health care (overblown in my view), energy dependence, water needs and shortages, tax-crazy politicians, lousy television (257 channels and nothin’ on), inflation/deflation, buy gold/buy land. My head hurts just doing this partial list.
Tiger Woods is a fool. Sorry, I (4) had to say that. People sometimes believe that if they had talent and money, they would have no problems. Original sin infects us all.
Government employment is currently the only sector with growth.
Dogs are cool. Good dogs are irreplaceable. This could work for spouses also…sometimes.
Insane Musings:
Do the people who buy tabloids and read them…vote? Who are Jon and Kate?
Did Charlie Weis have a “decided schematic advantage” for cleaning out his office?
If vegans convince everyone to not eat meat because animal flatulence “causes” global warming, what will be the primary source of protein?...beans…hmmmmm.
If I (5) were an Islamic terrorist, I (6) would think that Las Vegas, New Orleans and San Francisco would be logical targets based on teachings of the Quran.
Do monkeys think that Darwin was nuts? Has the apocryphal monkey typed out “War and Peace” yet? Is he still trying?
Why do we applaud for old people at events? I (7) mean, O.K., she’s 91 and made it to the event, so why applaud? Is that an illustration that “showing up” is good enough?
Inane Musings:
Do people who believe that “you can have your cake and eat it, too” become thieves and con artists?
Home is where the heart is unless…you’re Tiger Woods, John Edwards or Mark Sanford.
I (7) like hammers…not too many parts.
My plastic flowers died. Gonna’ get silk ones next year.
I (8) understand that pain and suffering are inevitable, but do they have to hurt?
Why do I (9) feel compelled to engage in frequent unintentional attempts at self mutilation in my woodworking shop?
Why do I get those crazy pop ups on one the sites I (11) visit? It boldly proclaims that I (12) can meet sexy singles. Yeah right, I’m (13) not Tiger Woods or Brad Pitt. I’m (14) more like Wally Cox or Richard Simmons.
Why don’t I (15) end this frivolous exercise while I (16) can? So, I’ll (17) stammer my way out of here…IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII (18-37). There…more egomaniacal than he.
Sane Musings:
Doesn’t it seem as if there are too many balls up in the air for us to have favorable outcomes? The economy, unemployment, erosion of manufacturing, shaky financial sector, falling home values, exploding national debt (long term), huge personal debt, massive deficits (annual), unfunded future liabilities, the baby boomers reaching retirement with escalating healthcare costs, health care (overblown in my view), energy dependence, water needs and shortages, tax-crazy politicians, lousy television (257 channels and nothin’ on), inflation/deflation, buy gold/buy land. My head hurts just doing this partial list.
Tiger Woods is a fool. Sorry, I (4) had to say that. People sometimes believe that if they had talent and money, they would have no problems. Original sin infects us all.
Government employment is currently the only sector with growth.
Dogs are cool. Good dogs are irreplaceable. This could work for spouses also…sometimes.
Insane Musings:
Do the people who buy tabloids and read them…vote? Who are Jon and Kate?
Did Charlie Weis have a “decided schematic advantage” for cleaning out his office?
If vegans convince everyone to not eat meat because animal flatulence “causes” global warming, what will be the primary source of protein?...beans…hmmmmm.
If I (5) were an Islamic terrorist, I (6) would think that Las Vegas, New Orleans and San Francisco would be logical targets based on teachings of the Quran.
Do monkeys think that Darwin was nuts? Has the apocryphal monkey typed out “War and Peace” yet? Is he still trying?
Why do we applaud for old people at events? I (7) mean, O.K., she’s 91 and made it to the event, so why applaud? Is that an illustration that “showing up” is good enough?
Inane Musings:
Do people who believe that “you can have your cake and eat it, too” become thieves and con artists?
Home is where the heart is unless…you’re Tiger Woods, John Edwards or Mark Sanford.
I (7) like hammers…not too many parts.
My plastic flowers died. Gonna’ get silk ones next year.
I (8) understand that pain and suffering are inevitable, but do they have to hurt?
Why do I (9) feel compelled to engage in frequent unintentional attempts at self mutilation in my woodworking shop?
Why do I get those crazy pop ups on one the sites I (11) visit? It boldly proclaims that I (12) can meet sexy singles. Yeah right, I’m (13) not Tiger Woods or Brad Pitt. I’m (14) more like Wally Cox or Richard Simmons.
Why don’t I (15) end this frivolous exercise while I (16) can? So, I’ll (17) stammer my way out of here…IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII (18-37). There…more egomaniacal than he.
Tuesday, December 1, 2009
House call
Why would anyone with a scintilla of intelligence promote big government? If one were to observe supertankers at sea, you would note that those huge ships are extremely difficult to maneuver. They can neither stop quickly nor turn on a dime. Government and large private bureaucracies are similar. When confronted with a catastrophe or faced with rapidly deteriorating conditions, bloated bureaucracies are generally ineffective. In and of itself a slow responding agency might be tolerable except for the fact that the government is often the party of last resort. In other words, if government cannot resolve the issue in a timely and effective manner, then no one else is in a position to remedy the situation.
One of the current battlegrounds surrounding the growth of government here in the United States is the debate about “healthcare reform.” This is the type of issue that is ripe for demagoguery as the various interested parties overwhelm us with multiple instances of anecdotal evidence either supporting or denigrating the proposals under consideration. Actually, the legislation that has been submitted thus far does not reform healthcare per se, rather the focus is on health insurance. I have not attempted to ascertain just how many health insurers there are in the United States, but I submit that if they were free to compete in all 50 states, then it seems likely that competition would radically enhance affordability. If there is only one source of insurance with no competitive restraints, then I would assume that costs will not be contained in a rational manner.
The debate has often centered on the quality of care as well as the cost. Well, I have an anecdotal gem for you. Nearly 32 years ago (February, 1978) I was diagnosed with Type I diabetes. With excellent doctors, phenomenal developments in medicines and technology, and some personal lifestyle changes, I am enjoying a robust life to the fullest. Next June I will celebrate my 64th birthday. When I was a mere whippersnapper, diabetes or “sugar” was deadly. One’s life was expected to be short and gruesome. I knew friends and relatives who suffered from the ravages of the disease, and I attended their funerals. After more than three decades with the disease, I do have some occasional discomfort, but if you didn’t know that I am a diabetic, you would not be able to discern it in a casual social setting. The issue is not health care.
There are remedies available for tweaking the system in ways that provide access to quality care for all citizens, and there are other mechanisms available for controlling costs without radically restructuring the health care delivery system. You do not tear down the house to repair a broken window…or several broken windows. You get new transparent glass and place it in the original framework. Then you glaze it to make certain that it does not get out of line. Personally, I would rather we dump the whole structure and morph into an individually-based cash system. I realize, though, that if I lead that movement, when I look behind me, I would be alone.
So, let’s tweak the current health care system to make it more accessible and more affordable for our neighbors, but let’s not let the government become the 800 pound gorilla in health care. I do not want Big Brother controlling every facet of my life. For example, if I own a shotgun for sporting purposes, I do not want the government telling me that firearms have been declared a health risk. “Give up the gun if you want to see your doctor.” I really detest having to write this, but I do not trust my government.
One of the current battlegrounds surrounding the growth of government here in the United States is the debate about “healthcare reform.” This is the type of issue that is ripe for demagoguery as the various interested parties overwhelm us with multiple instances of anecdotal evidence either supporting or denigrating the proposals under consideration. Actually, the legislation that has been submitted thus far does not reform healthcare per se, rather the focus is on health insurance. I have not attempted to ascertain just how many health insurers there are in the United States, but I submit that if they were free to compete in all 50 states, then it seems likely that competition would radically enhance affordability. If there is only one source of insurance with no competitive restraints, then I would assume that costs will not be contained in a rational manner.
The debate has often centered on the quality of care as well as the cost. Well, I have an anecdotal gem for you. Nearly 32 years ago (February, 1978) I was diagnosed with Type I diabetes. With excellent doctors, phenomenal developments in medicines and technology, and some personal lifestyle changes, I am enjoying a robust life to the fullest. Next June I will celebrate my 64th birthday. When I was a mere whippersnapper, diabetes or “sugar” was deadly. One’s life was expected to be short and gruesome. I knew friends and relatives who suffered from the ravages of the disease, and I attended their funerals. After more than three decades with the disease, I do have some occasional discomfort, but if you didn’t know that I am a diabetic, you would not be able to discern it in a casual social setting. The issue is not health care.
There are remedies available for tweaking the system in ways that provide access to quality care for all citizens, and there are other mechanisms available for controlling costs without radically restructuring the health care delivery system. You do not tear down the house to repair a broken window…or several broken windows. You get new transparent glass and place it in the original framework. Then you glaze it to make certain that it does not get out of line. Personally, I would rather we dump the whole structure and morph into an individually-based cash system. I realize, though, that if I lead that movement, when I look behind me, I would be alone.
So, let’s tweak the current health care system to make it more accessible and more affordable for our neighbors, but let’s not let the government become the 800 pound gorilla in health care. I do not want Big Brother controlling every facet of my life. For example, if I own a shotgun for sporting purposes, I do not want the government telling me that firearms have been declared a health risk. “Give up the gun if you want to see your doctor.” I really detest having to write this, but I do not trust my government.
Monday, November 30, 2009
AWOL reporters
Sometimes it seems as if the Main Stream Media (MSM) were sitting under the “cone of silence” with Control Agent Maxwell Smart and the Chief. Beguiling news items flash throughout the blogosphere and the MSM remains silent. The latest example of media malfeasance involves the leaked or hacked emails from the University of East Anglia (UEA) Climate Research Unit (CRU). The intercepted communications indicated that a number of ideologically-driven climatologists were complicit in “cooking the books” regarding data about so-called climate change. When MSM’ers did address the matter, they were muted.
It seems to me that when an issue as comprehensive as man-made global warming/climate change is seriously discredited, then the media should be ferreting out the facts and providing their audiences with trustworthy information with which to make informed judgments. Nearly every facet of public policy in the United States has some climate change component or justification. For example, it has been mandated that we switch from incandescent light bulbs to the twisty (looks like an ice cream cone to me) florescent types. The newbie’s are supposed to last much longer, but their mercury component makes their disposal a touchy problem. The CAFÉ standards that have been imposed on the auto industry are said to be an effort to minimize CO2 emissions although my limited scientific knowledge reminds me that carbon monoxide is the primary exhausted fume.
The proposed “Cap and Trade” (Crap & Tax) legislation is far-reaching and would restrict various outputs all across the private and economic sectors. Please excuse the crudity but it has been proposed that animal flatulence be taxed because of the massive volumes of methane gas that is released. That raises a couple of questions in my mind: Who will measure cow farts to determine that ol’ Bessie is in violation? Whoa, a USDA Flatulence Specialist Grade II, Step 3 at $68,392.76 per year plus a government-provided vehicle. What about my dog? Good grief, Frosty could power a Prius on his bad days. So, do I have to pay a tax for Frosty’s excess gas?or can I configure a “Hefty” bag to capture the noxious doggie byproduct and sell it at my local Farmer’s Market? Does it matter if Frosty blasts his deadly cloud inside (usually in my study) or outside? If I can sell FrostyGas, will the price be regulated…are there quality standards?
If the media were doing their jobs, many of these questions would be answered. Or if the whole climate change scam were proven and reported to be bogus, then all (or most) of my questions would be moot. I say most because liberals and regulators cannot resist telling others how to live. That should be solely the province of God and parents. Read my lips, Clowns. Stay away from my lightbulbs ‘cause I don’t want to pollute landfills with mercury. Stay away from my tailpipe emissions. I reserve the option to suck on it when you boneheaded busybodies succeed at making my life absolutely miserable. Stay away from my dog. He’s sweet, he’s stupid and if he gets as fed up as his master, it could get ugly. Just sayin’.
So, come on, mass media. Do your job.
It seems to me that when an issue as comprehensive as man-made global warming/climate change is seriously discredited, then the media should be ferreting out the facts and providing their audiences with trustworthy information with which to make informed judgments. Nearly every facet of public policy in the United States has some climate change component or justification. For example, it has been mandated that we switch from incandescent light bulbs to the twisty (looks like an ice cream cone to me) florescent types. The newbie’s are supposed to last much longer, but their mercury component makes their disposal a touchy problem. The CAFÉ standards that have been imposed on the auto industry are said to be an effort to minimize CO2 emissions although my limited scientific knowledge reminds me that carbon monoxide is the primary exhausted fume.
The proposed “Cap and Trade” (Crap & Tax) legislation is far-reaching and would restrict various outputs all across the private and economic sectors. Please excuse the crudity but it has been proposed that animal flatulence be taxed because of the massive volumes of methane gas that is released. That raises a couple of questions in my mind: Who will measure cow farts to determine that ol’ Bessie is in violation? Whoa, a USDA Flatulence Specialist Grade II, Step 3 at $68,392.76 per year plus a government-provided vehicle. What about my dog? Good grief, Frosty could power a Prius on his bad days. So, do I have to pay a tax for Frosty’s excess gas?or can I configure a “Hefty” bag to capture the noxious doggie byproduct and sell it at my local Farmer’s Market? Does it matter if Frosty blasts his deadly cloud inside (usually in my study) or outside? If I can sell FrostyGas, will the price be regulated…are there quality standards?
If the media were doing their jobs, many of these questions would be answered. Or if the whole climate change scam were proven and reported to be bogus, then all (or most) of my questions would be moot. I say most because liberals and regulators cannot resist telling others how to live. That should be solely the province of God and parents. Read my lips, Clowns. Stay away from my lightbulbs ‘cause I don’t want to pollute landfills with mercury. Stay away from my tailpipe emissions. I reserve the option to suck on it when you boneheaded busybodies succeed at making my life absolutely miserable. Stay away from my dog. He’s sweet, he’s stupid and if he gets as fed up as his master, it could get ugly. Just sayin’.
So, come on, mass media. Do your job.
Sunday, November 29, 2009
Bread and circuses
The decline of the Roman Empire was preceded by and concurrent with the citizens' fixations with diversion, entertainment and government-provided largesse. Gibbon's classic work identified the distractive aire that led to the Roman odyssey toward fun and frolic as opposed to practicing the behaviors of good citizenship. In many respects, the present path of the United States is similar to that of ancient Rome.
Our federal, state and local governments are spending us into oblivion while refusing to accept responsibility for their profligate actions. In their efforts to provide the "bread" of absolute personal security such as housing subsidies, food subsidies, healthcare provisions, the governmental entities have assumed (and ignored) massive financial obligations that are unsustainable and unredeemable. "You get what you pay for" is becoming ever more apparent. Government subsidized housing is generally substandard. Government food subsidies are frequently inadequate or nutritionally suspect. When we examine the present system of government healthcare delivery (VA, Medicare, Medicaid and various state and local programs), we see that the quality is remarkably uneven. So, there are some who wish to expand government's role in each sector.
Let's review the circuses in the present-day United States. "Survivor," "Big Brother," "The Osbornes," American Idol," "So You Think You Can Dance" are just a few of the brain-dead entertainment programming offerings. The proliferation of cable and personal music pakages (iPod, MP3 et al) suggests a populace that runs to the circus to avoid the responsibilities of truly engaged citizenship. We debate who should have won "Dancing with the Stars" while the foundations of our republic erode. We cry "foul" when the flawed BCS ignores a worthy team, and breathe nary a whimper when the Kelo decision is rendered. We have committed to memory all the batting averages of the Lansing Lugnuts, and we are clueless about our Congressperson's voting record. We mourn the loss of the prince of arrested development, Michael Jackson, and we are oblivious to the gradual loss of our freedoms.
We celebrate perversion and dysfunction. At the same time, we demean and deride those who reject the circus. Our citadels of culture on the east and west coasts belittle people of faith, and we are silent. Our courts and our legislators attempt to crush our opposition to aberrant behavior by legitimizing the bizarre and sanctioning those who object. The republic as envisioned by our founders is topsy-turvy. Although there a few voices of discontent, they've not yet reached the point of critical mass where the entire electorate speaks with one voice, "ENOUGH...WE'VE HAD ENOUGH!" If we fail to marshall the majority of citizens to halt the slide into obscurity, then we will get our pockets picked at the circus, and we will choke on the government bread.
Our federal, state and local governments are spending us into oblivion while refusing to accept responsibility for their profligate actions. In their efforts to provide the "bread" of absolute personal security such as housing subsidies, food subsidies, healthcare provisions, the governmental entities have assumed (and ignored) massive financial obligations that are unsustainable and unredeemable. "You get what you pay for" is becoming ever more apparent. Government subsidized housing is generally substandard. Government food subsidies are frequently inadequate or nutritionally suspect. When we examine the present system of government healthcare delivery (VA, Medicare, Medicaid and various state and local programs), we see that the quality is remarkably uneven. So, there are some who wish to expand government's role in each sector.
Let's review the circuses in the present-day United States. "Survivor," "Big Brother," "The Osbornes," American Idol," "So You Think You Can Dance" are just a few of the brain-dead entertainment programming offerings. The proliferation of cable and personal music pakages (iPod, MP3 et al) suggests a populace that runs to the circus to avoid the responsibilities of truly engaged citizenship. We debate who should have won "Dancing with the Stars" while the foundations of our republic erode. We cry "foul" when the flawed BCS ignores a worthy team, and breathe nary a whimper when the Kelo decision is rendered. We have committed to memory all the batting averages of the Lansing Lugnuts, and we are clueless about our Congressperson's voting record. We mourn the loss of the prince of arrested development, Michael Jackson, and we are oblivious to the gradual loss of our freedoms.
We celebrate perversion and dysfunction. At the same time, we demean and deride those who reject the circus. Our citadels of culture on the east and west coasts belittle people of faith, and we are silent. Our courts and our legislators attempt to crush our opposition to aberrant behavior by legitimizing the bizarre and sanctioning those who object. The republic as envisioned by our founders is topsy-turvy. Although there a few voices of discontent, they've not yet reached the point of critical mass where the entire electorate speaks with one voice, "ENOUGH...WE'VE HAD ENOUGH!" If we fail to marshall the majority of citizens to halt the slide into obscurity, then we will get our pockets picked at the circus, and we will choke on the government bread.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
