Daily Archives: 2011-04-21

Carrots vs Sticks

In a previous article I distinguished “requirements” for life from “rights”. Requirements are things that we are to provide for ourselves which allow us to continue the biological process we call life (e.g. food, water, healthcare, shelter). Since we are to provide these for ourselves either directly (e.g. grow our own food, etc) or indirectly (via work which is exchanged for money which is then exchanged for these things), this then begs the question: What of those that are incapable of providing for themselves? Shouldn’t the government provide this social “safety net”? Well, actually no. Why? There are three principal reasons although I could simply point to the nightmare of a Ponzi scheme that is Social Security and Medicare as prime examples of how well government is able to manage such systems.

1)    Theft. Theft for a noble cause is still wrong. Merely renaming “theft” by a group (government) from the individual (taxpayer) as “taxation” does not suddenly change its moral character. If I rob my neighbor and then donate all that I have stolen to the local food bank, is that ok? Clearly not. In the same way if the government robs from my neighbor (taxation) and gives to someone else, it is still wrong.
2)    Inefficiency. Government is inherently incapable of utilizing resources (tax money) efficiently because it does not employ the profit/loss feedback system. Profit says “you’re providing something people want” whereas Loss says “you’re not providing something people want.” The funds doled out by governments are not theirs; thus there is no inherent motivation to efficiently allocate such funds. In fact government budgeting rationale is the opposite of that in a profit/loss system: using all money and NOT accomplishing your goal is justification to get even more money. Without a profit/loss test governments are doomed to be throwing darts at a budgetary efficiency target whilst blindfolded… every now and then they’ll get lucky, but most of the time they don’t even hit the board.
3)    Forced Charity. Every major world religion holds acts of charity in inestimably high regard. Such acts must come from within, not without. If we are forced by the government into giving (through taxation or the proposed “Universal National Service Act” continually reintroduced by Rep. Rangel (D)) then two thefts have occurred. First our money or time. But secondly we are robbed of the positive spiritual feedback we could have received when we willingly extend assistance to someone who truly needs it.  
Independent, free market and unregulated charitable organizations are the most efficient tool to help those that need assistance. They offer the exact counterbalance to the above three problems with government based charity. Theft is transformed into Giving. Money that was stolen is now given to those charities the citizen (not the government) deems worthy. Inefficiency is transformed into Efficiency. Charities are described as “non-profit” organizations however that is merely a tax descriptor. Charities do profit, but non-profit tax regulations prohibit distributing said profit to the owners of the charity. All money is reinvested. So the profit test exists – inefficient or bad charities go out of business and those that “profit” will grow bigger and more able to accomplish their mission. And finally, Forced Charity is transformed into Charity. When we give to someone willingly we get back much more in a spiritual sense. The positive feedback from giving compels the giver to continue giving. What could be better then a system that encourages giving through carrots rather than sticks?

What is a “Right”?

In a recent editorial I obliquely referred to the concept that healthcare is not a “right.” I would like to flesh out that concept more fully in order to substantiate the concept that healthcare is not a right any more so than food, housing, transportation, clothing, television, or any other consumer good.

Yes, I can hear the protests now, “Of course healthcare, food and housing are rights! We need these things to live, to survive!” Yes, that is true, we do need these things. But that does not make them rights. They are requirement to survival, but they are requirements we are to provide for ourselves.

So, what is a right? There are actually two types of rights: negative and positive. Negative rights are also known as Natural rights whereas positive rights are those conferred by decree (Fiat rights). Negative rights transcend time and place. For negative rights to be upheld requires NO action on the part of anyone else. We all have a right to our life, or stated conversely, we have the right to not be murdered. For us to not be murdered requires only the inaction of others. We have a right to our property (i.e. those things produced by us through work). Inaction of others ensures our property will never be taken. We have a right to free speech. This means that we can speak our mind publicly and not be silenced by force; it does not (and never has been interpreted to) mean we must be provided a means by which we can disseminate that speech. In the same way our right to life does not mean we must be provided with the tools necessary to maintain that life. If we are to be provided with such tools that implies someone must provide them.

Positive rights are those rights that by their nature require that someone else DO something to provide that right. If healthcare were actually made a right by decree, then this would mean that it MUST be provided to all. The problem with this concept is what do you do if no one or nearly no one wants to provide this service? If it is a “right” then it must be provided, and if it must be provided then the government must through force or coercion compel someone to provide this right. The coercion may be direct (i.e. the state dictates what your profession will be) or indirect (i.e. the state takes money from one group against their will to give to another group in order that they may obtain their “right”). Some may see this as “ok” because collectively, we, as society might be better off (e.g. the concept that “healthy Americans benefit the country”).

That is a dangerous road to travel. If we can justify any action based on the concept that society benefits then what is to stop us from establishing laws that require people be licensed before they can have children (so that the state can ensure they are “ideal” parents) or dictate how many children we can have… or perhaps sterilize those with undesirable genetic traits (they simply lead to higher health care costs, and anything that lowers health costs is good for society, right?). Well, I for one vehemently disagree. This is where all government intervention errs (beyond the core duty of protection of our natural rights) – the intentions are good but they are never thought out to their logical conclusion. That conclusion being that in fact the good of the many does not outweigh the needs of the few or the one (with apologies to Mr. Spock).

Nanny State Strikes Back

Recently the U.S. Justice Department announced it was blocking anyone in the U.S. from accessing online poker sites as well as accusing 11 people of bank fraud and illegally operating gambling websites. This story is disturbing on several levels. Firstly, upon what Constitutional basis does any government have the power to declare certain behaviors that harm no one to be “illegal”? It’s apparently not “illegal” when governments do it (lottery). This is not only an unconstitutional action but a hypocritical one as well.

Some might argue it is justified because gambling has a potential to harm the gambler. True enough, but, the gambler is aware of the risks; there is no deception or fraud. Some might then argue that gambling could harm the gamblers family. Yes, that’s possible. But there are lots of things people can spend too much money on thus potentially harming their family… should all those goods be made illegal? Or perhaps we should submit to government approval before we make a purchase to be sure it is appropriate for our level of income so that it won’t harm our family? The inherent danger of trying to regulate the behavior of others is that we may soon find our own behavior regulated. The Libertarian philosophy runs counter to the notion that government knows how to run our lives better than we do. One of the fundamental planks in the party platform states:

 “Individuals should be free to make choices for themselves and to accept responsibility for the consequences of the choices they make. No individual, group, or government may initiate force against any other individual, group, or government. Our support of an individual’s right to make choices in life does not mean that we necessarily approve or disapprove of those choices.”

Secondly, on what grounds does the government restrict the right of a U.S. citizen from accessing any website (that does not depict real physical violence)? Shall they start censoring our access to books they disapprove of? These events illustrate that Internet freedom is an illusion. Government can take these freedoms only because we permit it. Freedom of speech extends not only to the person making the speech but also to the person consuming it. To praise the ideals of free speech in one breath and then make consumption of it illegal in the next breath makes a mockery of free speech.

Lastly, the charges of “bank fraud” sound ominous but are misleading. The supposed fraud is a “letter of the law technically legal” interpretation of a 2006 federal law that forbids financial institutions from processing transactions related to online gambling. Apparently there was weak support for outlawing online gambling, so instead they outlawed activities associated with it (money transfers) rather than the activity itself. A deceptive and cowardly action intended to bypass the will of the people in favor of the will of the brick & mortar casinos.

This attack on free individuals (producers and consumers) causing no harm is a prime example of the “Nanny State” in action: intruding into the personal choices of its citizens, because after all, the nanny knows best, right?