In my lifetime, there have often been unpopular proposals. There have often been underhanded political deals. There have often been controversial proposals. There have often been contentious public debates. What appears to be different about Obamacare is not just the scope of the legislation that will affect virtually every American, not the actual provisions of the bill, nor the outrageous concessions to certain legislaters to procure there votes, but in this particular case, and in no other that I can recall, we had a contentious public debate, and the clear losers of that public debate, passed the legislation anyway.
Don't ask the people their opinion if you have no intention of taking it into account. To disregard the will of the people is to remind Americans what their revolution was all about. Do we believe in government of the people, by the people and for the people, or do we not? Do we believe that government derives its authority from the will of the governed, or do we not? Righteous anger is the correct emotional response to this violation of the founding principles of our society.
Certainly, there are times when a representative is compelled by conscience to violate the will of the people and vote according to his personal judgement. But that is not what happened here. Representatives voted for this measure for political reasons having nothing to do with their consciences, in some cases, having nothing even to do with this legislation. Such political maneuvering may be overlooked on some occasions, but not when a bill is so unpopular with the people, and affects virtually every American in an intensely personal way.
The Democrats seem intent on pushing our constitutional system to its limit. The reason that the term of office for members of the house of representatives is only two years is precisely to allow the people to remedy quickly a situation where the government disregards their will. If we have free and fair elections this November, the people will have their opportunity to correct this unfortunate situation. The process has worked for over 200 years. We can only pray that it will be allowed to work as designed, that government of the people, by the people and for the people will not perish from the earth. Viva la Revolution!
Tuesday, March 30, 2010
Monday, January 18, 2010
In Defense of Self-Interest
Our current government appears to be over-populated with intellectuals drafted from academe who are most decidedly antagonistic to the concept of individuals pursuing self-interest, as if self-interest is the root of all evil, and if only it may be eliminated, the main impediment to Utopia may be eliminated. The thinking is wholly misguided and off-base, as self-interest cannot be eliminated, and, even if it could be, the results would be disastrous, as they have been in every attempt that has been made to do so. The pursuit of self-interest is the most basic of drives, innate in the human being. It cannot be eliminated by government edict, no matter how much those sheltered in academe might imagine a world without it. To be sure, the pursuit of self-interest guide some to pursue practices that are against the public good, and the focus of good governance should be to limit those adverse practices. However, bad governance being more common than good, it is the government itself that is most commonly the instrument implementing the negative aspects of self-interest at the expense of the common good. Those in government are not immune from self-interest, and, the pursuit of their self-interest is far more likely to be against the common good than any others in society.
Ever since Adam Smith, the father of modern economics, published "The Wealth of Nations," the case for the benefits of the pursuit of self-interest has been made, as envisioned as an invisible hand guiding people to the common good through their pursuit of self-interest. However, Smith, himself, warned of the natural inclination for self-interest to guide practices that conspire against the public good, limiting the influence of competition and the effectiveness of the invisible hand. The prevention of such collusion to fix prices, and other anti-competitive practices, need to be the subject of effective governance, but often bad governance is the tool that enforces such practices. The thinking that the government can banish self-interest in its entirety, will only result in bad governance enforcing fixed prices, limiting the innovation and freedom that a vibrant, dynamic economy relies on.
To understand the extent to which self-interest, and private initiative are essential in our integrated economy, consider the availability and ubiquitous presence of the ballpoint pen, and whether such a device would be available without a relatively free, integrated economy. A ballpoint pen is available for nominal cost at any number of local retailers. Numerous independent and failed efforts to develop a ballpoint pen occurred before an effective model was eventually developed. If a government program were ever responsible for developing a ballpoint pen, a doubtful prospect, given that the fountain pen manufacturers of the day would likely have lobbied against it, as would the quill suppliers have lobbied against the development of the fountain pen, but, if a government program were responsible for developing the ballpoint pen, it would likely have failed, as the initial designs did not work very well, mostly having to do with a bad choice of ink. Or, perhaps, we would still be using leaky, ineffective, ballpoint pens, based on a poor, government-approved design. Consider, also, the amount of self-interest that is involved in the manufacture of a ballpoint pen, so taken for granted in our economy. There are plastics for the body of the pen, for which the source material is crude oil, refined and developed using polymer chemistry. There is the metal for the ball, that needs to be mined and refined and manufactured. Ink, of appropriate viscosity and drying properties, needs to be developed and manufactured. The product must be manufactured and assembled. Packaging must be developed and manufactured, involving cardboard and plastics, as well. Printing on the packaging must be developed. Once produced, the product must be delivered to the various retailers, and advertising must be produced to ensure effective sales. Every step of the process involving contracts ensuring private self interests are protected, patents, copyrights, and trademarks protecting the private interest rights of the individuals responsible for all the innovations along the way. All ensuring that we have ubiquitous availability, at nominal costs, of ballpoint pens.
If the government had succeeded in suppressing the pursuit of self-interest, would there be any such thing as something as simple as a ballpoint pen? Think of the complexity of a personal computer and other consumer electronics, all the contracts, and patents, involved in protecting self-interest required for those readily available and affordable products. Would they exist if the government were responsible for their development, production, and distribution? Think of the life-saving pharmaceuticals and medical procedures. Do we really understand the implications of attempting to remove self-interest in health care? Do we really expect that a government that we cannot imagine would be able to develop and produce a ballpoint pen would be able to develop, produce, and distribute a cure for cancer? Do we really want to risk our very lives on the ability of government to provide health care, without the benefit of the pursuit of self-interest?
Ever since Adam Smith, the father of modern economics, published "The Wealth of Nations," the case for the benefits of the pursuit of self-interest has been made, as envisioned as an invisible hand guiding people to the common good through their pursuit of self-interest. However, Smith, himself, warned of the natural inclination for self-interest to guide practices that conspire against the public good, limiting the influence of competition and the effectiveness of the invisible hand. The prevention of such collusion to fix prices, and other anti-competitive practices, need to be the subject of effective governance, but often bad governance is the tool that enforces such practices. The thinking that the government can banish self-interest in its entirety, will only result in bad governance enforcing fixed prices, limiting the innovation and freedom that a vibrant, dynamic economy relies on.
To understand the extent to which self-interest, and private initiative are essential in our integrated economy, consider the availability and ubiquitous presence of the ballpoint pen, and whether such a device would be available without a relatively free, integrated economy. A ballpoint pen is available for nominal cost at any number of local retailers. Numerous independent and failed efforts to develop a ballpoint pen occurred before an effective model was eventually developed. If a government program were ever responsible for developing a ballpoint pen, a doubtful prospect, given that the fountain pen manufacturers of the day would likely have lobbied against it, as would the quill suppliers have lobbied against the development of the fountain pen, but, if a government program were responsible for developing the ballpoint pen, it would likely have failed, as the initial designs did not work very well, mostly having to do with a bad choice of ink. Or, perhaps, we would still be using leaky, ineffective, ballpoint pens, based on a poor, government-approved design. Consider, also, the amount of self-interest that is involved in the manufacture of a ballpoint pen, so taken for granted in our economy. There are plastics for the body of the pen, for which the source material is crude oil, refined and developed using polymer chemistry. There is the metal for the ball, that needs to be mined and refined and manufactured. Ink, of appropriate viscosity and drying properties, needs to be developed and manufactured. The product must be manufactured and assembled. Packaging must be developed and manufactured, involving cardboard and plastics, as well. Printing on the packaging must be developed. Once produced, the product must be delivered to the various retailers, and advertising must be produced to ensure effective sales. Every step of the process involving contracts ensuring private self interests are protected, patents, copyrights, and trademarks protecting the private interest rights of the individuals responsible for all the innovations along the way. All ensuring that we have ubiquitous availability, at nominal costs, of ballpoint pens.
If the government had succeeded in suppressing the pursuit of self-interest, would there be any such thing as something as simple as a ballpoint pen? Think of the complexity of a personal computer and other consumer electronics, all the contracts, and patents, involved in protecting self-interest required for those readily available and affordable products. Would they exist if the government were responsible for their development, production, and distribution? Think of the life-saving pharmaceuticals and medical procedures. Do we really understand the implications of attempting to remove self-interest in health care? Do we really expect that a government that we cannot imagine would be able to develop and produce a ballpoint pen would be able to develop, produce, and distribute a cure for cancer? Do we really want to risk our very lives on the ability of government to provide health care, without the benefit of the pursuit of self-interest?
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)