Mother and Father

I have long held the belief that in governance terms, liberals are like the country's mother, and conservatives are like the country's father. I'm not the first one to have this thought, but I wanted to save it here for future reference.

After the November 2012 election returned Obama to the Presidency, I started thinking about the mother/father paradigm a bit more deeply. It occurred to me that single-parent households voted Democrat by a wide margin... and I wondered why. With high unemployment and an economy stuck in neutral, it makes no sense for a single-income household to vote Democrat.

Unless, of course, they receive largesse from the government. Why bite (or vote out of office) the hand that feeds you?

Anyway, the salient point for me was to combine the two points: Liberals as mother, conservatives as father, and liberals voting Obama back into office.

Two groups of people are unlikely to vote for the 'Dad' party: Single mothers, and the children they raised. The children that had either an absent father, or none at all -- why would they vote for him for President?? They wouldn't, and didn't, and I think that once you decide to ignore the other demographic data from the election returns, you'll see that this holds absolutely true.

Your Right to Someone Else's Work

Most of us in the real world know that NO ONE has a moral right to the work product of someone else. We know that walking on to an automobile dealership lot and driving away with a vehicle is illegal, because we didn't PAY for it. That's one of the major differences between society the way the liberals see it, and society the way conservatives see it -- we engage in voluntary exchange, of goods and services, with another person or entity. I agree to hand over something of value, and in exchange I receive something of value. This principle is at work all the time, every minute of every day, from the electricity powering my computer to the iced tea I am drinking.

I do not have the RIGHT to any of those things; what I have is the ABILITY to purchase what I want and need from someone who offers it for sale. Thirsty? Buy a drink. Cold? Buy a coat. Exchange your money for that which you desire. Or barter, your service for someone else's. You don't have a RIGHT not to pay for it.

Where this principle is turned on its head, primarily (though not exclusively), is the area of healthcare. Since so many of us pay only indirectly for the health services we receive, we are blind to the costs of those services. How much is an X-ray, if you walked into a doctor's office and asked for one -- without insurance to cover the cost for you? I have no idea. It probably costs more than an entire month's worth of insurance premiums, but I have no clue. Do you? Of course not. Just because we don't KNOW the cost does not in any way mean there is no cost!

Things like that X-ray seem free, since we don't pay for them directly to the people that conduct them. The less economically-savvy among us therefore equate NO cost with UNKNOWN cost, and bristle at the notion that a doctor wants to be paid for what he provides. How dare he! It's that righteous indignation which is the hallmark of the left... but I digress.

If that X-ray is to be free to the patient, who will pay for the equipment, personnel, training, electricity, building, maintenance, etc.? Those things cost money. Who should pay this money? If you say, "The government!" then you have failed. That model has brought us where we are today...

Because 'government' has no money of its own, only money that it collects (through taxes and fees) to pay for anything. Anything paid for by 'government' has been paid for by the citizens who fund it.

Romney Thinks We're On Our Own?

As usual, it seems that liberals take a conservative thought or philosophy, and expand it until it reaches idiotic or ridiculous proportions. For example, they think that Mitt Romney holds the opinion that 'everyone should take care of themselves and the Government does not owe anyone any kind of social service'. Which is wrong, of course.

Liberals always miscategorize, lie, set up strawmen... it's a shame, and a really old, tired playbook. I'll give you quotes from an interview on September 19, 2012 by Mitt Romney:

"I believe the right course for America is one where government steps in to help those that are in need. We're a compassionate people, but then we get -- let people build their own lives, create enterprises. We believe in free people and free enterprise, not redistribution. The right course for America is to create growth, create wealth, not to redistribute wealth."

"There are a number of retirees, members of the military and so forth who aren't paying taxes, and that's as it should be. But I do believe that we should have enough jobs and enough take-home pay such that people have the privilege of higher incomes that allow them to be paying taxes.

"I think people would like to be paying taxes. The good news is, if you're doing well enough financially, that you can pay a tax. And the problem is right now as you see in this country so many people have fallen into poverty that they're not paying taxes. They have to rely on government. And the right course to help them is not just to have government handing out, but instead government helping people to get back to good jobs.

"[t]he numbers on food stamps are really revealing. When the president took office, 32 million people were on food stamps. And now that number is 15 million higher, almost 50 percent higher, now 47 million people on food stamps. You've got Americans falling into poverty under this president and an increasing number; it looks like, on these food stamp figures. And I want to get people back to work. I'd like to see – I'd like to see everybody who is not retired, not in the military having the privilege of having a good job and a good income, enough that -- that -- that they qualify to pay taxes."

"I believe America was built on the principle of government caring for those in need, but getting out of the way and allowing free people to pursue their dreams. Free people pursuing free enterprises is the only way we'll create a strong and growing middle class and the only way we'll help people out of poverty."

Remember a time when liberals had the intellectual honesty to like or admire someone with whom they disagreed personally? Remember a time when we would hold up a guy like Romney as someone to admire? In some things, if not all things; there's always room for disagreement. But such venom? This is a man who gives millions and millions of dollars every year to his church and to charity. Voluntarily. Aren't those traits to be admired? I mean, I don't agree with everything about the guy, but seriously -- whether or not I agree with him politically ought not dictate what I think of him personally.

Liberals make everything personal, whether it should be or not. Provided the target of their ire holds different views than theirs, of course!

I Didn't Build That?

I didn't build the great aqueducts of Rome, and shouldn't we give a nod to those who did? The remark by Obama may have been taken slightly out of context, but (if true) that was the fault of the speaker for using the singular ("that"), which sounds like he meant his statement to refer to a business ("You didn't build that"); if what he actually meant was 'infrastructure' -- roads and bridges -- he should have used the plural ("those"), which would have made the statement both clear and true.

I don't understand the whole point, though. While every single, solitary one of us can acknowledge that someone, somewhere, created or built something upon which we have built our own careers, how far back should we go? I created a Style Guide for use in my company, but I guess I have to credit... whom? Bill Gates? The inventor of the first computer? The inventors of the English language? The inventors of human communication? I mean, really -- what's the rule here? I have no problem acknowledging anyone's contribution, but I could spend so long doing THAT, I would have little time for anything else.

His point was that we all need government-created roads, bridges and such in order to build our businesses. As usual, he had half a point. Since government is not in the business of 'making' money -- producing goods and services in the marketplace which generate income and a profit -- then anything that 'government' creates it does with the money given to it by others. What others? Why, taxpayers and businesses, of course!

Government built a bridge. Terrific. Great job. Who bought the materials? Who paid the workers? Where did that money COME from? Answer: You and I. We paid for ALL of it by working for ourselves or someone else, by buying the goods and services produced by other people, and by paying taxes at every step of the way.

So you see, it's not that he was taken out of context, or not. It's that his philosophy simply doesn't fit with the spirit of this country. We ALL acknowledge that government does good works. We simply realize that we OWN those good works, because we paid for them, and continue to pay for them, every day.

The Cost of Insurance

The great majority of us have NO idea how much medical procedures actually cost. We're insulated from the cost by the insurance policy. I honestly couldn't tell you how much an X-ray costs; I have no Earthly concept. I can give you a rough estimate of what a bottle of Pepsi costs, though I don't buy bottled soda, because that price is posted in every store I visit. But an X-ray? No idea.

Insurance as an idea was intended, as auto insurance, to cover you in case of emergency. It was not conceived to one day cover birth control, cold medicine, routine eye exams, and so on (just picking a few things randomly here). But because the range of medical services covered by everyday policies has expanded exponentially in recent years, the associated cost of those policies has increased correspondingly.

The greater the likelihood of a claim, the higher the premium for the policy, plain and simple. It's true in auto insurance, flood insurance, and even life insurance -- non-smokers pay less money than smokers, because it's been determined that smokers are more likely to die faster, leading to faster (earlier) payment, and less money for the insurance company.

Anyway, in truth insurance policies don't have much effect on treatment costs; the doctors and hospitals administering the treatment will eventually be paid, by the government if not by the insurance carrier or the patient. Most industries use competition between different companies to keep costs low. You can't charge twice as much as your competitor, or you will shortly be out of business. Government interference has, for years, destroyed this line between 'competing' hospitals and, much like college, has caused a steep increase in price because of that interference.

When you know that the bill will be paid, by the government (if no one else), you can charge a LOT more money -- and so can your competitors.

Soft Tyranny

This has become one of my favorite quotes:

“Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience. They may be more likely to go to Heaven yet at the same time likelier to make a Hell of earth. This very kindness stings with intolerable insult. To be "cured" against one's will and cured of states which we may not regard as disease is to be put on a level of those who have not yet reached the age of reason or those who never will; to be classed with infants, imbeciles, and domestic animals.” ~ C.S. Lewis

I honestly question whether we're wise enough to select our own leaders -- or our own 'representatives', which is more accurate a definition of those sworn to serve us in Washington. In a perfect world.

The term 'slippery slope' gets misused and overused, but when properly used it's quite accurate... we do want a federal government acting within its Constitutional bounds, but once those restraints are slipped, away we go, like a runaway freight train. Sometimes we manage to rein them in, only to have them escape without our knowledge. What do I mean? Remember Clinton and the Republican Congress ending 'welfare as we know it'? Did you know that it's back? The restrictions imposed during the Clinton years have been removed by this president, in the 'stimulus' bill... that's why so many more people are on government assistance and food stamps, just as he wants them to be. He undid welfare reform, right under our noses, and no one had any idea. Maybe we'll know what's in that bill when we read it, eh?

One last thing: In my own not-so-humble opinion, utopianism is not a soft tyranny, but a hard one. It's one thing to take some tax money from the producers, and provide a temporary safety net to the most needy in our society. But it's quite another to secure the votes of some people by giving them the fruits of the labors of others, in perpetuity.