Too Much "We" Not Enough "Me"

People are always saying we should do this or we should do that. If someone thinks that a certain segment of society is too poor, too rich or just plain too anything they always say "we" should fix it. This usually makes me quite angry. If the whining left off there and didn't worm its way into politics I would not be upset at all, but politics is exactly where every bit of it winds up. The reasons this angers me are very simple.

First, why do these people presume to speak for me? I think that people should never be put on government welfare. Ever. But because people have said "we" should take care of the poor and have gotten the government involved I no longer have a choice in the matter. I deny the right of anyone to make such important decisions for anyone other than themselves. Note that I didn't say that people should not be able to be charitable to the poor. I just believe that each of us individually have the right to choose who we wish to help and in what way. Using government to force the issue takes away that right.

Second, those who want "us" to do something seem to never actually just shut up and do it for themselves. They always insist on using the force of government to make everyone comply with their wishes. If these people actually cared about whatever they think "we" have to do then they would get off their butts and actually work on the problem rather than beating other people over the head to work on it for them. You might say that if no one is forced to help then the problem will not be solved. This is a load of crap. We supposedly live in a democracy. (It is NOT a republic even though it was founded as one. Our ancestors changed it.) If this is a democracy then the majority of the people must be in favor of solving a problem for it to be addressed. So, If a majority of the people are for working on a problem, why do they need to drag the rest of the people into it? Their are more than enough of them to solve it themselves.

So, the next time you feel that "we" should do something think for a moment whether you are going to get out from in front of the TV and actually do something to directly help or not. If you aren't willing to help directly then you don't really care.

Should Women Register for the Draft?

Apparently one of the candidates in the Democratic debates said that we should move toward true equality and require women to register for the draft. My first thought was, "Why don't we move in the other direction and insure equality by removing draft registration for everyone?" Think about it for a second. We are supposedly a free society. Why does a free society need to enslave people to fight for it? It doesn't make any sense. Make no mistake about it drafted soldiers are slaves. They aren't free to go where they please and must follow the orders of their superiors (owners) or be punished.

If our cause is worth fighting for then plenty of people will fight for it voluntarily. If it is not worthy then how better for a free people to show their disapproval than by not participating?

Should Planned Parenthood be Publicly Funded?

There are two sides to the abortion debate. One side thinks it's OK to abort babies and the other thinks that aborting babies is murder. Given that a large portion of the population thinks that abortion is murder and, therefore, morally despicable should they be forced to pay for it? I think the answer is obvious.

Abortionists are usually of the liberal persuasion. Most liberals strongly believe in gun control. Many believe in banning guns outright so that they can't be used to murder people. What if there was a law that forced everyone to pay extra taxes so that poor people can also own guns? Whether you agree with them or not, do you think liberals would oppose such a measure on the moral grounds that it would promote violence?

Is it right to force either party to pay for something that they find immoral?

Should Creationism be Taught in Science Class?

The short answer is, "No." If you're a creationist don't get mad check out my reasoning first.

Creationism is based on faith and science is not. The scientific method is the basis for all of scientific thought. The scientist is required to observe natural phenomena, come up with a hypothesis that describe the phenomena and make predictions that can be tested based on what would be observed if the hypothesis is true. The hypothesis must either be discarded or modified if it is found through experimentation or observation to be untrue. Thus a scientist must be prepared to discard his hypothesis based on the evidence. In other words, the possibility of being wrong must be admitted and accepted by all scientists.

Creationism, on the other hand, is based in faith. Its proponents can never admit the possibility of being wrong. Therefore, it is automatically contradictory to the scientific method and is outside the realm of science as a result. If it is not science then it shouldn't be taught in a class that is supposed to be about science. It is not on topic. The only exception that might logically exist would be in the context of explaining the difference between a science and a faith as I have just done. Note that I'm not claiming that creationism is necessarily wrong. I'm just claiming it is not science.

There are theology classes in many schools. How much science do they teach?

The $#!^ They Teach to Kids in School

Everyone has an idea about what they feel should be taught as part of a well rounded education. The problem is that if you ask fifty different people this question you are likely to get fifty different answers. The problem gets even worse when you not only require that everyone go to school but you also require that everyone be taught a certain set of things at a minimum. No one agrees on what that minimum should be and some are morally or even religiously opposed to certain topics.

One perennial favorite topic of controversy is the dispute as to whether creationism should be taught in science class. I will leave aside my opinion on what I feel is the right answer to this for now and focus instead on the implications that arise from the fact that this controversy and others like it exist at all.

The fact that public schools are regulated by the government means that the government decides what is taught. Thus the curriculum becomes politicized and the only thing that is taught is that which is government sanctioned. This leads to endless battles that no one ever truly wins. The battle is refought constantly and much bitterness is created. There is also the danger that the government may usurp education for the purposes of teaching whatever political and social ideology it feels will guarantee its continued power. Many would argue that this has already happened here in the U.S. The only real solution to this sort of thing is to get the government out of the equation and let people decide what their children are taught in school for themselves.

I know what some of you are thinking. We can't have people just learning anything they want! They might skip something important and learn something else that is totally useless! They won't be ready for the real world! I say, "That is a crock of crap!"

First, who said you were the last authority on what knowledge is useful and what is not. This line of reasoning assumes that students and their parents are incapable of deciding for themselves what the student should learn. Nothing could be further from the truth. I have faith in people to make the right choices for themselves most of the time if given the chance. What does it say about you if you do not?

Second, stop and think for a minute about what it would've meant to you if someone had told you that you could go to school and learn anything you wanted and little that you didn't. To me it would have been Heaven. Of course, I did like most people and tuned out the classes I didn't want to learn anything about and paid good attention in the classes I liked. The end result was nearly the same as if I had never attended the bad classes other than the huge waste of my time and the school's resources. I would've been better off if I had learned something interesting during those times.

So let's just skip all of the drama and let people have the freedom to learn what they want.

Economic Games

Capitalism is usually portrayed by its champions as a positive sum game. A positive sum game is one in which both parties to a transaction benefit from it. Under this sort of model no one needs to force either party to participate. They just do it naturally because they both perceive a benefit to themselves in the transaction. Opposition to this model usually arises from people who either insist that one or the other party is being cheated or that the two parties are adversely effecting third parties who are outside the transaction. This, they say, gives rise to the need for the government to regulate business transactions. Let's address these two possibilities separately and see if they have any merit that justifies third party intervention. Note that I'm not considering environmental effects in this post but am only looking at things from an economic perspective. I'll look into environmental concerns later.

It is indeed true that someone is occasionally cheated in a free market transaction. The question that must arise then is whether the cheated party has any recourse to rectify the situation. Such a recourse does exist within the court system. If anyone ever feels cheated they can take the other party to court in order to be compensated for their loss. If the matter is too small to justify even a small claims case then chances are the offended party will take their business elsewhere while complaining to anyone who will listen about how they were treated. They may also take their complaint to the Better Business Bureau for help. If the other party cheats enough people then sooner or later they will be out of business or perhaps even in jail. So several mechanisms already exist to deal with cheaters that work in the vast majority of cases. What's more, the people involved in the transaction are the best ones to judge whether they were cheated or not and initiate action to resolve the problem. No outside meddling that is not chosen by the parties involved is necessary.

Third party complaints are usually complaints because that third party either didn't get chosen to participate in the transaction or they feel that their is a forth party that is more deserving of the business. For example, they might say something like, "That company is putting me out of a job because they've moved their manufacturing overseas." This sort of complaint is really just sour grapes because someone wasn't competitive enough to win the deal. If it is expensive to run a company in one place and cheap to run it in another then where would any rational person put the company? If you would put your company in the more expensive place then what are you really doing? I think you are most likely fooling yourself. You don't go out and find the most expensive products possible for your personal use. Why should you expect a company to be any different? You are only being hypocritical if you do. The correct reaction to losing business this way is to look for more ways to be competitive instead of trying to force other people to pay more than market value for your products or your time.

Another potential third party effect touted by the interventionists is the effect arising from the scarcity of resources. We are running out of oil, for example, so everyone must now buy high gas mileage cars and use florescent light bulbs to conserve oil. Or we are running out of fresh water so everyone must use toilets with smaller tanks and low flow shower heads. This line of thinking neglects the fact that the rising prices of scarce resources alone should be enough to encourage their rationing. If oil prices go up, people automatically try to do things in a more energy efficient way. Back in the 70's when oil prices rose rapidly millions of people started buying fuel efficient cars without any government coercion at all. In recent years, when gas prices have spiked people have started demanding hybrid cars to further conserve. I was buying florescent bulbs long before the government mandated them precisely because they are cheaper in the long run.

Similarly, if the price of water rises enough people will automatically start trying to conserve. The problem with water though is that its price is usually directly controlled by the government and its price doesn't rise even if an area is hit with a long drought. If the prices are allowed to rise people will find ways to conserve and entrepreneurs will be inspired to try to find new and innovative ways to get water to the stricken area. Their efforts may even result in new ways of producing fresh water that can increase the supply for everyone everywhere.

See Thomas Sowell's excellent book "Basic Economics" for a crystal clear explanation of how prices in a free economy automatically signal scarcity of resources and encourage rationing and conservation.

Thus third party complaints seem to me to be unjustified in the cases I've presented here. If you can think of any cases I haven't covered let me know.

Winners and Losers

I saw an article today entitled, "Who Will be the Winners Under Obama's Jobs Plan?" Apparently, the winners are going to be teachers, union labourers and other political friends of the President's. At least according to the article anyway. This started me thinking. Does the fact that only some citizens are going to be winners under this plan mean that others will be losers? I suspect that the answer is yes. After all, if some people are winners it follows that others must be losers. That's really the only other category that exists if you start classifying some people as winners and others as not.

I'm sure that if you asked Obama he would say that the intent of the Jobs Bill is to benefit everyone by creating a stronger economy. I have no reason to believe that he would be lying if he did. It probably really is his intention to improve the economy. However, we all know what paves the road to Hell. It is the actual effects of economic policy that are what really matter.

Given that the language used to promote the Jobs Bill is pretty much the same as the language that was used to promote every other round of economic stimulus recently, is it unfair to suspect that this bill is really just another stimulus bill except with a different name? The word 'stimulus' has become a rather dirty one in public circles of late. Perhaps, this bill is being marketed differently to avoid that stigma. The bill also has the same objectives as the previous rounds of stimulus; to improve unemployment, rebuild our infrastructure and improve education. If this really is just more of the same thing that has already failed, why are we doing it again? Are we really stupid enough to keep banging our heads against the same brick wall?

The mere fact that an article that was obviously slanted in favour of the bill could find winners under the bill goes a long way toward proving that the bill does favour some people over others. If the bill helps some and just as much as it harms others, what good is it? If it merely takes money out of one person's pocket and puts it in the pocket of another, how is it helping? Presumably the person who was taxed so another person can spend would have spent the money on something. Odds are it would've been something that they felt would improve the quality of their own lives. Instead they are forced to pay someone to build some public works project that might or might not be useful. There has been more than one project that turned out to be as useful as Alaska's famous 'bridge to nowhere.' Sure after the project is done everyone can see the new structure, but no one sees all of the things that the people who were originally taxed would've done with the money. If they had been able to keep their own money they would've bought myriad other products and services that are much more likely to be beneficial to them personally. But, since this is spread over millions of people all across the country, it is much harder to see the impact than it is with something that is large and easily located like a bridge or a road. At best, this bill is playing a zero sum game. Some must lose so that others might gain and there is no net improvement in the economy. This is why none of the other stimulus bills worked and it is why this one will also fail.