Many is the liberal that I've heard talk in glowing terms about the health care system in Cuba. The fact that communist countries often force their citizens to sacrifice many things in order to optimize a few should be no surprise to anyone. The fact that we still debate the merits of this is bewildering.
The US has recently taken half a step toward communizing (socializing? nationalizing?) health care, largely based on the argument that our capitalist system has failed. While this is a lie (see previous article), enough people bought it. Some talked about how "health care is too important to leave to the free market". Really?
What about food?
Food is just as or more important than health care, right? Is food too important to leave to the free market? The good news is we have a largely free and capitalist system of food production, delivery and distribution. The government does a little to ensure safety, but by and large it is capitalism's invisible hand that puts dinner on our tables.
It would be ridiculous for someone to say we need to nationalize the food system. Think about it. 99% of the people of the US have access to way more food than they need and the bottom 1% are well handled by charities. Very, very few people in our country starve. Competition among food growers has created amazingly high yields. Customers like organic foods, so it has become a large market. Innovation at the grocery store has reduced costs and have given us a myriad of choices on every aisle. You can practically eat a meal with the free samples.
Imagine Howard Dean on CNN screaming "We can't count on the greedy supermarket chains to deliver quality products! Millions will go hungry! Yeeaeaaaaaa!"
I mean, I think people would consider that ridiculous. I admit the possibility exists that I'm wrong.
Let's compare this to Cuba, the left's shining example. Their farms are horribly inefficient and provide only about 20% of the country's food needs. Supermarkets go for weeks without basic supplies such as bread or milk. Raul Castro has "reformed" things a bit ... farmers are now allowed to buy their own shovels and boots without having to wait for them to be handed out. But, not their pesticides or fertilizers. Can't push this liberty thing too far lest the state lose control. Must of last year's tomato crop rotted because government trucks failed to collect them on time. Food rationing is part of Cuban life.*
Maybe it would be instructive for liberals to spend some time in Cuba. Many that I know enjoy going to trendy restaurants and traveling to exotic destinations (conveniently forgetting about global warming for a few days). Perhaps it would be enlightening to see a place where opening a restaurant is illegal and it is forbidden for most citizens to leave the country.
Sadly, our health care system was not capitalist enough to be sufficiently successful. So, liberals said that capitalism was to blame and made it less so.
Yes, we can probably give government-run health care to everyone and even make it decent quality (for a while). But at what price?
* much of this data came from The Economist, March 27 edition.
Tuesday, March 30, 2010
Halfway Across the Bridge
"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." - Ben Franklin
I've not read the new health care law in its entirety. I don't know all the effects it will have on our country. But, I've read excerpts and I have some educated guesses:
- Because young people, who are generally healthy, will now be required to purchase health insurance*, their premiums will be unfairly high because the insurance companies will need to pay for their new customers with pre-existing conditions and the elderly. Young people will voice their unhappiness and government will subsidise, thus raising the cost to the taxpayer.
- Because companies will be required to provide health insurance if they grow bigger than 50 employees, they will actively try to remain at 49 for as long as possible. This could involve splitting into 2 companies and growing independently. Tension will arise as the government tries to punish these companies and costly legal proceedings will further reduce the efficiency of our economy while the growth of small businesses is slowed.
- Because large companies are now required to cover all employees, they will become less profitable and will either lay off employees to compensate or they will have less money to invest in growth. Either way, the US economy will take a hit.
- Because companies want to avoid adding costlier employees (or want to stay at 49 employees), temp agencies will see a rise in demand. This will create an unnaturally large population of people without job security, working day to day or project to project. This will further dampen economic growth as these people hesitate to make long term investments, like buying a house.
- The large number of citizens with newly minted insurance will overwhelm the health infrastructure. Previously, these people were given care after they became sick (in ERs or free clinics). Now, they will have access to preventative care, optional procedures and regular check-ups. This will both increase the cost of health care in the US as a percentage of GDP and will also bring about some form of rationing. Not death panels, but rationing.
- Once the new health care law has been in effect for some time (2-5 years), like any government intrusion into a market, people will become disgruntled with the service and costs will skyrocket. Health care will go from 15% of GDP to 20% to 25%.
Left leaning politicians will then play the next card ... nationalization of health care. They will proclaim that capitalism has again failed (!) and the country will dutifully cross the rest of the bridge.
Bottom line: this plan is unsustainable and I am convinced that is by design. The left knows that the demonization of capitalism is almost complete and that society has an inexplicable tendency to attenuate its own freedoms. They will need to break health care before they can, in their minds, fix it and realize their dream of a single payer, government run system.
Obamacare is not a tool, it's a weapon.
* Insurance is no longer the right word. Since the insurance companies are no longer permitted to evaluate risk and exclude people, we now have a shared health care pool.
Monday, January 4, 2010
Global swarming
Most of the educated liberals that I know are not very religious, but they seem to make an exception in the case of global warming.
Of all the topics that bubble up for this blog, this one is by far the most mind-boggling, to the point of amusement. People seem to have lost their mind. Case in point: here's an article that actually says some indigenous Peruvian mountain people are going to freeze because of global warming ... and it's the civilized world's fault. Honestly.
As near as I can tell, the following statements are true:
1) The earth may be warming, it's not clear
2) Humans may be causing the warming, it's not clear
3) Only at enormous cost could we substantially decrease the human contribution (greenhouse gases) to climate change, if it exists
4) Decreasing the human contribution may reverse global warming, if it exists
5) Global warming may be a bad thing, it may be a good thing ... either could be argued
And here is the non-sequitur conclusion I am being asked to accept:
Therefore, we should start shutting down all the factories and turn off all the cars and revert to a pre-industrial lifestyle. Now, before it's too late.
Does anyone realize that the average global temperature hasn't risen this century? During the entire Bush presidency he was berated for not doing something about something that didn't exist during his entire presidency. Actually, maybe he had a secret program to eliminate global warming and succeeded . . . maybe he deserved the Nobel Peace Prize more than Al Gore.
Since humans are not quite sensitive enough to temperature to notice a tiny fraction of a degree of warming over several decades, they must be very sensitive to something else in order whip themselves into such a frenzy. Could it be the scare tactics, propaganda and visions of the apocalypse? Or the political correctness of group-think that conveniently links environmentalism to anti-capitalism? Since we know that corporations are bad, anyone who opposes them must be good, right?
The science of global warming is shaky at best. The computer models are immature and are proven wrong with each passing day. I can write a computer model that predicts with 100% accuracy the past behavior of the stock market. I'll predict this week's performance next Saturday. You'll be very impressed.
My observation is that our planet is nicely self-regulating. The planet warms a bit thanks to extra CO2 in the atmosphere? No problem. That'll just lengthen the growing season and cause more CO2 to be absorbed by the planet's flora. Next thing you know, we're back to where we were. That assumes that CO2 is the culprit, not at all a certainty.
And what role do the solar cycles play? What if our computer models say that man is causing global warming but really it's an active period of the sun's brightness. What if we put dampers on our economy, reduced GDP and industrial output, only to learn that we're impotent after all? Wouldn't we look a little silly? Wouldn't a lot of people suffer for no good reason?
And (I can't resist adding this) I know no liberals who have reduced their intense vacation schedule via airplanes, luxury cruise ships and RVs in order to offer even a symbolic gesture to the cause. People, don't tell me we need cap-and-trade or rationing of fossil fuels and then jump on a plane to Vail ... you go from looking like a fool to looking like a clown.
The point is that we just don't know enough about the disease to prescribe radical remedies. It's like in the middle ages when a baby had a fever, we opened up the skull to reduce the pressure. In hindsight, those "doctors" were doing more harm than good.
Let's all pause, take a deep breath (didn't that fresh air feel good?) and cool down a little.
Of all the topics that bubble up for this blog, this one is by far the most mind-boggling, to the point of amusement. People seem to have lost their mind. Case in point: here's an article that actually says some indigenous Peruvian mountain people are going to freeze because of global warming ... and it's the civilized world's fault. Honestly.
As near as I can tell, the following statements are true:
1) The earth may be warming, it's not clear
2) Humans may be causing the warming, it's not clear
3) Only at enormous cost could we substantially decrease the human contribution (greenhouse gases) to climate change, if it exists
4) Decreasing the human contribution may reverse global warming, if it exists
5) Global warming may be a bad thing, it may be a good thing ... either could be argued
And here is the non-sequitur conclusion I am being asked to accept:
Therefore, we should start shutting down all the factories and turn off all the cars and revert to a pre-industrial lifestyle. Now, before it's too late.
Does anyone realize that the average global temperature hasn't risen this century? During the entire Bush presidency he was berated for not doing something about something that didn't exist during his entire presidency. Actually, maybe he had a secret program to eliminate global warming and succeeded . . . maybe he deserved the Nobel Peace Prize more than Al Gore.
Since humans are not quite sensitive enough to temperature to notice a tiny fraction of a degree of warming over several decades, they must be very sensitive to something else in order whip themselves into such a frenzy. Could it be the scare tactics, propaganda and visions of the apocalypse? Or the political correctness of group-think that conveniently links environmentalism to anti-capitalism? Since we know that corporations are bad, anyone who opposes them must be good, right?
The science of global warming is shaky at best. The computer models are immature and are proven wrong with each passing day. I can write a computer model that predicts with 100% accuracy the past behavior of the stock market. I'll predict this week's performance next Saturday. You'll be very impressed.
My observation is that our planet is nicely self-regulating. The planet warms a bit thanks to extra CO2 in the atmosphere? No problem. That'll just lengthen the growing season and cause more CO2 to be absorbed by the planet's flora. Next thing you know, we're back to where we were. That assumes that CO2 is the culprit, not at all a certainty.
And what role do the solar cycles play? What if our computer models say that man is causing global warming but really it's an active period of the sun's brightness. What if we put dampers on our economy, reduced GDP and industrial output, only to learn that we're impotent after all? Wouldn't we look a little silly? Wouldn't a lot of people suffer for no good reason?
And (I can't resist adding this) I know no liberals who have reduced their intense vacation schedule via airplanes, luxury cruise ships and RVs in order to offer even a symbolic gesture to the cause. People, don't tell me we need cap-and-trade or rationing of fossil fuels and then jump on a plane to Vail ... you go from looking like a fool to looking like a clown.
The point is that we just don't know enough about the disease to prescribe radical remedies. It's like in the middle ages when a baby had a fever, we opened up the skull to reduce the pressure. In hindsight, those "doctors" were doing more harm than good.
Let's all pause, take a deep breath (didn't that fresh air feel good?) and cool down a little.
Monday, December 28, 2009
Are These Reasons Unreasonable?
Looks like the Senate version of the Health Care bill is likely to become law in the near future. As far as I can tell, the main motivation is to provide health insurance for a group of people that don't currently have any (not that they don't have health care, they just don't have insurance). Ask your average liberal and, as a broad smile covers their face, they'll tell you how great it will be to extend medical coverage to so many people.
However, there are also motivations to refrain from passing this bill. Let me try to list some of them.
1) The new law will require citizens to buy health insurance as a condition of existence . This is a first for our nation: become part of the collective or go to jail. In my view, it flies in the face of our nation's true independent spirit and violates the fundamental human right to choose your path through life. I have yet to speak to a liberal who even thought about this before getting excited about the bill, let alone saw it as a cause for worry. One suggested to me, after a day of chewing on it, that it's no different from the draft, when young men were forced to serve in the military. Given that the draft was temporary, full of exceptions (religious or conscientious objectors) and used only in national emergency, I don't see the equivalence. Will I be allowed to excuse myself from the new insurance requirement based on my fundamental beliefs in liberty and self-determination?
This new health bill says without hesitation: as a condition of living in this "free" nation, you will "pitch in". A seal is being broken that cannot and will not be repaired. I offer this guarantee: it's the first of many such tragedies.
2) The CBO conclusion that this legislation is fiscally responsible is a lie. The analysis was done over 10 years, the first 4 of which provide no benefits. This means that there are 10 years of revenue collection with only 6 years of expenses. Of course the numbers look friendly. But what about the following 10 years? Even assuming that it's possible to predict the financial viability of a government program 20 years out, no one is stressing about it. My sense is that the liberals know it will be a financial failure, requiring even more government intervention eventually leading to a single (govt) payer system. This is the holy grail.
3) Poor people being given tax money that they can use to buy their health insurance is yet another case of perpetuating the entitlement mentality and trapping people in their status quo. There has been nothing more cruel done to poor people over the last 50 years than giving them resources without earning them and with no requirements. How many generations of kids have to grow up watching Mom (and maybe Dad) dependent on govt for food, money, housing and now health care? Hey liberals, how did the housing projects of the 1960s and 70s work out? Don't you yet feel guilty for throwing these people into your prison cell? Could your expectations of the poor get any lower?
4) The "Health Care is a Right" slogan badly distorts the concept of a right. The founders of our nation had it correct: a right is inalienable, bestowed upon humans by our creator. A right can be violated, but not taken away. And a right is also not something that exists in one century but not another (Did Martha Washington have a "right" to a mammogram?) . Actual rights include freedom of speech, assembly and religion. Notice that none of these require another human to supply anything. There is no such thing as an inherent right for one human to control another.
But that is what is meant by the right to health care. Since MRIs, pharmaceuticals, surgeries and the like do not exist in nature and they must be created by other humans, a right to health care means a right to the labor of another ... absolutely and completely counter to our nation's ideals. I know that liberals feel strongly enough that the discussion should never come to this, that people should happily help their neighbor ... so strongly that they don't even bat an eye when forcing one human to help another. But slavery is what's happening nonetheless. Civilized slavery, but slavery.
5) There are better ways to reform health care, mostly by placing more responsibility and a sense of the costs involved closer to the individual. People should know that health care is not free, that there is not an infinite supply and that they should be smarter about their choices. It's not an all-you-can-eat buffet. But, people don't want to deal with the economic side of health care and this legislation further insulates the average patient. Here's a great article on that subject.
6) The significant problems with this health care bill will lead to another one. Medicare is on the way to bankruptcy and will need to be fixed. Liberals like to brag that Medicare has such a low administrative costs (3% compared to 20% for most insurance companies), but that's not exactly a fair comparison: insurance companies have to stay in business. My company could have a low overhead too if we had no expectation of financial performance. This new law, like Medicare, will go bankrupt and will have to be fixed. We're not passing a law right now, we're advocating a long series of them.
Please, liberals, tell me why these reasons are unreasonable and why we should tumble down this path. I'm sure I'm missing something.
However, there are also motivations to refrain from passing this bill. Let me try to list some of them.
1) The new law will require citizens to buy health insurance as a condition of existence . This is a first for our nation: become part of the collective or go to jail. In my view, it flies in the face of our nation's true independent spirit and violates the fundamental human right to choose your path through life. I have yet to speak to a liberal who even thought about this before getting excited about the bill, let alone saw it as a cause for worry. One suggested to me, after a day of chewing on it, that it's no different from the draft, when young men were forced to serve in the military. Given that the draft was temporary, full of exceptions (religious or conscientious objectors) and used only in national emergency, I don't see the equivalence. Will I be allowed to excuse myself from the new insurance requirement based on my fundamental beliefs in liberty and self-determination?
This new health bill says without hesitation: as a condition of living in this "free" nation, you will "pitch in". A seal is being broken that cannot and will not be repaired. I offer this guarantee: it's the first of many such tragedies.
2) The CBO conclusion that this legislation is fiscally responsible is a lie. The analysis was done over 10 years, the first 4 of which provide no benefits. This means that there are 10 years of revenue collection with only 6 years of expenses. Of course the numbers look friendly. But what about the following 10 years? Even assuming that it's possible to predict the financial viability of a government program 20 years out, no one is stressing about it. My sense is that the liberals know it will be a financial failure, requiring even more government intervention eventually leading to a single (govt) payer system. This is the holy grail.
3) Poor people being given tax money that they can use to buy their health insurance is yet another case of perpetuating the entitlement mentality and trapping people in their status quo. There has been nothing more cruel done to poor people over the last 50 years than giving them resources without earning them and with no requirements. How many generations of kids have to grow up watching Mom (and maybe Dad) dependent on govt for food, money, housing and now health care? Hey liberals, how did the housing projects of the 1960s and 70s work out? Don't you yet feel guilty for throwing these people into your prison cell? Could your expectations of the poor get any lower?
4) The "Health Care is a Right" slogan badly distorts the concept of a right. The founders of our nation had it correct: a right is inalienable, bestowed upon humans by our creator. A right can be violated, but not taken away. And a right is also not something that exists in one century but not another (Did Martha Washington have a "right" to a mammogram?) . Actual rights include freedom of speech, assembly and religion. Notice that none of these require another human to supply anything. There is no such thing as an inherent right for one human to control another.
But that is what is meant by the right to health care. Since MRIs, pharmaceuticals, surgeries and the like do not exist in nature and they must be created by other humans, a right to health care means a right to the labor of another ... absolutely and completely counter to our nation's ideals. I know that liberals feel strongly enough that the discussion should never come to this, that people should happily help their neighbor ... so strongly that they don't even bat an eye when forcing one human to help another. But slavery is what's happening nonetheless. Civilized slavery, but slavery.
5) There are better ways to reform health care, mostly by placing more responsibility and a sense of the costs involved closer to the individual. People should know that health care is not free, that there is not an infinite supply and that they should be smarter about their choices. It's not an all-you-can-eat buffet. But, people don't want to deal with the economic side of health care and this legislation further insulates the average patient. Here's a great article on that subject.
6) The significant problems with this health care bill will lead to another one. Medicare is on the way to bankruptcy and will need to be fixed. Liberals like to brag that Medicare has such a low administrative costs (3% compared to 20% for most insurance companies), but that's not exactly a fair comparison: insurance companies have to stay in business. My company could have a low overhead too if we had no expectation of financial performance. This new law, like Medicare, will go bankrupt and will have to be fixed. We're not passing a law right now, we're advocating a long series of them.
Please, liberals, tell me why these reasons are unreasonable and why we should tumble down this path. I'm sure I'm missing something.
Friday, November 6, 2009
Concrete Galoshes for the Competition
When I build my time machine, I'll make a stop at the Constitutional Convention in 1787 in Philadelphia and whisper the following sentence into a few ears:
Except for the powers explicitly granted herein, Congress shall make no law interfering with free trade among the People.
Boy, would this have saved a lot of trouble. We could have stopped the meddlers, tinkerers and do-gooders in one swoop. Nipped all their mischief in the bud.
But, alas, this text is not to be found in the Constitution. Instead, after years of meddling, we have sufficient precedent for government (federal or state) to do anything that a lobbyist can dream up. All we need is an elected official in need of a few votes (or money) and a little confused about the original ideals of our nation and anything goes. Happens every day.
Why do car manufacturers not sell their product directly to the consumer? Why do health insurance companies not offer the same products in all 50 states? Why are private companies not allowed to compete with US Postal Service in letter delivery? Why is there a substantial tariff on imported agricultural products like sugar and beef? Why do microbreweries have production quotas in some states? Why are certain professions allowed to limit the number of people in that profession (doctors, lawyers, realtors, plumbers, electricians, hair dressers, taxi drivers ...) through licensing?
As a computer guy, I think the geeks should form a union and hire a lobbyist to get our fair share of the pie. Today, people install software and hook up printers on their own without the guidance of an IT professional. Imagine the benefits and efficiencies if they had an expert perform this work for them ... think how much better off people would be with properly maintained computers.
Yes, let's make it illegal to repair or upgrade your PC on your own.
Maybe our spokesperson (time to sweeten the pot for the liberals) could be from a minority group, someone with a diverse background who worked their way up through an unfair society to become an IT success story. Maybe our lobbyist could even be transgendered or come from a broken home. Works tirelessly to bring computers to poor children in the inner city. Gives great speeches. Inspiring.
Then things will change!
We'll limit the number of people who can be licensed to repair computers and we'll finally get the compensation we deserve. And society will benefit from having better computer technology. Or at least the ones that can afford it.
Which will lead us to the next phase ... because we have raised the cost of computer services, many people will not be able to afford computer care so we'll experience a backlash. IT service is a right! The Digital Divide must be bridged! But, instead of removing the government restrictions there will be a call for government takeover of IT services. The free market has had its chance and it has failed. In this day and age, computer technology is too important to be left to the capitalists!
This is what is commonly known as progress.
Except for the powers explicitly granted herein, Congress shall make no law interfering with free trade among the People.
Boy, would this have saved a lot of trouble. We could have stopped the meddlers, tinkerers and do-gooders in one swoop. Nipped all their mischief in the bud.
But, alas, this text is not to be found in the Constitution. Instead, after years of meddling, we have sufficient precedent for government (federal or state) to do anything that a lobbyist can dream up. All we need is an elected official in need of a few votes (or money) and a little confused about the original ideals of our nation and anything goes. Happens every day.
Why do car manufacturers not sell their product directly to the consumer? Why do health insurance companies not offer the same products in all 50 states? Why are private companies not allowed to compete with US Postal Service in letter delivery? Why is there a substantial tariff on imported agricultural products like sugar and beef? Why do microbreweries have production quotas in some states? Why are certain professions allowed to limit the number of people in that profession (doctors, lawyers, realtors, plumbers, electricians, hair dressers, taxi drivers ...) through licensing?
As a computer guy, I think the geeks should form a union and hire a lobbyist to get our fair share of the pie. Today, people install software and hook up printers on their own without the guidance of an IT professional. Imagine the benefits and efficiencies if they had an expert perform this work for them ... think how much better off people would be with properly maintained computers.
Yes, let's make it illegal to repair or upgrade your PC on your own.
Maybe our spokesperson (time to sweeten the pot for the liberals) could be from a minority group, someone with a diverse background who worked their way up through an unfair society to become an IT success story. Maybe our lobbyist could even be transgendered or come from a broken home. Works tirelessly to bring computers to poor children in the inner city. Gives great speeches. Inspiring.
Then things will change!
We'll limit the number of people who can be licensed to repair computers and we'll finally get the compensation we deserve. And society will benefit from having better computer technology. Or at least the ones that can afford it.
Which will lead us to the next phase ... because we have raised the cost of computer services, many people will not be able to afford computer care so we'll experience a backlash. IT service is a right! The Digital Divide must be bridged! But, instead of removing the government restrictions there will be a call for government takeover of IT services. The free market has had its chance and it has failed. In this day and age, computer technology is too important to be left to the capitalists!
This is what is commonly known as progress.
Wednesday, October 28, 2009
The Bell Curve
In my never ending quest to understand why intelligent, well intentioned people end up on the left, favoring more government and the attenuation of economic freedom, I have recently found wisdom in an engineer's old friend, the bell curve.
Sometimes called the "normal distribution" or "Gaussian distribution", the bell curve is a mathematical way of representing a distribution of data, usually fairly symmetric around the mean, or average, value.
For example, the height of human males is represented well by a bell curve. There are roughly as many people taller than the average as shorter. And the further you get from the average height, the fewer people there are at that height. The example to the right shows one such sampling and even with limited data points, you can see the classic shape of the bell curve forming. The bell curve can be found everywhere in nature and seems to be a fundamental characteristic of our universe.
Now, what does this have to do with politics? These days, it seems to have quite a lot. The bell curve stubbornly opposes a fundamental ideal of today's liberal left: equality. Equality is not a natural consequence of the world. Some people are smarter than others. Some work harder. Some are more attractive, more athletic, more articulate. And each of these qualities affects a person's likelihood of succeeding in life.
My impression is that liberals spend most of their life fighting this fundamental truth, one that is woven deeply into the fabric of our world. Even with historic examples of countries like China, Cuba and the Soviet Union, countries that went to great length to fight the bell curve, liberals continue to believe that this dream is somehow achievable.
The particular bell curve that probably upsets liberals the most is one that plots individual wealth. In a free nation, the natural result of economic activity yields a few poor people, a few rich people and a lot of people somewhere in the middle. This is clearly the case in the US and other mostly-free nations. In nations where economic liberty is diminished, the distribution of wealth is quite different: a lot of poor people and a few very rich people with not much in the middle. Socio-economic mobility is also mostly absent without liberty ... if you weren't born with wealth, you likely will never experience it.
What is revealing and tragically amusing is that liberals talk about changing the shape of a free nation's bell curve by eliminating poverty, however most of their actions are aimed at the rich. As if destroying, confiscating or redistributing the wealth of the rich will redefine the bell curve to just a big lump in the middle. They fantasize about eliminating the wealthy and the poor in one swoop, leaving only a happy egalitarian society wearing sandals and driving hybrids.
Michael Moore recently proposed confiscating the wealth of the 600 richest Americans (a few hundred billion dollars) in order to pay for the deficit and allow more government programs for the poor. This is exactly what Fidel Castro did in 1959 and the result was the destruction of a people who have yet to recover. But history aside, what exactly would the government do with Microsoft? Most of Bill Gates' wealth is in the form of stock in the company he founded (sometimes I think liberals believe his money is just piled up in a vault somewhere, just sitting there being evil). What are the consequences of taking more and more money from the rich? Answer: they become less able to create the wealth that the middle and poor desperately need. Do it a little and you get the US. Do it a lot and you get Italy. Take it to the extreme and you get Cuba.
The bell curve is not a starting point for social engineering. It's not a dial you can turn from Washington. The enlightened, intelligent liberals with such wonderful intentions would be more effective if they applied their abundant energy elsewhere. Mentor an inner city child, donate to a scholarship fund, open a business in a poor neighborhood, become a foster parent, ignore Michael Moore ... the list is long.
Sometimes called the "normal distribution" or "Gaussian distribution", the bell curve is a mathematical way of representing a distribution of data, usually fairly symmetric around the mean, or average, value.
For example, the height of human males is represented well by a bell curve. There are roughly as many people taller than the average as shorter. And the further you get from the average height, the fewer people there are at that height. The example to the right shows one such sampling and even with limited data points, you can see the classic shape of the bell curve forming. The bell curve can be found everywhere in nature and seems to be a fundamental characteristic of our universe.
Now, what does this have to do with politics? These days, it seems to have quite a lot. The bell curve stubbornly opposes a fundamental ideal of today's liberal left: equality. Equality is not a natural consequence of the world. Some people are smarter than others. Some work harder. Some are more attractive, more athletic, more articulate. And each of these qualities affects a person's likelihood of succeeding in life.
My impression is that liberals spend most of their life fighting this fundamental truth, one that is woven deeply into the fabric of our world. Even with historic examples of countries like China, Cuba and the Soviet Union, countries that went to great length to fight the bell curve, liberals continue to believe that this dream is somehow achievable.
The particular bell curve that probably upsets liberals the most is one that plots individual wealth. In a free nation, the natural result of economic activity yields a few poor people, a few rich people and a lot of people somewhere in the middle. This is clearly the case in the US and other mostly-free nations. In nations where economic liberty is diminished, the distribution of wealth is quite different: a lot of poor people and a few very rich people with not much in the middle. Socio-economic mobility is also mostly absent without liberty ... if you weren't born with wealth, you likely will never experience it.
What is revealing and tragically amusing is that liberals talk about changing the shape of a free nation's bell curve by eliminating poverty, however most of their actions are aimed at the rich. As if destroying, confiscating or redistributing the wealth of the rich will redefine the bell curve to just a big lump in the middle. They fantasize about eliminating the wealthy and the poor in one swoop, leaving only a happy egalitarian society wearing sandals and driving hybrids.
Michael Moore recently proposed confiscating the wealth of the 600 richest Americans (a few hundred billion dollars) in order to pay for the deficit and allow more government programs for the poor. This is exactly what Fidel Castro did in 1959 and the result was the destruction of a people who have yet to recover. But history aside, what exactly would the government do with Microsoft? Most of Bill Gates' wealth is in the form of stock in the company he founded (sometimes I think liberals believe his money is just piled up in a vault somewhere, just sitting there being evil). What are the consequences of taking more and more money from the rich? Answer: they become less able to create the wealth that the middle and poor desperately need. Do it a little and you get the US. Do it a lot and you get Italy. Take it to the extreme and you get Cuba.
The bell curve is not a starting point for social engineering. It's not a dial you can turn from Washington. The enlightened, intelligent liberals with such wonderful intentions would be more effective if they applied their abundant energy elsewhere. Mentor an inner city child, donate to a scholarship fund, open a business in a poor neighborhood, become a foster parent, ignore Michael Moore ... the list is long.
Sunday, August 2, 2009
Do-gooders, meddlers, tinkerers and superiors
"Live and let live."
Anyone capable of reading these words has lived long enough to have developed a set of values, probably dearly held, by which they live. Good for you. I hope they serve you well.
That covers the first word. Now, the hard part, with which many people struggle, is the last 2 words: "let live". Don't force your values on others. Don't vote for representatives who do so. Don't give money to organizations that do so. Don't be a do-gooder, meddler, tinkerer or superior.
Who are these people that feel so confident, so righteous, about how things should work that they feel no hesitation to try to shape the world into that image? I guess it's tempting. On one hand, you see a poor man. On the other, a rich man. It just seems right that the rich man should be charitable and give money to the poor man. So, since the rich man doesn't share my values, I'll just support the passage of a law that forces him to give money. That way, my clearly noble value is imposed on these wayward people and we'll all be better off. Yes, that feels better.
Or the gay man living the life of sin. Doesn't he see the evil, the unholiness, of his life? I'm sure I can help him by making his lifestyle illegal. By not allowing him the same choices as a heterosexual man. He'll be better off and society will benefit by discouraging such behavior. Yes, that feels better.
Or the businessman that doesn't embrace the importance of diversity. Doesn't he see the richness of experience and the valuable points of view he could have? He lives in his ivory tower, unaware of all that today's colorful society has to offer. We can fix that by forcing him to have a mixture of employees, possibly through forced quotas or tax incentives. His company will be better off, society will benefit, people of color will be given opportunities to participate in the workplace. Yes, that feels better.
Motorcyclists should wear helmets? Credit card companies should not have high interest rates? Bars should be smoke free? Wall street pay should be limited? Strip clubs should be outlawed? Art should be funded by tax dollars? Beer should not be sold on Sunday? More people should be given home mortgages? Health care should be free and equal for all people?
Who are these people? The answer is: the vast majority of us. I have met very few people in my life who draw a line between promoting their opinions through friendly discourse and forcing an idea through government action. Everyone seems to have their own pet issue or two, happily promoting them through campaigning, donations or voting. Politicians even trade issues: you support mine and I'll support yours.
The truth is that very few people believe in "Live and let live." And the funny thing is that most people will say just the opposite. Just ask someone and their initial reaction will be "Sure, live and let live. That's my motto." And then probe a little deeper to find out what they want to outlaw or what government programs they support. Maybe they'll make the connection. Probably not.
I'm sure some people will say that I'm no different, that my pet issue is freedom. Since I support "forcing" freedom on people, I must be a meddler, a do-gooder. Supporting the absence of meddling is itself meddling.
Nonsense.
I draw my non-meddling inspiration from the greatest group of non-meddlers ever assembled, the Founding Fathers of the United States. I'm not sure human history has ever witnessed such an example of wisdom and restraint, with a vision toward the greatness of our potential, as our Constitution and Bill of Rights. Live and let live, coded into a system of government.
I find it amusing, but tiresome, when one meddler gets angry at other meddlers. I have a friend who adamantly insists that taxpayer money should be used to fund the NEA, the National Endowment for the Arts. People should support art and if they don't have enough sense to do it on their own, we'll just make them. Yes, that feels better. But then she gets upset when another meddler tries to direct taxpayer money toward abstinence counseling or the space program.
Yes, that's the true pragmatic reason for restraint, discipline and a commitment to limited government. Don't be a meddler because you don't want to open the door to other meddlers that may not share your values. You may not be able to force others to live in your heaven, but then you won't have to live in theirs either.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)