While I am a consumer of PBS television and enjoy their relatively calm take on the days events I often find myself repulsed by the slant of their "journalism" or the views their commentators take on certain issues. I was especially appalled on a National Press Club debate on the subject of health care rationing. While this nudge toward more control is not surprising to many who are/were paying attention it is surprising at the speed at which its arrived.
The latest public testament from the progressive left is the doctrine of health care rationing. People who spoke up during the public debate that spoke of the coming health care rationing and "death panels" were derided as sensationalists or inflammatory and were quickly dismissed. It seems however that these voices in the wilderness were speaking the truth.
The vicious cycle of government intervention into the free market with one variation or another goes something like this; The government sees something that they would like to make more available to the public, the next step is some sort of guarantee through takeover, public financing or mandate. These artificial constraints on the marketplace flood the market with new consumers and higher demand which deplete resources and create shortages. The government responds to these shortages by rationing. So the market always wins, but what we must look at is in what context does it claim victory? Does it claim victory with the drab and grey backdrop of social democracy with ever increasing controls and intrusion into our daily lives? Or does it claim victory in the dynamic and bold marketplace of a liberal Republic with our liberties still intact?
A common sentiment in the pro-rationing movement is that they believe that if we are able to focus resources through the government we will be able achieve a specific desired result. For instance, the pro-rationing debaters posited that if we could re-focus the resources that companies expend on researching what this panel viewed as unnecessary technologies then so much more could be accomplished. On the surface this may appear to make sense, but it violates a principal that Friedrich Hayek (1974 Economics Nobel Laureate) outlined in "The Constitution of Liberty" that says that the more focused or centralized resources are, the less likely that certain discoveries that we currently know nothing about can be made. Essentially supporting the Socratic Maxim that, "The only real wisdom is knowing you know nothing". I think this is a valuable ethic, but alas it is very difficult for it to penetrate the cloud of smug and ignorant self assurance that hangs like a plague in the halls of government.
Another common sentiment is that if only Grandma would die quicker we could devote so much more in the way of money and health care infrastructure that many other lives could be saved. With a straight face and no recognition of the evil they eruct they posited that essentially grandma has no real right to make these decisions for herself because after all we are paying for this now. With all of the research done on comparative effectiveness the "community" has decided that this hip replacement or that pacemaker really gives no benefit to society because she is no longer a producer. Meanwhile Grandma twists in the wind and we justify our evil deeds by telling ourselves that this is what she really wants, that sick people don't think rationally and that they can't be trusted to make decisions regarding their own health.
These are not American ideals. These ideas come from a long and dark world history where the state or the "community" made decisions for people, where the state was sovereign and the individual subject. These are not our values. The sovereignty of the individual is at stake and if it's lost it is very difficult to restore.
Showing posts with label statists. Show all posts
Showing posts with label statists. Show all posts
Sunday, June 13, 2010
Wednesday, March 24, 2010
Groupthink and Pragmatism
Groupthink or the "mob mentality" is a very interesting phenomenon that we see all over the world, but I am particularly interested in the American brand of groupthink. While in other parts of the world groupthink is largely of nationalistic, ethnic or religious origin, American groupthink is different. Granted, we have elements of nationalistic, ethnic or religious groupthink in our country, but the American form of groupthink is highly political and frankly a little puzzling. Traditionally Americans have liked to think of themselves as individualistic and self-reliant, even the most ardent American progressive usually has an individualistic bent, but thats not exactly what I am talking about.
In a nation as vast and diverse as the United States of America I have a hard time understanding that nearly 100% of the votes cast in the last presidential election were cast for one of the two major parties. Do these parties really represent our country? To the outside observer I think the two party platforms would seem to contradict themselves and appear to be bit contrived. So why do we tend to fall into line? Are we intellectually lazy? Do we like the comfort of being part of a larger group and were simply born into a two party system?
On one side of the aisle we have a party that embraces individual or "social" freedoms they don't extend that same tolerance to people of faith who are open about their opposition or disagreement with elements of their platform. When it comes to economic freedom they believe its the government's right and obligation to bend the will of the individual to achieve any stated goal that they deem necessary or beneficial to the collective. They often fuse their interests with large corporations and organizations in a fascistic attempt to achieve their goals.
On the other side of the aisle you have a party that embraces economic freedom and sees private property as an individual's sacred right. However, they don't see personal behavior on the same plane. They believe that morality and "family values" are of the utmost importance for societal health, which necessitates the use of government power to impose their moral will on the population. While they would never acknoledge it or agree, they are essentially seeking to create a Christian Caliphate inside the United States.
So where are their principles? I wish I could say that I cannot understand how people can compartmentalize their views and operate as though principles apply to one viewpoint and not another. 3 or 4 years ago I would have been counted amongst that latter party. So often I talk to people who apply sound reason in every other aspect of their life, whether its their businesses, their relationships, or a sporting activity, but as soon as politics or religion enters the equation they absolutely lose their minds. I think what happens when we stop the groupthink, we discover our principles. It is my assertion that if you stop the groupthink and discover your principles then you will never be happy with our current two party system. In my view the political spectrum is divided into three segments:
Classical Liberals-
A political philosophy that places high value on individual freedom based on a belief in natural rights that exist independent of government. In its pure form, for example in contemporary libertarian thought, it holds that the best government is minimal in scope, providing security, but promoting laissez-faire policies towards morality, religion, the economy, and the rest of social life.
http://www.laits.utexas.edu/gov310/DC/glossary.html
Pragmatists-
A movement consisting of varying but associated theories, originally developed by Charles S. Peirce and William James and distinguished by the doctrine that the meaning of an idea or a proposition lies in its observable practical consequences.
http://www.answers.com/topic/pragmatism
Statists-
The theory or practice of concentrating economic and political power in the state, resulting in a weak position for the individual or community with respect to the government.
www.thefreedictionary.com/statism
When you break it down both of our parties are pragmatists, due to their irresistable urge for government action if anything undesirable happens. The problem with this is time and time again throughout history this has led to statism and tyranny in one form or another. So where do you stand? What are your principles?
In a nation as vast and diverse as the United States of America I have a hard time understanding that nearly 100% of the votes cast in the last presidential election were cast for one of the two major parties. Do these parties really represent our country? To the outside observer I think the two party platforms would seem to contradict themselves and appear to be bit contrived. So why do we tend to fall into line? Are we intellectually lazy? Do we like the comfort of being part of a larger group and were simply born into a two party system?
On one side of the aisle we have a party that embraces individual or "social" freedoms they don't extend that same tolerance to people of faith who are open about their opposition or disagreement with elements of their platform. When it comes to economic freedom they believe its the government's right and obligation to bend the will of the individual to achieve any stated goal that they deem necessary or beneficial to the collective. They often fuse their interests with large corporations and organizations in a fascistic attempt to achieve their goals.
On the other side of the aisle you have a party that embraces economic freedom and sees private property as an individual's sacred right. However, they don't see personal behavior on the same plane. They believe that morality and "family values" are of the utmost importance for societal health, which necessitates the use of government power to impose their moral will on the population. While they would never acknoledge it or agree, they are essentially seeking to create a Christian Caliphate inside the United States.
So where are their principles? I wish I could say that I cannot understand how people can compartmentalize their views and operate as though principles apply to one viewpoint and not another. 3 or 4 years ago I would have been counted amongst that latter party. So often I talk to people who apply sound reason in every other aspect of their life, whether its their businesses, their relationships, or a sporting activity, but as soon as politics or religion enters the equation they absolutely lose their minds. I think what happens when we stop the groupthink, we discover our principles. It is my assertion that if you stop the groupthink and discover your principles then you will never be happy with our current two party system. In my view the political spectrum is divided into three segments:
Classical Liberals-
A political philosophy that places high value on individual freedom based on a belief in natural rights that exist independent of government. In its pure form, for example in contemporary libertarian thought, it holds that the best government is minimal in scope, providing security, but promoting laissez-faire policies towards morality, religion, the economy, and the rest of social life.
http://www.laits.utexas.edu/gov310/DC/glossary.html
Pragmatists-
A movement consisting of varying but associated theories, originally developed by Charles S. Peirce and William James and distinguished by the doctrine that the meaning of an idea or a proposition lies in its observable practical consequences.
http://www.answers.com/topic/pragmatism
Statists-
The theory or practice of concentrating economic and political power in the state, resulting in a weak position for the individual or community with respect to the government.
www.thefreedictionary.com/statism
When you break it down both of our parties are pragmatists, due to their irresistable urge for government action if anything undesirable happens. The problem with this is time and time again throughout history this has led to statism and tyranny in one form or another. So where do you stand? What are your principles?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)