Compassion. Compassion is a noble part of the human psyche. It separates us from the purely calculated risk-aversive 'thinking' executed by computers. It's that understanding which helps us smooth out our differences and allows us the ability to walk in someone else's shoes. Compassion is what drives most people to want to help the people around them. It isn't always logical (people are more likely to help someone they can physically see than someone suffering the same plight in a far away country), but it provides emotional cues to get us thinking about the big picture. After all, humans are feeling creatures that can think.
Helping others is a good thing, but one should always use caution when considering laws which try to replace individual compassion with huge bureaucratic framework. Sure, it starts out as "We all MUST chip in and help the less fortunate", or "It's everyone's RIGHT to ___________." It sounds nice, and it wins votes (who doesn't like free stuff?). There's a popular saying often quoted in biology courses: "There's no such thing as a free lunch." In biological terms it's referring to entropy and the properties of matter and energy (spoiler alert: they can't be made out of thin air). However, I'm invoking this phrase simply to describe where this "free" stuff comes from. Politicians garner support by telling their constituents that they'll give them _______. But this isn't the compassion of an individual. This politician isn't running to his bank and withdrawing all his money for his constituents. Rather, he's buying votes with YOUR money. All the legislators have to do is raise taxes or hope the federal reserve prints more money. Either way, the taxpayer can afford less. The benefactors in this situation are the constituents whose votes have just been paid for and the politician who gets to keep his cush job for another term. "Who cares? I want money to go to _________ so they can afford ___________." Well that's not your decision to make for everyone else. "But in a democracy, the majority rules." So, 50.1% of the population can make huge decisions which violate the other 49.9% of the population's Pursuit of Happiness (because their money will be stolen in the form of taxes)?
That's the attitude of a great number of Americans sadly.
This situation is even worse in Europe, but they can't get far beyond their old habits. The Europeans had monarchy after monarchy and then America proved that the old notion of a democratic republic was more just and fair. Europe eventually got on board with this concept (although there are many figure-head monarchs still floating around), but the 20th century demonstrated that the Old World couldn't stray far from their old idea of the government taking care of their every need, as a slave owner might tend to his slaves. In the 1900s, the United States was sold out to the 'genius' of Central Banking. This has been accused of causing the stock market crash and resultant Great Depression. What followed was the so-called "progressive era". This meant a bunch of 'shovel-ready' jobs from the government to keep people busy. What few people care to mention is that the majority of shoveling was digging ourselves into an inescapable pit of unfulfilled promises. Social Security is essentially a Ponzi scheme which uses the money as it's paid in. So long as there are more people paying in than are taking out, it will seem ok. But what has happened in recent history is that too few of workers are paying in and everyone who lives long enough is taking out. Tack on the welfare/warfare state and thousands of subsidies promised to individuals and businesses and you have the current economic debacle.
So why do some people in my generation keep pushing for more government take over of private sectors? Well, in principle, if all the goods and services in the world were controlled by the state (you keep 0% of your income), then presumably everyone could have equal access to goods and services. But time and time again, such governments fail to treat individuals with dignity and those in power exploit their positions such that there is no longer any semblance of equality. Workers, realizing that they will get the exact same thing regardless of their workload, will opt for less and less (Europe is ahead of us on this one, trust me). I think what socialists... er democrats... er liberals... er progressives want is for those who have money to be forced (ultimately at gun point if they fail to pay their taxes) to give it all away to those who have less (for any number of reasons). Many wealthy individuals give large sums of money away to worthwhile causes as it is (Bill and Melinda Gates, for example). But that's not enough for some politicians. They want the control and the power to take from one and give to another. They get to play Santa with someone else footing the bill. But it doesn't ever change anything for those worst off. Why? Because it pays to keep people victimized. A politician who eliminates poverty could get an entire generation of votes. But a politician who keeps people just above homelessness will always get votes as long as he's "fighting the bad guys". Giving away the rich people's money (politicians love a good class war to distract you from the real bad guys, themselves) is the equivalent of giving someone a fish. But if politicians wanted people to avoid the problem of poverty for good, they would do more to ensure a fair shot for children (that is, before they should be able to take care of themselves). Unfortunately, our government does a crummy job of providing affordable quality education. But that's another topic for another day.
The bottom line is that the role of the government is not to provide you with everything in the world you might ever need or want. The role of government is to protect your rights to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness. They don't guarantee the happiness, just the pursuit. I have three arguments against socialism: moral, economic, and pragmatic. Socialism is unethical on the grounds that it violates the very rights governments are sworn to protect. Furthermore, it treats citizens like children who require the nanny state to provide everything for them (if you don't take control of your own life, someone in D.C. will). The economic principles underlying socialism are farcical. Capitalism (not what we have today; that's corporatism or crony-capitalism) makes more economic sense as people pursuing their own interests will always outperform people who can get away with working less and obtaining the same reward. Historically, socialism has generally resulted in economic collapse, gross violations of human rights (you can't spell 'Nazi' without 'socialist'), and a more miserable existence for everyone but the politicians.
I sincerely hope that my generation can see through the broken promises of career politicians and rediscover the principles upon which the country was founded. I hope they find libertarianism.
No comments:
Post a Comment