Detailed Abstractions

I guess to start any post about this, I should start with why people think I am.  The main reason I tend to side with Republicans is because of their stance towards free markets and smaller government.  I think they are overly concerned with porn, violence in video games & on tv (censorship leanings shared with the Democrats), stem cell funding (though as a libertarian I don’t think any research necessitates government involvement), and a number of other things.

Like most I suspect, I pick the one I dislike the least… though it’s a little more than that as the Democrats don’t even discuss economic freedom, only economic redistribution.

To my main point – the reason I’m not a Republican is because even in the last sentence, the Republicans may talk about economic freedom, relaxing overbearing regulations, moving towards smaller government, but all I’ve seen is a slower movement towards lesser freedom from the Republicans than the Democrats.

Case in point – in MO (here):

JEFFERSON CITY — Smoking would be banned in many public places statewide under legislation proposed Monday by two St. Louis-area legislators.

The bill, which has not yet been assigned to a committee, would ban smoking in restaurants, bars, shopping malls and gambling facilities, among other public places.

“We’re on three sides surrounded by no smoking states,” said Rep. Walt Bivins, R-St. Louis, the bill’s primary sponsor. “I just think it’s time we pass this for the health of all of us.”

Bivins and Rep. Jill Schupp, D-Creve Coeur, hammered out the specifics of the legislation with support from the American Lung Association and American Cancer Society, who have, in the past, opposed bans at the city and county level because they were too lax for the groups’ liking….

The article goes on to tell us that a few years back someone sponsored a similar bill that failed to get a hearing, but this one is likely to pass due to the overwhelming support of these types of bans.

So there you have it – take President Bush’s overwhelming need to increase social spending, the size of the government, and increased federal control (IE – NCLB), add it to this idiot’s complete misunderstanding of the basic RNC Platform (here):

…That is an urgent task because economic freedom – and the prosperity it makes possible – are not ends in themselves. They are means by which families and individuals can maintain their independence from government, raise their children by their own values, and build communities of self-reliant neighbors.

Economic freedom expands the prosperity pie; government can only divide it up. That is why Republicans advocate lower taxes, reasonable regulation, and smaller, smarter government. That agenda translates to more opportunity for more people. It represents the economics of inclusion, the path by which hopes become achievements. It is the way we will reach our goal of enabling everyone to have a chance to own, invest, and build….

I guess the State Senator forgot that part of economic freedom means that if I’m willing to invest a few hundred thousand to build a restaurant, hire people, deal with all the regulations associated with hiring/firing, food preparation, and the rest…then it should mean that I can control the legal actions which are permissible in my private establishment.

Just like the government has no right to tell me whether I can smoke legal tobacco in my home – neither should they have the right to tell me whether I can allow smoking in my private establishment.

The idea that somehow, by allowing the general public on my private property, therefore means I’m suddenly at the voter’s whims to what I can do with that property after I’ve purchased and invested in it, is nothing more than tyranny of the majority.

The simple fact those that support this legislation are usually unwilling to admit any possibility of the paraphrased truism: the government that can ban smoking can tomorrow become the government that can force smoking.

& there you have another genius that lied within our founding fathers.  A democracy, they understood, is nothing more than allowing 50.1% of the population to destroy 49.9% of the population for the former’s benefit.  So they made, a representative constitutional republic, where the main founding documents allowed free men to subvert any government which subverted their natural rights and setup a government constitution which didn’t empower the government, but limited it.

This wasn’t a social contract whereby citizens gave up their rights for security, but a social contract in which citizens allowed a monopoly on force so long as that force never subverted their freedoms.   They knew the government was needed for a common defense, international treaties, and other things, but also knew the tendency of government was always to grow more powerful, to control more, to subvert the rights & freedoms of their citizenry, all for their own ends… intention good or bad, it was historical reality.

Just like the iPod (trivially), which is beautiful in its simplicity because of the constraints on its design, the Constitution and the United States government is beautiful because it didn’t state what should be – but only what shouldn’t be.

The founding fathers, reflected in the document itself, never assumed they had the answers.  They only knew, through belief and faith, of what should never be.  No man shall ever be above another.  No leader shall ever be above the law.  To secure these things, freedom, justice, the opportunity for life, we propose a government which can not restrain speech, religion, association, press, expression, right to bear arms… and it cannot unnecessarily seize private property, remove an individual’s rights (incarceration) without trial, fair and impartial…

Yes – it was flawed.  The black man was 3/5 a person and couldn’t vote.  Neither could a woman.  It Pennsylvania you had to be a Quaker to be a resident.  Thank you William Penn, our founder of freedom of religion…

But I think somewhere, maybe, the founding fathers that really wanted to stamp out slavery in the constitution itself (Benjamin Franklin was the head of the first anti-slavery group), knew that to impart the true ideals of freedom that quickly would mean the end of the idea itself.

So they wrote the words – we are all created equal and endowed by our creator with certain inalienable rights – knowing they might have rang hypocritically hollow, but hopeful for the future that could be.

So Mr. Bivins and even Ms. Schupp, don’t call yourselves anything more than you are – big government statists, neither of you deserve any other designators.

Over at the Huffington Post, Keli Goff wrote an interesting, yet disturbingly short sighted piece about particular health care costs which exist in large part due to personal private choices.

She begins the piece titled Mad at Greedy Insurers for This Health Care Mess? Then Why Aren’t You Mad at Your Greedy Neighbors discussing the government’s bail out of private businesses:

Raise your hand if you are still filled with anger when you hear the name AIG and picture the more than $100 million of your tax dollars that were delegated–without your consent–for employee bonuses there.

Now raise your hand if you were angry when you learned that Citigroup (which has received so much bailout money that American taxpayers have been dubbed “its major stockholder”) was planning to spend $50 million of your money on a luxury jet….

Even though the numbers she sights are a far cry from the actual tax dollars given to private business, she uses the anger over the bail outs to compare with the lack of anger of health care costs related to personal choice:

…There is something inherently distasteful about being expected to foot the tax bill for someone else’s personal choices–particularly bad ones–and not being given any choice of your own in the matter. Which is why I am so surprised that there has been so little anger expressed by leaders on either side of the health care debate when it comes to the issue of personal choice and responsibility in health care…

…According to the Centers for Disease Control, “obesity costs our nation as much as $147 billion per year in direct health care costs and lost productivity.” And according to the nation’s oldest anti-smoking organization smoking costs taxpayers a whopping $300 billion dollars annually, or 1,000 times the amount of the AIG bonuses….

Utilizing this ratio of anger levels contrasted with actual dollars, she follows through by discussing the trait both costs have in common, personal responsibility:

…Some health care reform advocates will argue these costs would be lower if there were government subsidized health care, but my question is why should the government, specifically taxpayers, subsidize health care costs for conditions that are not only preventable but essentially chosen by the patient? With all of the anger surrounding the health care debate, at town halls, in the House and Senate, where is the anger about personal responsibility?…

Like many before her, she perfectly frames the clear distinction between individual actions which don’t harm others and societal responsibility.  She uses our innate disgust of having to foot the bill for the negative consequences of others and sees the fundamental issue of both problems.

If only she had stopped there.  If only she understood clearly that when I hurt myself, I should be the only one liable for the resolution, we’d be in total agreement.  Instead, she illogically assumes that individual responsibility is shared among all citizens:

…To be clear, personal responsibility is not only up to consumers.  Mayor Bloomberg’s success in curbing smoking in New York is due to a multi-pronged strategy of aggressively fining bars and restaurants that allow patrons to flout the anti-smoking ban and raising the cost of cigarettes, in essence targeting the dealer as much as the addict….

Not only is responsibility shared in her view, but government force is also the solution.  Therefore since targeting these “bad smoking” behaviors has coincided with a decrease in the number of smokers , why not continue these policies to control other “bad” behaviors?

…A similar strategy should be undertaken federally against fatty foods and drinks (including many of the ones I love).  But as long as groups like the AFL-CIO oppose efforts to hold Americans financially accountable for their personal health choices, so that the system can afford to treat those who do not choose to be sick…

Thinking more critically though, this turns out to be very short sighted thinking devoid of any historical context and antithetical to fundamental human behavior.  Indeed, I think most people agree with her that when people make bad decisions that affect only themselves, they should be solely responsible for the consequences.

Where she fails is in properly analyzing government as the solution.  If one fully analyzes her solution, the lack of follow through in her thinking becomes easily spotted.

First, we know that human behaviors are heavily influenced by incentives.  It’s natural and obvious; we do things that benefit us.  For those willing to see reality for what it is, examples are all around us.  We can see it in the use of commission programs for corporate sales force.  We see it in TV commercials and marketing campaigns.  We even see it in the tax code.   Through denial or lack of contemplation though, some fail to see that this same fundamental human behavior also affects our decisions as they relate to health care.

In fact, one of the reasons for rising health care costs and bad personal choices is individual consumers have been moved further and further away from the actual cost.   In the US, part of rise in health care costs can be attributed to  government incentives which pushed health care plans away from individuals and towards employers.  For the same reason, others countries with socialized medicine also see rapidly rising costs of health care.

Second, we also know that historically, when governments are given the power continue to assume more and more control over individual lives, it ends in tyranny.  As we allow government to assume more responsibility for individual actions, we necessitate their ability to control those actions.

Assuming we still believe in a free society, one of the prices we pay is having the responsibility for the negative consequences brought about by our choices.

For instance, if you smoke – society doesn’t owe you CHEMO.  If I you eat 30K calories a day – society doesn’t owe you gastric bypass surgery.  If you drink a bottle of whiskey a day – society doesn’t owe you a liver.

However, by not of following the logic of her solutions and ignoring historical contexts, she can safely and happily assume government control is the answer:

…So the next time you are reminded of how angry you are at AIG or any other institution that was “bailed out” with your money, just remember that AIG may have mugged you once, but McDonald’s and your neighbor keeping them in business (and whoever invented the doughnut, bacon cheeseburger), will be sucking your wallet dry for decades to come….

Which only leaves us in the end with nothing more than a false dichotomy as if we only have two choices:  either we pay for it or we control it.

Really, due to faulty logic, she has unwittingly made a very cogent argument against government provided health care.  IE – we don’t need to control that behavior if we are not paying for it.

But I don’t know if she understands that by continuing to promote societal responsibility for individual choices, she is also logically promoting less freedom and more government intrusion.  I don’t know if she even believes in the value and morality of freedom.  I also don’t know that she doesn’t fully understands all of this, but due to value differences only, still believes government control to be the answer to health care problems.  And I really don’t know which is worse – being wrong based upon ignorance or understanding the full ramifications of increased government control, but not caring.

The truly concerning part should be that it doesn’t matter which is worse as the results are always the same.   For as long as we have enough people with these types of beliefs, we will continue to lose more and more individual freedoms.

As Hayek stated:

“We must show that liberty is not merely one particular value but that it is the source and condition of most moral values. What a free society offers to the individual is much more than what he would be able to do if only he were free.”

Gun advocates have long contended the anti-gun lobby is only using guns as a stepping stone to slowly remove other freedoms.  Like the saying, “They first came for the communists, but I wasn’t a communist.”  Indeed, this is truism that writers have told us for centuries: freedom is precious and must be protected.  As Hayek stated:

“If we wish to preserve a free society, it is essential that we recognize that the desirability of a particular object is not sufficient justification for the use of coercion.”

Well, not to be ones to go against a historical truth nor stop our descent into statism,  statists moved from guns, to smoking, to obesity.   We’ve seen smoking bans in most states, some so restrictive that it makes illegal smoking in tractor trailers as they are assumed to be a “place of business”, banning handguns in major cities,  to the banning of actual cooking ingredients such as transfats.

It never seems to dawn on any of the proponents, that each of these laws removes one additional freedom.  Nor do statists seem to understand that humans will find ways to behave exactly as they wish regardless.  This is especially true of economic regulations, but also of business regulations meant to influence individual behavior.

For instance, during the recent concentrated attacks on America’s obesity “problem”, many local and state governments have looked into legislating calorie counts and nutritional value be available on the menu itself.  Apparently, having to ask for the nutritional value which is already available was too difficult, hence the reason to further regulate.

It matters little that giving nutritional value by request or forcing it on the menu doesn’t to change behavior.  Than proposed bans on food advertising will have little effect:

George Mason University’s Todd Zywicki noted at a forum last summer that the average American child actually watches less TV than he did 15 years ago. What’s more, children face less exposure to food ads now than they did then, for a variety of reasons. The remote control has made ad-watching optional over the last 20 years, and more recent technology like TiVo may make traditional commercials completely obsolete…

Indeed, the reason also has little to do with good business, such as McDonald’s excelling by giving clients good tasting food at relatively cheap prices very quickly.  Research has shown:

…The economist Tomas Philipson and I have written about the economics of obesity. We have pointed out that the decline in the price of fatty foods, along with the rise in the opportunity cost of physical activity (work is more sedentary than it used to be, so one has to invest extra time to get exercise, and television and video games have increased the utility that people derive from sedentary leisure pursuits), explains the dramatic long-term increase in the percentage of Americans who are seriously overweight….

Same with gun control advocates.  They don’t seem to worry about inconvenient facts like banning handguns in very high crime areas does little to prevent crime, but does a lot in preventing citizens from exercising their freedom to self-defense.  In Chicago:

Far more of the guns seized at crime scenes in Illinois come from Illinois than any other state.

It doesn’t even matter that we can see the slippery slope happening right in front of us.  For instance,  if we can ban smoking in private business establishments, why not private vehicles?  Crazy you say?  It’s already happening in limited fashion as we speak for child custody cases.

No, proponents everywhere of using government force for your own good, don’t seem to be able to see any consequences other than their pet project.  All that seems to matter today, is that enough people think the action is bad and are willing to use government coercion as a means to an end.

For a country with a history of trying to prevent the exploitation of minority groups by the majority, and indeed a Constitution to enshrine that very ideal, we’re moving quickly into tyrannical rule by the majority.  Let’s all remember, that we are a Constitutional Republic, because true Democracy is nothing more than allowing 51% of the population to enslave 49% of the population by simple majority vote.

From Mother Jones:

Michael Moore is at it again. In Fahrenheit 9/11, he took on US foreign policy as brought to us by George W. Bush and Dick Cheney. In Sicko, he dissected the health insurance industry. And in his new documentary, Capitalism: A Love Story, he challenges the fundamental organizing principle of American society: private enterprise….

Yes, it’s yet another propaganda film  from Michael Moore (as if he’s capable of much else).  As with his previous films, it will probably be entertaining and no doubt some parts of society will use it as proof that capitalism is evil.  All the while, they will ignore the irony that the system the are despising is responsible for the very freedom they use to speak against it.  That capitalism has done more to raise people out of poverty than Hugo Chavez, Che, Trotsky, and all the other “revolutionaries” combined.  History has proven this to be true time and time again.

I know what they’ll say though, “All we need is the right leaders this time and all will be well.”  So they might as well use their idol to sum up the film:

…The film climaxes with never-before-seen footage Moore’s researchers uncovered of FDR telling the American public in 1944 on the radio that the nation needed a second Bill of Rights that would guarantee Americans the right to a job, to a home, to an education, and to medical care. “Unless there is security here at home, there cannot be lasting peace in the world,” Roosevelt says….

Ah, the fabled FDR… fabled that is so long as you ignore history; like the fact he made the Great Depression 7 years longer through his “New Deal” policies:

Two UCLA economists say they have figured out why the Great Depression dragged on for almost 15 years, and they blame a suspect previously thought to be beyond reproach: President Franklin D. Roosevelt….

…”Why the Great Depression lasted so long has always been a great mystery, and because we never really knew the reason, we have always worried whether we would have another 10- to 15-year economic slump,” said Ohanian, vice chair of UCLA’s Department of Economics. “We found that a relapse isn’t likely unless lawmakers gum up a recovery with ill-conceived stimulus policies.”…

Or the fact he tried to use court stacking tactics to bypass that pesky, out of date, worthless document formerly known as the US Constitution, basically making the point that “If it’s unConstitutional, find new judges”:

…Since the U.S. Constitution does not limit the size of the Supreme Court, Roosevelt, having won an expanded electoral mandate in his reelection, sought to counter this entrenched opposition to his political agenda by expanding the number of justices to create a pro-New Deal majority on the bench.  Opponents viewed the legislation as an attempt to stack the court leading to the name “Court-packing Plan”….

Or the fact he ran for his fourth term when he was too ill to govern.  Yes, let’s ignore the fact he was so self-absorbed and arrogant, that he demonstrated through his actions, he was willing to stay President of the US, with all its power, even though it was obvious he was no longer up to the task (here):

…Roosevelt, who turned 62 in 1944, had been in declining health since at least 1940. The strain of his paralysis and the physical exertion needed to compensate for it for over 20 years had taken their toll, as had many years of stress and a lifetime of chain-smoking. By this time, Roosevelt had numerous ailments including chronic high blood pressure, emphysema, systemic atherosclerosis, coronary artery disease with angina pectoris, and myopathic hypertensive heart disease with congestive heart failure. Dr. Emanuel Libman, then an assistant pathologist at Mount Sinai Hospital in New York City, reacting to Roosevelt’s appearance in newsreels, remarked in 1944 that “It doesn’t matter whether Roosevelt is re-elected or not, he’ll die of a cerebral hemorrhage within 6 months” (which he did, five months later)….

Yes, after all those reasons to re-think the glory that is the Presidency of FDR, we know have, thanks to Michael Moore, proof that FDR was a true socialist.  Like many socialists, he was more than willing to spend your money in furtherance of his goals, even though it’s failed ever single time it was tried…

But when defeating evil, the goal is righteous:

…”Capitalism is an evil,” Moore narrates, as the film concludes, “and you cannot regulate an evil. You have to eliminate it.” …

It’s an odd position to take that allowing people the freedom to enter into contracts for work or to barter or for any other economic reason they choose is evil, but he knows what’s best and that’s just the way it is.  After all, if you disagree, you’re probably “evil”.

Irregardless of Michael Moore’s lack of understanding as it relates to gun rights, health care, 9/11, and now… his complete lack of critical thought on capitalism, there is a silver lining:

…After a screening in Washington on Tuesday night, Moore told the audience that if people don’t rise up and take action after watching this film, that’s it—he’s done making movies. I can do other things, he remarked….

One can hope those other things include spending his own money to provide health care and housing for the poor, instead of using the government as his weapon to force everyone else to do what he thinks is right.