Saturday, October 25, 2008

You can always get what you want

Recently, I've discussed problems with the voting system, and according to this article, almost half of the voters polled do not feel confident their votes will be counted accurately. I've discussed the fact that politicians make a lot of promises that they will eventually fail to keep, and this article discusses the fact that both major party candidates may have no choice but to renege on many of their campaign promises in the face of a ballooning budget defecit. I've warned you of the growing call for international control over the world's finance sectors, and this article points out how world leaders are calling for, “new rules in dealing with international finance.”

It's not because I have some special ability to predict the future. In fact, these are very predictable results of the current system. Regardless of what those in power say, you can watch their actions and discern, with a high degree of success, what their intentions and goals are.

They want you to feel like you have a very real role in what's about to happen to the people of this country. So they have evolved an elaborate system of voter registration, local party officials, and campaign volunteers to make you feel like you are part of the solution.

They want you to be dependant on them to survive, so they attempt to involve themselves in every possible decision and transaction throughout your day, and consistently remind you that they're there to help when you can't do it on your own.

I know that some of my readers disagree with my position on the two candidates, and I understand that. To some degree, I agree that there are basic ideological differences between them, and even between their parties. However, whether tax money will be used to help crack addicted single mothers overcome their addictions, or to subsidize American farmers who are unable to compete in an international marketplace, or to “spread the wealth around,” or to build more military bases overseas, I still stand by my position that once the initial theft of private assets by the government occurs, all actions which result from it are immoral. If a person approaches you in the street and demands your wallet at knife point, are you concerned with whether he will buy whiskey or diapers with it? It is the theft which is important, not the way the money is spent.

Most people would agree that there is a point where too much taxation is unconscionable. Not everyone of course, some people support 100% taxation, but most people have a limit where they feel it is immoral for the state to seize so much of the fruits of their labor. If you draw the line anywhere, then I want you to consider what makes that action immoral. While not my argument originally, I think Stefan Molyneux is right to ask if some is bad, how can less be ok, but none be just as bad as some. If it is immoral to steal, how can it be moral to steal a little, but equally immoral not to steal at all?

Our government wants to use the same illogical argument. I pointed out in a recent post that they seem to think that taxation and federal interference are crippling during tough economic times, but when the economy is soaring, we can take the hit. If it's bad when we're down, it's bad when we're up. Just because we can absorb it during good economic times doesn't mean it isn't crippling. It is. They're just content to have crippled slaves, but not dead ones.

Now they're exploring lots of different ways to spend the 700 billion dollar bailout they recently approved. Remember, the one that they had to rush through in order for us to survive the crisis. You know, they one they promised was specifically for buying devalued mortgage-backed securities from tottering banks to unclog frozen credit markets? You know, the one they still haven't spent a dollar of? Good thing they rushed that through before the “catastrophe” occurred.

So now they want to put that towards insurance companies. But isn't risk an inherent part of insurance? Isn't that how they do business? If we bail out insurers for having to pay out on claims, then why have insurers at all? Why don't we just eliminate insurance and have the government bail us out directly?

What about the auto industry? Why are we bailing them out? If they can't make money selling a quality product, why do we want to subsidize their inability to compete? Do we want low quality over priced products that don't meet our needs and for which there is little demand? Or do we want the kinds of vehicles we desire to dominate the marketplace?

Subsidizing companies that can't compete just doesn't make sense. Remember, in a truly free economy, which we don't have, the only reasons you can't compete are product quality, customer service, and price. So if they aren't meeting our needs in those areas, don't we want them to fail so that those companies which do will succeed?

You always get more of what you subsidize. If we pay people to produce quality, we will get higher quality. If we pay people to make babies, we will get more babies. If we pay people not to produce, we will get less production. If we give the government more money, we will get more government. It's not rocket science, it's social science.

What do you want more of?

No comments: