A liberal friend of mine argues we sometimes have to "force" people into doing the "right" thing. Odd statement from someone who leans left as often times they like to take the anti-establishment position. But when they feel they're in the "right" then coercion action is necessary.
I saw Lincoln the other day. I may post about it soon but one thing that became apparent - according to the film anyway - is Lincoln was aware of the fact what he was doing may have been a grey area - if not unconstitutional. In the end, it comes off as though it was a 'the ends justifies the means' calculation on the part of Lincoln.
Great movie - although they took some liberties with some facts but still, worth the time.
As I grow older, I've come to reject the liberal take on things. As James Payne puts it, libertarianism is interested in force - as in exercising force against free people. Using coercion has incalculable unintended consequences on the human spirit.
Alas, ironically, to the liberal the action taken on their behalf by the state carries no unintended consequences.
Maybe it's just the way of things and perhaps they have insights into the human condition I'm not seeing. For example, they argue on pragmatic grounds handing out welfare cheques (even if the amounts are small per cheque) to the unproductive class is a trade-off for security. Would you rather have them in public housing or have them running in the streets causing violence?
That's just one small example of a position taken.
51% of the population voting for something is called "social-democracy" but what is it for the 49% who voted the other way?
The other thing I've become interested in is the cost-benefit or cost-effective angle to all this social programming.
I'm all for social well-being. Just not through the barrel of the state gun if you will. It's not normal that when all is added up, the government takes in huge amounts of tax dollars yet it consistently finds ways to tax citizens more and more. At some point the question has to be asked: How much does it need? In my view, it has more than enough funds to provide a strong system of social securities for a segment of the population that requires it.
There's no way it can be argued this is an "extreme" position. This is about as mundane and basic an argument - that of controlling a budget and respecting other people's money - it seems to completely fly over our heads.
As Payne mentions, the government can put up a school. The question is, can it do it cost-effectively?
And evidence mounts every single day that the answer is no.
THIS is what I'm interested in. If public health is well-managed and provides quality of care relative to its resources, then so be it. If not, ask why not? What are the ways to improve this rather than throw money away. No one has the right to this money - especially through excessive guaranteed pensions we KNOW we can't afford. Indeed, government's have taken to raidding pension plans to pay for unfunded liabilities. Somewhere along the financial line, we lost the plot
The public sector has to change its mind set when it comes to the public treasury. It needs to employ and much more "private" thinking.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Mysterious and anonymous comments as well as those laced with cyanide and ad hominen attacks will be deleted. Thank you for your attention, chumps.