|
Daily Dose of Reason -
Politics & Government
|
|
Written by Michael J. Hurd, Ph.D.
|
|
Monday, 13 July 2009 00:00 |
I want to make sure I understand something. A major auto company goes bankrupt. The government bails it out, with tax dollars--paid by productive people who had nothing to do with the auto company that went bankrupt. We're told: "Now that the government has made the auto company solvent again, it will benefit everyone. Not just the company and its workers, but also the taxpayers who will be paid back, with interest." This presupposes something. This presupposes that the auto company went bankrupt through no fault of its own. Maybe this is true. Maybe, for example, the auto company was forced (by the very same government) to give its labor unions benefits they could not afford, which led to the insolvency of the company. But those benefits are now more in force than ever before. Or, maybe the auto company's demise was of its own making. Then how or why are we to believe that whatever poor skills led to its demise will now suddenly diminish, with the presence of government money? Maybe the public just didn't want what the auto company was selling. If the auto company could not generate a profit with private capital, which must come from making a quality product--then how will the "free" and nonjudgmental "capital" of government be any different? The only answer we're given is that the U.S. President--who not only never ran a business, but never held a private sector job in his life--has chosen a different leader to run the company. Of course, this leader cannot make a move without government approval. We're back to the same question: Why will people suddenly want a product now that it's subsidized by the government when they didn't want the same product produced by private capital? So how, exactly, is everyone better off? This example is not limited to an isolated auto company. It's how the government proposes to run the entire economy. Medical care is next. |
|
|
Daily Dose of Reason -
Politics & Government
|
|
Written by Michael J. Hurd, Ph.D.
|
|
Tuesday, 07 July 2009 00:00 |
Nuclear arms control is back in style. We're told that the fewer nuclear arms there are in the world, the safer we will be. This assertion makes no reference whatsoever to the fact of in WHOSE possession those nuclear arms are. To suggest that it's the total quantity of nuclear arms on earth that matters more than in WHOSE possession those weapons are is ludicrous. This is like saying that if the police force disarmed tomorrow, while criminals still kept and used weapons illegally, we’d still be better off--because by disarming the police, there will be fewer weapons in existence. Or, if the police signed an agreement with the criminals, who promised to destroy their weapons too, then all would be well. If the state and local police just held a gigantic bonfire, and destroyed all their weapons, we'd be safer because fewer weapons is better, regardless of who has them. Now, nobody anywhere will make this argument because it's patently insane. Yet the most powerful man on earth right now, and all his associates, have decided that if a mostly peaceful government--the United States--destroys many or most of its nuclear weapons, then we can all sleep better at night, because there are at least fewer nuclear weapons on earth. If you believe this, then you deserve what you get, whenever the lie becomes exposed that others will destroy their weapons too. At least I'll know I said something. If you agree with me--that is to say, if you're remotely able and willing to think rationally--then you should say something, too. And sleep well. |
|
Daily Dose of Reason -
Politics & Government
|
|
Written by Michael J. Hurd, Ph.D.
|
|
Saturday, 04 July 2009 00:00 |
|
How do you view Independence Day? Do you see it as a day to celebrate the independence of 18th century American colonists from the King of England? Or do you see it as a day to celebrate the independence of the individual from a controlling and unjust government? Is July 4 primarily about American history--or about individual rights?
To me, it's definitely the latter. Yet if I'm right, there's little to celebrate. Yes, we still enjoy freedom of speech, thought and very important political freedoms in this country. I won't make light of these. I won't pretend there's no difference between living in the United States and, say, China--or Iran, or North Korea. But as I watch our government slowly strip the individual of nearly all of his economic rights--to keep what's his, and not to punish his success--I cannot help but wonder: How long until political rights take a hit? If the vast majority of voting Americans believe that the government may do whatever it pleases in the name of "economic security and stability"--even when its policies plainly lead to just the opposite--then what other rationalizations will a majority of my fellow Americans soon permit of our phony, deceitful politicians?
You can't have totalitarian rule in one arena and total freedom in another. The government that feels entitled to your wealth and your body--as in the nationalization of health care, and the nationalization of energy production ("cap and trade")--will sooner, rather than later, feel just as entitled to choose how many children you have, what books or web sites you read, or with whom you choose to associate. I will celebrate Independence Day today--but only warily. If and when a majority of Americans come to understand that our current government is operating on the very same premises as the King of England all those years ago, we'll have something much more important to celebrate. |
|
Daily Dose of Reason -
Politics & Government
|
|
Written by Michael J. Hurd, Ph.D.
|
|
Thursday, 25 June 2009 00:00 |
Republicans are the party of Big Government. Democrats are the party of Huge Government. Big Government--meaning government intervention in the economy, subsidizing of private business, and micromanaging regulation of business--fails every time it's tried. When Big Government fails, this provides the Democrats' rationalization for Huge Government. Republicans get away with calling themselves the party of small or limited government--meaning, a government that protects the rights of individuals to be free from physical force, and that's about it. Republicans get away with this lie, so when their Big Government policies fail (witness Herbert Hoover, George W. Bush), the way is paved for Democrats to institute Huge Government (witness Franklin D. Roosevelt, Mr. Obama). Democrats then "raise the bar," if you will, for a more activist and expensive, expansive government than ever before seen. Republicans respond by simply calling for smaller Huge Government than the Democrats advocate--but a bigger government than even Democrats advocated a generation earlier. This is the cycle that has been playing out for at least a century in America. It must be reaching its climax, and fairly soon--probably in most of our lifetimes. How can it not? Government cannot grow much bigger than it already is. It controls the banking industry, the domestic auto industry and is about to take over medical care. Free speech will be the next (and last major) domain--until or unless Americans rise up and embrace a political and intellectual leadership that glorifies the rights of the individual, the practical necessity of freedom, and the requirement to roll back government as massively as it has expanded for the last century. In this generation, freedom will either die out in America altogether, or it will expand as not seen since the time of the first American Revolution. In part, it’s up to each one of us. |
|
Daily Dose of Reason -
Politics & Government
|
|
Written by Michael J. Hurd, Ph.D.
|
|
Monday, 22 June 2009 00:00 |
With respect to Iran, Barack Obama is another Jimmy Carter--with one important difference. When Iran blew up back in the 1970s, Jimmy Carter could at least rationalize that the people wanted the religious dictatorship to replace the U.S.-backed Shah. Today, it's different. The people--led mainly by those under 30, who grew up under this religious dictatorship--are the ones who want something different. Yet the widely celebrated Mr. Obama has a problem. He wants to reason with the existing totalitarian government. It will make him feel sanctimonious and pious, kind of like Jimmy Carter. Who wouldn't want to follow that foreign policy model, after all? But poor, kind Mr. Obama. He can't do it. The people in Iran are against him. He still has 55 percent of America behind him, but that number is dwindling every day, slowly. The Iranian people are certainly less naive than the American people, a majority of whom actually thought Mr. Obama had a good idea in reasoning with totalitarian religious dictators. But even the American people (or at least the 70 percent who will eventually see him for who his is) will not back themselves into the corner that Mr. Obama has done. Mr. Obama reminds me of Jimmy Carter after the Soviets invaded Afghanistan back in 1979. President Carter, who had spent several years quite literally kissing the Soviet dictator and appeasing him every chance he got, was forced to say unkind things about the Soviet Union after they displayed yet another indication of brutality. Poor Mr. Obama. He didn't even get a chance to kiss and bow in the presence of his beloved mullah dictators. (The North Koreans aren't being very cooperative either). He's only in office a few months, and he's already at a point with the Iranians that Jimmy Carter took several years to reach with the Soviets. Maybe the Iranian dictators are crazier and more dangerous than the Soviet dictators were. At least, they will be once they get their hands on nuclear weapons. What will Mr. Obama do then? |
|
|