The Patriot has joined up with other freedom-loving organizations as part of the 'tax-day coalition.' More details will follow, but we're having our own Tea Party event on the Stony Brook campus on April 15th, 12:40 at Roth Pond.
Notice the 'Patriot' logo on the Tax Day website.
Monday, March 30, 2009
Monday, December 15, 2008
Dealing with Canadian Care
I admit to entering the Patriot's 'health care debate' with a predisposition to a system of private health care insurance. I believe that the inefficiencies of current health insurance problems are perfectly explained by cumbersome and counter-intuitive regulatory policies which prevent beneficial competition. I believe that these problems will be carried through to a single-payer, universal system and we should, therefore, avoid them.
That said, however, I was duly impressed by Stony Brook's Dr. David Brown, who was arguing in favor of a universal system. His plea for a fair and equal health insurance system is a hard one to ignore, especially considering the 47 million Americans who go without insurance and the many people who get denied coverage despite having insurance.
However, it's dangerous to allow oneself to fall into Dr. Brown's trap of emotional appeal. From a perspective of the personal, who wouldn't want universal coverage? The government's guarantee of safety; the freedom from worrying about having a bad or no insurance policy, is difficult one to reject. And with good reason, because the current system is certainly a corrupt and broken one.
Before letting emotional appeals cloud sound judgment, we must carefully consider the affect that government socialization of industry has.
To do this we must consider the type of care that one would receive under such a socialized health care system. I asked Dr. Brown, during the Q&A session why my Canadian relatives have to wait months for procedures that would be considered "next-day" in the United States, even despite out 'broken' system. His response, which makes sense only on the surface, is that someone in the system, maybe some government bureaucrat on some doctor's advice, decided to put my grandmother on a wait list because they felt that her condition wasn't in immediate need of a diagnostic procedure. Perhaps this was also true for a Canadian cousin, who had to wait six months to get an MRI, despite the continuous painful headaches, which could have been indicative of serious problems.
Dr. Brown claims that he considers health care to be a universal right, but he is supporting a system that doesn't let people exercise that right very well. For, when you have a single payer system, it also means you have no choices. You couldn't get a better health care coverage even if you wanted to, even if you could afford it. You can't pay extra to get extra services. You have to accept the authority of a government wait list that places your health and well-being below another person's.
In truly a private, competitive system, this would rarely, if ever, be the case. If you get put on a wait list that you don't want to be on, simply find different coverage that gives patients more choices. This plan may be more expensive, but shouldn't people be allowed to decide for themselves how much their health is worth? Shouldn't a person decide for themselves, with the advice of their doctor, that waiting six months for an MRI is unacceptable?
People blame greedy health insurance companies for denying care without realizing that government bureaucrats do the same thing, and on a bigger scale, when there is no competition and no incentive to improve quality. Profits incentivize in an atmosphere where competition is insured; incentives lower cost and improve quality to attract consumers. Government is slow to improve the quality of anything, because it does not have to respond immediately to consumer demands. Americans spend more on health care costs today than any other Western nation, even more so than other 'single-payer' countries because we have a patchwork of private/protected and government care.
The ability to choose between products works to produce the most desirable products. I say that it's time to get the government out of direct insurance and so we can let the free market innovate on health care solutions, as the free market does for anything else. A single-payer system does provide health care for all, but the quality of care should not be ignored.
As Alex Chamessian, editor of the Patriot, said, "Do you really want the people who run the DMV running your health insurance?" Waiting on line at the DMV is an expected annoyance. Waiting on a line to receive desired health care is intolerable.
That said, however, I was duly impressed by Stony Brook's Dr. David Brown, who was arguing in favor of a universal system. His plea for a fair and equal health insurance system is a hard one to ignore, especially considering the 47 million Americans who go without insurance and the many people who get denied coverage despite having insurance.
However, it's dangerous to allow oneself to fall into Dr. Brown's trap of emotional appeal. From a perspective of the personal, who wouldn't want universal coverage? The government's guarantee of safety; the freedom from worrying about having a bad or no insurance policy, is difficult one to reject. And with good reason, because the current system is certainly a corrupt and broken one.
Before letting emotional appeals cloud sound judgment, we must carefully consider the affect that government socialization of industry has.
To do this we must consider the type of care that one would receive under such a socialized health care system. I asked Dr. Brown, during the Q&A session why my Canadian relatives have to wait months for procedures that would be considered "next-day" in the United States, even despite out 'broken' system. His response, which makes sense only on the surface, is that someone in the system, maybe some government bureaucrat on some doctor's advice, decided to put my grandmother on a wait list because they felt that her condition wasn't in immediate need of a diagnostic procedure. Perhaps this was also true for a Canadian cousin, who had to wait six months to get an MRI, despite the continuous painful headaches, which could have been indicative of serious problems.
Dr. Brown claims that he considers health care to be a universal right, but he is supporting a system that doesn't let people exercise that right very well. For, when you have a single payer system, it also means you have no choices. You couldn't get a better health care coverage even if you wanted to, even if you could afford it. You can't pay extra to get extra services. You have to accept the authority of a government wait list that places your health and well-being below another person's.
In truly a private, competitive system, this would rarely, if ever, be the case. If you get put on a wait list that you don't want to be on, simply find different coverage that gives patients more choices. This plan may be more expensive, but shouldn't people be allowed to decide for themselves how much their health is worth? Shouldn't a person decide for themselves, with the advice of their doctor, that waiting six months for an MRI is unacceptable?
People blame greedy health insurance companies for denying care without realizing that government bureaucrats do the same thing, and on a bigger scale, when there is no competition and no incentive to improve quality. Profits incentivize in an atmosphere where competition is insured; incentives lower cost and improve quality to attract consumers. Government is slow to improve the quality of anything, because it does not have to respond immediately to consumer demands. Americans spend more on health care costs today than any other Western nation, even more so than other 'single-payer' countries because we have a patchwork of private/protected and government care.
The ability to choose between products works to produce the most desirable products. I say that it's time to get the government out of direct insurance and so we can let the free market innovate on health care solutions, as the free market does for anything else. A single-payer system does provide health care for all, but the quality of care should not be ignored.
As Alex Chamessian, editor of the Patriot, said, "Do you really want the people who run the DMV running your health insurance?" Waiting on line at the DMV is an expected annoyance. Waiting on a line to receive desired health care is intolerable.
Tuesday, December 2, 2008
Broken Prospects: The Making of an Obama Foreign Policy
Barack Obama ran on a campaign of accountability, change, and the reestablishment of America's standing on the international stage. Inside these platitudes were a set of declarations and promises, ranging from the immediate withdrawal from Iraq, the closing of camp X-Ray in Guantanmo Bay, ending missile defense systems, to the application of interrogation rules found in the Army Field Manual to other agencies in the government, such as the CIA, NSA, and other intel services. Obama has also made the intelligent choice by keeping SecDef Robert Gates on for another year.
Strangely enough, these promise are being backed away from, or in some cases, totally broken.
1) Interrogation techniques:
Earlier this month, the WSJ reported that sources affiliated with Obama's transition team informed them that U.S. intelligence policy will stay "largely intact." During the campaign, Barack Obama campaigned to end techniques such as waterboaring, and to end the tactic by applying rules found in the Army Field Manual to groups such as the CIA. It appears he is now backing off of this promise. This is a very good thing, but it makes for a very angry bunch of left-wingers.
2) Guantanamo Bay:
Barack Obama had as a part of his campaign, a position on ending the existence of indefinite detention at Guantanamo Bay.
Earlier this month, the New York Times of all papers wrote a piece describing the problems of closing Guantanamo. They wrote about the difficulties in undertaking such a task, therefore attempting to soften the blow to left-wingers when Obama actually doesn't close Guantanamo. In addition, Obama's choice for Attorney General, Eric Holder, is on the record saying the Geneva Convention does NOT apply to terrorist detainees. This is another indication of which way the wind will blow on terrorist incarceration in an Obama administration.
3) Ending the Iraq War:
He campaigned to end the Iraq war immediately. Well, now it is abundantly clear he won't. There really isn't much need to explicate on this issue much further. The left has raged against the machine for years, declaring the war in Iraq as an illegal provocation by an imperialistic Western power. The frustration they are feeling right now must be unbearable. Imagine, getting totally cock-blocked (figuratively) by the very man you elected to office. Fratricide, if you ask me.
Obama also ran against missile defense systems, but it is likely they will continue as well; unimpeded.
Finally, Barack Obama has made the competent and intelligent choice of keeping Secretary of Defense Robert Gates on for at least one more year. Gates is a Bush appointment, and the idea of him having a say in an Obama presidency must chafe the collective crotch of the anti-war left in this country.
Although his presidency will most likely stray hard left on social and economic issues, his foreign policy might actually end up being right of center.
To think, the hope for change among the anti-war community in this country was completely unfounded. To think, there might be a relatively similar foreign policy to the administration of George W. Bush. To think, the anti-war community has no friend in an Obama presidency. To think, all the anti-war movement was mere arm candy for Barack.
Only one word comes to mind:
Heartache.
Painful for them. But oh so sweet for me.
Hope eventually wears off, reality bites, and "change" can be changed itself.
By Conor Harrigan
Strangely enough, these promise are being backed away from, or in some cases, totally broken.
1) Interrogation techniques:
Earlier this month, the WSJ reported that sources affiliated with Obama's transition team informed them that U.S. intelligence policy will stay "largely intact." During the campaign, Barack Obama campaigned to end techniques such as waterboaring, and to end the tactic by applying rules found in the Army Field Manual to groups such as the CIA. It appears he is now backing off of this promise. This is a very good thing, but it makes for a very angry bunch of left-wingers.
2) Guantanamo Bay:
Barack Obama had as a part of his campaign, a position on ending the existence of indefinite detention at Guantanamo Bay.
Earlier this month, the New York Times of all papers wrote a piece describing the problems of closing Guantanamo. They wrote about the difficulties in undertaking such a task, therefore attempting to soften the blow to left-wingers when Obama actually doesn't close Guantanamo. In addition, Obama's choice for Attorney General, Eric Holder, is on the record saying the Geneva Convention does NOT apply to terrorist detainees. This is another indication of which way the wind will blow on terrorist incarceration in an Obama administration.
3) Ending the Iraq War:
He campaigned to end the Iraq war immediately. Well, now it is abundantly clear he won't. There really isn't much need to explicate on this issue much further. The left has raged against the machine for years, declaring the war in Iraq as an illegal provocation by an imperialistic Western power. The frustration they are feeling right now must be unbearable. Imagine, getting totally cock-blocked (figuratively) by the very man you elected to office. Fratricide, if you ask me.
Obama also ran against missile defense systems, but it is likely they will continue as well; unimpeded.
Finally, Barack Obama has made the competent and intelligent choice of keeping Secretary of Defense Robert Gates on for at least one more year. Gates is a Bush appointment, and the idea of him having a say in an Obama presidency must chafe the collective crotch of the anti-war left in this country.
Although his presidency will most likely stray hard left on social and economic issues, his foreign policy might actually end up being right of center.
To think, the hope for change among the anti-war community in this country was completely unfounded. To think, there might be a relatively similar foreign policy to the administration of George W. Bush. To think, the anti-war community has no friend in an Obama presidency. To think, all the anti-war movement was mere arm candy for Barack.
Only one word comes to mind:
Heartache.
Painful for them. But oh so sweet for me.
Hope eventually wears off, reality bites, and "change" can be changed itself.
By Conor Harrigan
Friday, November 28, 2008
What to be thankful for
I hope everyone had a lovely time feasting with family yesterday. And, I hope that some of you took seriously what I said about reflecting on what we have to be thankful for. Alas, everyday should be one in which we do a little thanksgiving.
Here is a piece from Cato Institute's David Boaz on why we should be particularly thankful as Americans. I think he says very well what most of us feel when we reflect for a short while.
What to Be Thankful For by David Boaz
Here is a piece from Cato Institute's David Boaz on why we should be particularly thankful as Americans. I think he says very well what most of us feel when we reflect for a short while.
What to Be Thankful For by David Boaz
Thursday, November 27, 2008
Much to Be Thankful For
It was a longstanding Thanksgiving tradition for my grandfather to make all the kids say what we were thankful around the dinner table. The tradition for us kids was to sing the praises of the many trivial things that amused us: television, video games, toys, etc. These kinds of answers must have certainly disappointed my grandfather and the rest of the elders, and so after more than a decade of failing to get thoughtful responses from us they just quit trying. In recent years, the Thanksgiving feast has commenced without any declarations of gratitude.
For a long time, I just saw this tradition as a nuisance, and until going off to college, I didn’t understand the purpose and importance of my grandfather’s question.
Like many other young people who have only ever known the comforts and pleasures of America’s prosperity, it rarely occurred to me that life should be any other way; that the life of man was “solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short,” for nearly the entirety of his existence and only very recently has he been able to escape that bleak and pitiful condition. I was equally unreflective of the fact that the way of life we enjoy in the United States is one that billions of people around the world dream of but do not enjoy themselves.
But things have changed. Now I marvel at and feel an overwhelming gratitude for things I gave little consideration to before; things that free us up from the exigencies of the human condition in ways our forebears could have never imagined. I am most impressed by very basic things like supermarkets, with their seemingly endless abundance of food, everyday of the year. Now we need not spend our days toiling to produce our own food. Similarly, we can drink clean water that comes to us at the simple turn of a faucet. Our rooms and buildings can be cooled, heated and illuminated at will.
Automobiles, buses, trains and planes enable us to move ourselves and our goods from place to place with great speed and convenience. The telephone, television, radio and computer have transformed our lives in innumerable ways and it is tough to think of life without them now. The ubiquitous ailments and pestilences of yore to which we were completely helpless and vulnerable have been subdued or eradicated thanks to the tremendous advances of modern medicine. Polio, smallpox, measles, tuberculosis be gone!
These are just the material things that make our lives much improved over those of our antecedents. As Americans, we must not forget how remarkable and improved our lives are by the ideas and government we have inherited from the men who established our great country. Blessed are we to live in a place founded on that self-evident truth “that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”
We are equally fortunate to live in a country in which liberty and self-government are most highly valued and are protected by the supreme law of the land. And so we can say what we want without fear of punishment. We can practice the religion of our choosing. We have the right to bears arms to guard against those who aim to do us harm and can count on the protection of our person and our property from our fellows and our government. Perhaps this doesn’t strike you as anything special, but when it is remembered that never before had a people been granted so much freedom, and also that in places all around the world today people are still not afforded the fundamental rights we take for granted, it is difficult to not feel a great deal of gratitude for our enviable circumstances.
Let me digress for a moment to respond to a criticism that might be made against what I have said so far. One could say that I have neglected the fact that here in the US, not everyone enjoys the things I say I am thankful for; that there are people who cannot just go into the supermarket, or who do not have homes or who cannot receive medical attention when they need it.
It would be insincere of me to deny that there are people who are not so fortunate right here at home, but it would be entirely false to say that America’s prosperity extends only to a small segment of society. On the contrary, it is undeniable that at no time in human history have so many people risen to the position of comfort, security and abundance that the American people as a whole have. And, in no other place and time has so much freedom and opportunity been extended to as many people as in the United States. Indeed, life for Americans with even the most modest means today in 2008 would be the envy of the nobility and aristocracy of centuries past.
Our current economic malaise has inspired much collective self-pity and lamenting, but such feelings are only possible when we dwell on the things we do not have and not on the things that we do. Because despite our present troubles, life is still much better than in most parts of the world and unequivocally better than it would have been in anytime before the recent past. This is why gratitude is important and why my grandfather tried to hard to teach us to feel it. Realizing the fragility of our prosperity and understanding that life could be far more harsh and unforgiving than it is for us in the United States in 2008 must make one feel a sense of contentment and blessedness for the way things are instead of a sense of resentment and dismay because of the way things are not. And, gratitude also compels us to use our resources and opportunities to their fullest extent instead of squandering them as if the good things we enjoy were universal and limitless. Finally, gratitude inspires us to work to extend the joys and pleasures of our own way of life to those who do not know it now or who have never known it.
These are the lessons my grandfather wanted me to learn by asking me to reflect on what I was thankful for.
This Thursday, before we dig into our turkey, I will tell my grandfather and the rest of my family what I have just told you. But I don’t want to do this alone, and so let me invite you to join me this Thanksgiving by telling your families what you are thankful for. And if you did not think you had anything to feel grateful for before, I hope that what I have said here will start you off on the right foot.
Happy Thanksgiving.
Alex Chamessian
For a long time, I just saw this tradition as a nuisance, and until going off to college, I didn’t understand the purpose and importance of my grandfather’s question.
Like many other young people who have only ever known the comforts and pleasures of America’s prosperity, it rarely occurred to me that life should be any other way; that the life of man was “solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short,” for nearly the entirety of his existence and only very recently has he been able to escape that bleak and pitiful condition. I was equally unreflective of the fact that the way of life we enjoy in the United States is one that billions of people around the world dream of but do not enjoy themselves.
But things have changed. Now I marvel at and feel an overwhelming gratitude for things I gave little consideration to before; things that free us up from the exigencies of the human condition in ways our forebears could have never imagined. I am most impressed by very basic things like supermarkets, with their seemingly endless abundance of food, everyday of the year. Now we need not spend our days toiling to produce our own food. Similarly, we can drink clean water that comes to us at the simple turn of a faucet. Our rooms and buildings can be cooled, heated and illuminated at will.
Automobiles, buses, trains and planes enable us to move ourselves and our goods from place to place with great speed and convenience. The telephone, television, radio and computer have transformed our lives in innumerable ways and it is tough to think of life without them now. The ubiquitous ailments and pestilences of yore to which we were completely helpless and vulnerable have been subdued or eradicated thanks to the tremendous advances of modern medicine. Polio, smallpox, measles, tuberculosis be gone!
These are just the material things that make our lives much improved over those of our antecedents. As Americans, we must not forget how remarkable and improved our lives are by the ideas and government we have inherited from the men who established our great country. Blessed are we to live in a place founded on that self-evident truth “that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”
We are equally fortunate to live in a country in which liberty and self-government are most highly valued and are protected by the supreme law of the land. And so we can say what we want without fear of punishment. We can practice the religion of our choosing. We have the right to bears arms to guard against those who aim to do us harm and can count on the protection of our person and our property from our fellows and our government. Perhaps this doesn’t strike you as anything special, but when it is remembered that never before had a people been granted so much freedom, and also that in places all around the world today people are still not afforded the fundamental rights we take for granted, it is difficult to not feel a great deal of gratitude for our enviable circumstances.
Let me digress for a moment to respond to a criticism that might be made against what I have said so far. One could say that I have neglected the fact that here in the US, not everyone enjoys the things I say I am thankful for; that there are people who cannot just go into the supermarket, or who do not have homes or who cannot receive medical attention when they need it.
It would be insincere of me to deny that there are people who are not so fortunate right here at home, but it would be entirely false to say that America’s prosperity extends only to a small segment of society. On the contrary, it is undeniable that at no time in human history have so many people risen to the position of comfort, security and abundance that the American people as a whole have. And, in no other place and time has so much freedom and opportunity been extended to as many people as in the United States. Indeed, life for Americans with even the most modest means today in 2008 would be the envy of the nobility and aristocracy of centuries past.
Our current economic malaise has inspired much collective self-pity and lamenting, but such feelings are only possible when we dwell on the things we do not have and not on the things that we do. Because despite our present troubles, life is still much better than in most parts of the world and unequivocally better than it would have been in anytime before the recent past. This is why gratitude is important and why my grandfather tried to hard to teach us to feel it. Realizing the fragility of our prosperity and understanding that life could be far more harsh and unforgiving than it is for us in the United States in 2008 must make one feel a sense of contentment and blessedness for the way things are instead of a sense of resentment and dismay because of the way things are not. And, gratitude also compels us to use our resources and opportunities to their fullest extent instead of squandering them as if the good things we enjoy were universal and limitless. Finally, gratitude inspires us to work to extend the joys and pleasures of our own way of life to those who do not know it now or who have never known it.
These are the lessons my grandfather wanted me to learn by asking me to reflect on what I was thankful for.
This Thursday, before we dig into our turkey, I will tell my grandfather and the rest of my family what I have just told you. But I don’t want to do this alone, and so let me invite you to join me this Thanksgiving by telling your families what you are thankful for. And if you did not think you had anything to feel grateful for before, I hope that what I have said here will start you off on the right foot.
Happy Thanksgiving.
Alex Chamessian
Monday, November 24, 2008
Why people do bad things, according to liberals
So I just came out of my weekly HON 401 class - Global Issues. I came in late, but today we were talking about torture. Near the end of the class we were given a mini-assignment. The question arose about whether President-elect Obama should continue working with Pakistan as an ally in light of reports of widespread physical abuse of Pakistani women. ( An article we read from the NYT time today by Nicholas Kristof. Here is a salient excerpt:
For the life of me, I couldn't believe that there was any question about what Barack Obama should do about this. Our professor asked us what we would say to Obama if we were his advisors. I was astonished that there was even any question about what Obama should do. This is the man who walks on water, can part the Red Sea, heal people with the gentle touch of his messianic hand. So the answer is pretty obvious - he should just sit down and talk with the Pakistani leaders and tell them it's time for change. How could anybody resist The One anyway? It's futile. Sorry guys, it doesn't matter what you've done for centuries. Obama says you must change, and you will. So there.
But, we pretended for a moment that Barack Obama were only a mortal and not the demi-god that he is and proceeded with the discussion. The consensus in the classroom seemed to be that, although such acts are deplorable, the US will act in its own interest, and if that means working with Pakistan to fight Al-Qaeda, so be it. To me, it's a matter of which of the possible outcomes is the least bad. In my mind, the circumstances for all Pakistanis, not just women, but their husbands, their brothers, their children and everyone else will be all the worse if Pakistan were overrun by al-Qaeda and its thugs. So it's a question of some women suffering abuse versus an entire country suffering because the US wanted to 'make a point' about human rights.
Someone picked up this quote in the Kristof piece:
The conversation then devolved into one about the causes of militancy, lawlessness and anti-Americanism. Most of the class agreed with the notion that would-be terrorists are compelled to violence and lawlessness not because of any kind of authentic hatred or animus but because it allows them to brutishly vent their frustrations about not having food, clean water, shelter, etc. Or, in the case of illiteracy and ignorance, the argument is that these people are not learned enough or wise enough to know right from wrong. I admit there is likely some truth to the notion that people's privations make them more desperate and therefore more disposed to doing whatever it takes to secure the necessities of life. But to give such primacy to people's material wants as the central impetus of human action is both false and dangerous. Just as when Obama made his infamous 'bitter' remarks to explain why people in small town America cling to guns, God and antipathy to outsiders, this tired liberal bromide presupposes that when people act badly, it's no fault of their own but is instead the fault of society, or institutions, or of external conditions or bad governance. In essence, poor people, uneducated people, rural people - in other words, barbarians in the world of the liberal - are exculpated for their sins because they were merely acting out in response to their destitution and ignorance.
The appeal of this model of social causation to libs is pretty evident, and it goes back to what Thomas Sowell's thesis about the two competing visions - the constrained and unconstrained. Liberals ultimately subscribed the latter and see human nature not as timeless and unchanging, but they see humans as ultimately perfectible, if only the wisest and most virtuous among us would show the rest of us benighted yokles the way. When it is thought that human failings are the product of bad institutions, bad governments, dysfunctional societies or poor living conditions, it follows that those human failings can be remedied simply by having the right people dream up a better scheme.
One new cabinet member, Israr Ullah Zehri, defended the torture-murder of five women and girls who were buried alive (three girls wanted to choose their own husbands, and two women tried to protect them). "These are centuries-old traditions, and I will continue to defend them," Zehri said of the practice of burying independent-minded girls alive.
For the life of me, I couldn't believe that there was any question about what Barack Obama should do about this. Our professor asked us what we would say to Obama if we were his advisors. I was astonished that there was even any question about what Obama should do. This is the man who walks on water, can part the Red Sea, heal people with the gentle touch of his messianic hand. So the answer is pretty obvious - he should just sit down and talk with the Pakistani leaders and tell them it's time for change. How could anybody resist The One anyway? It's futile. Sorry guys, it doesn't matter what you've done for centuries. Obama says you must change, and you will. So there.
But, we pretended for a moment that Barack Obama were only a mortal and not the demi-god that he is and proceeded with the discussion. The consensus in the classroom seemed to be that, although such acts are deplorable, the US will act in its own interest, and if that means working with Pakistan to fight Al-Qaeda, so be it. To me, it's a matter of which of the possible outcomes is the least bad. In my mind, the circumstances for all Pakistanis, not just women, but their husbands, their brothers, their children and everyone else will be all the worse if Pakistan were overrun by al-Qaeda and its thugs. So it's a question of some women suffering abuse versus an entire country suffering because the US wanted to 'make a point' about human rights.
Someone picked up this quote in the Kristof piece:
"Some worry that militants, nurtured by illiteracy and a failed education system, will overrun the country or that the nation will break apart."
The conversation then devolved into one about the causes of militancy, lawlessness and anti-Americanism. Most of the class agreed with the notion that would-be terrorists are compelled to violence and lawlessness not because of any kind of authentic hatred or animus but because it allows them to brutishly vent their frustrations about not having food, clean water, shelter, etc. Or, in the case of illiteracy and ignorance, the argument is that these people are not learned enough or wise enough to know right from wrong. I admit there is likely some truth to the notion that people's privations make them more desperate and therefore more disposed to doing whatever it takes to secure the necessities of life. But to give such primacy to people's material wants as the central impetus of human action is both false and dangerous. Just as when Obama made his infamous 'bitter' remarks to explain why people in small town America cling to guns, God and antipathy to outsiders, this tired liberal bromide presupposes that when people act badly, it's no fault of their own but is instead the fault of society, or institutions, or of external conditions or bad governance. In essence, poor people, uneducated people, rural people - in other words, barbarians in the world of the liberal - are exculpated for their sins because they were merely acting out in response to their destitution and ignorance.
The appeal of this model of social causation to libs is pretty evident, and it goes back to what Thomas Sowell's thesis about the two competing visions - the constrained and unconstrained. Liberals ultimately subscribed the latter and see human nature not as timeless and unchanging, but they see humans as ultimately perfectible, if only the wisest and most virtuous among us would show the rest of us benighted yokles the way. When it is thought that human failings are the product of bad institutions, bad governments, dysfunctional societies or poor living conditions, it follows that those human failings can be remedied simply by having the right people dream up a better scheme.
Thursday, November 6, 2008
Post-election blues?
I've calmed down quite a bit since Tuesday night. I don't really like Obama any better, but when I started thinking about what imperialistic, corporate tools the GOP has become I realized that we need a change of pace in the Whitehouse.
I have little doubt about the efficacy of free market ideals, as described by the Austrian school of economics, but at this point McCain has all but abandoned these ideals as well in his support of corporate welfare wall street bailouts. Since both candidates share this unacceptable monetary policy, its not like I had a better choice here on what's really the most important, and most invisible, problem facing the nation right now.
We'll see how it plays out, of course, but I have little doubt that the republican party will have to readopt true conservative ideals or people like Ron Paul and the liberty caucus will gut the party and return it to the small government principles which once made it great.
Meanwhile, I'll just have to remain critical of the Obama administration where criticism is due (and even praise when that's due) and use the platforms I'm lucky enough to have to get these important ideas out there (like the Patriot blog and newspaper as well my Statesman column).
Just because we have a big government democrat in the white house doesn't mean true free market conservatism and Austrian economic theory is dead... not by a long shot.
Just think about it. A few years ago, Ron Paul was a sole voice in congress preaching Austrian economics. After 60 years of being marginalized and ignored (and yet somehow getting re-elected again and again!) he finds himself surrounded by devoted followers... and not just stuffy intellectuals either. Thousands of real, hardworking, devoted people dedicated to getting more government out of our lives.
What right do I, having called myself a free market libertarian for little more than a year, have to get upset over one small election loss (which wasn't really a loss at all, considering we had no real options) when, for Dr. Paul, the future has never looked brighter for his ideology. To quote American Revolutionary War naval hero, John Paul Jones, when it comes to my defending and promoting my new found ideology, "I have not yet begun to fight."
I have little doubt about the efficacy of free market ideals, as described by the Austrian school of economics, but at this point McCain has all but abandoned these ideals as well in his support of corporate welfare wall street bailouts. Since both candidates share this unacceptable monetary policy, its not like I had a better choice here on what's really the most important, and most invisible, problem facing the nation right now.
We'll see how it plays out, of course, but I have little doubt that the republican party will have to readopt true conservative ideals or people like Ron Paul and the liberty caucus will gut the party and return it to the small government principles which once made it great.
Meanwhile, I'll just have to remain critical of the Obama administration where criticism is due (and even praise when that's due) and use the platforms I'm lucky enough to have to get these important ideas out there (like the Patriot blog and newspaper as well my Statesman column).
Just because we have a big government democrat in the white house doesn't mean true free market conservatism and Austrian economic theory is dead... not by a long shot.
Just think about it. A few years ago, Ron Paul was a sole voice in congress preaching Austrian economics. After 60 years of being marginalized and ignored (and yet somehow getting re-elected again and again!) he finds himself surrounded by devoted followers... and not just stuffy intellectuals either. Thousands of real, hardworking, devoted people dedicated to getting more government out of our lives.
What right do I, having called myself a free market libertarian for little more than a year, have to get upset over one small election loss (which wasn't really a loss at all, considering we had no real options) when, for Dr. Paul, the future has never looked brighter for his ideology. To quote American Revolutionary War naval hero, John Paul Jones, when it comes to my defending and promoting my new found ideology, "I have not yet begun to fight."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
