Making a Molehill out of Everest
As per usual, the Charlotte Observer [and media generally] proudly exclaims itself “Liberal” by focusing on the heart tugging objectives of the Nanny State without any serious consideration of HOW to meet those challenging goals successfully. Half a century of a “War on Poverty” has not ended poverty despite Billions being spent toward that end. The “War on Drugs [i.e. Vice]” began nearly a century ago with Prohibition, but it has succeeded only in world-leading incarceration rates and increasing the profits in a criminal black market. Government is also engaged in what will be an equally unsuccessful “War on Terror,” which continues to erode individual liberties and personal freedoms.
The liberal mind sees hope in the institution of government. Interestingly, there is a inexplicable faith that, through the “democratic” process, the collective wisdom of those seen as incapable of caring for themselves is somehow sufficient to develop an omniscient government. However, the only real hope of substantially improving one’s station in life rests with the specific individual. Rather than touting the equality of mediocrity, persons should be encouraged to leap over an increasingly lowered bar of “success.”
Without personal responsibility and self-reliance, no amount of government intervention will yield the desired returns. Inevitably, the misplaced confidence in government will result in more bloated bureaucracies, failed policies, and a bankrupt treasury. Not surprisingly, many liberal-minded persons feel accomplished in spending other people’s money and in telling other persons how those others should live their own lives. Such patronization infantilizes the populace and makes “the people” increasingly dependent on government. In this scenario, we the people become minions and indentured servants for the benefit of the state (i.e. collective).
More often than not, liberal policies are evaluated on good intentions rather than demonstrable results. A road paved only with good intentions leads to no place where anyone wants to be.
A reply to my comment on the Charlotte Observer website disparagingly referred to my comment above as being a la “Ayn Rand.” I did not take that comparison as an insult:
Your reply is styled as a criticism, but you go a long way toward proving my point. Liberals believe in a benevolent state, which is no more likely in the long term than is a perpetually benevolent dictator. After all, “Power corrupts , and absolute power corrupts absolutely.” The only way to avoid the oppression of the state is to restrict its powers. Should the state be sovereign, then whatever interest group (or aligned collection of the same) holds the reins of government at any particular moment will almost certainly use the compulsory and coercive powers of government to effect their self-interested aims. This is true regardless of whether those reins are alternately held by a dependent electoral majority or by a minority propertied class.
You are absolutely correct that “Republicans” have betrayed their “small government” platform, and they have proven repeatedly that they do not necessarily want less government, just government redirected in favor of their desired special interests. Similarly, “Conservatives” have sought to use government as an instrument to mold persons and peoples according to an image, which they believe suits them best. The proper role of government is to act as a shield in the protection of personal rights and individual liberties. Government (particularly at the federal level) has no legitimate authority to prohibit actions, which cause no material demonstrable harm to another person or his property, or to compel actions, which merely further supposed government efficiencies. Special interests groups (no matter the end of the political spectrum, on which that they sit) attempt to use government as a sword to impose their wills and whims on detractors and upon those with contrary beliefs or opinions.
Polarization in the current political climate is the direct result of all sides expressing beliefs and opinions as absolute fact. While their conclusions may be entirely accurate applied to them personally or applied to a specific set of circumstances, rarely can a collection of rules directing how one should best live his own life be applied across all of humanity. If society, in fact, could be engineered with such certainty and precision, that objective reality could be made evident to all and there would be little room for debate. Absent that consensus, the tenor of argument turns to what is “right.” In this case, objective “rightness” gives way to moral “(self-)righteousness.”
Citizens are implored to act not in their own best interests but in the best interests of others (i.e. the collective). This is entirely contrary to human nature, and the likelihood of an en masse conversion of humanity to this way of thinking is nil. When the flawed reasoning in favor of forced altruism is ineffective to cause consensus, government is turned to as the arbiter of what is “right.” With such decisions carrying the weight of law, proponents seek to use the power of government to command compliance or to punish those who fail to fall into line.
Many times, those wishing to compel contribution or to mandate (in-)action from others are not similarly burdened to contribute from their own wealth or to have their own actions restricted or compelled. Nothing limits the ability of any person to voluntarily contribute so much of his or her wealth and labors to the common good or to such charitable aims as he or she so desires. Warren Buffet complains that the “rich” do not pay enough taxes, but there is nothing whatsoever stopping Mr. Buffet, Mr. Gates, Ms. Winfrey, and the like from contributing some or all of their billions to fund the government dole. Despite their haughty words, I do not see them making the sacrifices, which they expect others to make.
I have no qualm with charity. It represents the outward manifestation of our love for our fellow man. It is among the better traits which define the “humaneness” among our species. However, forced altruism is not charity. It is conscription. Where there is no demonstrable reciprocal benefit to those, who are being commanded to contribute their wealth and labors to the “common good,” the act of taking those resources by force of law differs only in degree to the actions of the legendary Robin Hood, who stole from the rich to give to the poor. Thievery and extortion under the guise of state authority are no less contemptible and no less damnable. If the state and those wishing for the state to do their bidding cannot convince the reluctant converts of the “rightness” and “righteousness” of the proposed actions, those actions are not made “right” simply because they carry the sanction government. As for me, I would prefer a much less intrusive government, and the privilege of making self-directed contributions of my charity.
http://www.charlotteobserver.com/opinion/opn-columns-blogs/taylor-batten/article21108579.html
It would have been interesting to have a discussion on each one of the stated “beliefs.” Some points could be easily conceded or agreed by most persons. On many others, the “objective” may be deemed worthy, and agreement on the ideal could be easily reached. However, there likely would be passionate disagreements as to the means to satisfy certain objectives and perhaps even disagreement as to whether those objectives realistically could/should be met at all. This is particularly true to the extent that the primary means of satisfying those objectives would be the institution of government.
I have often said that the Liberal/Conservative/Libertarian arguments generally boil down to the level of confidence that any party places in government as an efficient, benevolent, and productive force. My preconceptions in that regard are obvious and admitted. I feel that I have millennia of history on my side and generations of human behavior supporting my positions. In many cases, I would like to be wrong. I would like to believe in a Utopia. Unfortunately, I believe that in journeying toward that mirage many persons will needlessly perish in the wastelands.
With the opportunity of great reward, comes those who are willing to take great risks in order to achieve that reward. It is this risk/reward dichotomy, which defines economic markets and dictates human behaviors. Some persons are more risk averse and choose to remain in the relative safety of the nest. Other persons are not content with their possessions and accomplishments, and these persons strive to attain and do more. The greater the risk the greater the potential reward, but also the greater the potential for loss. However, if you eliminate the risk, you eliminate the premium attached to the value of the act. What is life without a sense of accomplishment or without the satisfaction of self-sufficiency?
Some may argue that living in a subsistence state should be its own reward and that the only contribution required of one to enjoy being maintained in that state is to exist. However, most persons want more out of life that mere subsistence, and those, who commit themselves to being productive, prosperous, and yes, profitable, are often reluctant to contribute to those, who are less inclined to utilize the talents and resources available to them in order to improve their own stations in life. Certainly, we can haggle about providing for the “truly needy,” but an entitlement mentality and growing welfare state have expanded that class of “needy” to include nearly every person.
I have no principled objection to entitlement programs (e.g. Social Security, Medicare, Obamacare, etc.) if such programs encouraged persons to make productive use of their resources and utilized economies of scale in order to assure benefits to recipients. However, no one today buys the argument that everyone gets back “his” Social Security or “her” Medicare contributions. These are among the government programs, which are unabashed wealth redistribution programs. Redistribution in itself gives rise to a principled objection from many; however, the biggest problem is that these government-sponsored Ponzi Schemes are destined to fail (as currently structured).
The numbers simply do not work. The U.S. is quickly approaching $20 TRILLION in National Debt [now $30 Trillion], and interest accruals on that debt soon will likely exceed $1 TRILLION annually [were it not for artificially restrained interest rates]. Even so, the entitlement programs are running headlong toward insolvency. Throw on top of that Obamacare, which will almost certainly morph into a single-payer healthcare system a la the V.A., plus everyone’s favorite pet project and sacred cow, and all of this is without even considering the additional Trillions needed for infrastructure improvements.
The total unfunded obligations of governments at all levels (i.e. federal, state, and local) exceed $100 TRILLION. Despite being thoroughly castigated for his “47%” comment, Gov. Mitt Romney was right that only half of Americans contribute appreciably toward the much touted “Common Good,” and it is from these propertied classes that any new or additional revenues must come. Even among that half, the financial burden is skewed very disproportionately toward the infamous “One Percent.” No matter how envious and covetous we may be toward their wealth, the golden goose eventually cannot lay enough eggs.
Mt. Everest was not conquered by leveling the mountain in order to make its peak more reachable. It was conquered by one man’s passion to reach the top. He blazed a trail for others to follow. Why does one climb a mountain? “Because, it’s there.” Why does one rise to meet the challenges of life? “Because, it’s the only life that each of us has.”
As difficult as the journey may be, I believe that it is best to be honest about the perils and to insist that each person plan and act accordingly. This will not assure that persons do not suffer loss, and some may even perish along the way. In the face of such dangers, some persons having learned of the risks will choose not to undertake the journey. Nevertheless, some of those who work hard, plan well, and commit to the journey will eventually reach the “Promised Land.”
Many may envy their accomplishments and covet the plenty, which they enjoy, but their successes should not be cause for rebuke. In arguing either that the risks undertaken or the rewards received are too great, the end result could likely be that those, who may normally rise to the challenge, would not do so. It may be that others may respond by rising to meet lesser challenges. Collectively, this may be enough. Society may be initially content reaching a level plateau, but contentment quickly wanes. Without some challenge or additional opportunity, dissatisfaction becomes infectious.
I found this story interesting:
The debate around ethics on Everest has raged since 2006, when an estimated 40 climbers passed a dying British mountaineer, David Sharp, without stopping. A week later a US climber, Don Mazur, and his team gave up their own summit bid to co-ordinate the rescue of an abandoned Australian, Lincoln Hall. He survived. … That is what happened when Leanna Shuttleworth, 19, and her father Mark headed for the 29,035 ft. summit on May 19–20. Up to 200 others had the same idea; six of them lost their lives. “There were quite a few bodies attached to the fixed lines and we had to walk round them,” Shuttleworth said later. “There were also a couple who were still alive.” Shuttleworth describes coming across one man who she assumed had perished. “As we passed he raised his arm and looked at us,” she said. “He didn’t know anyone was there. He was almost dead. He was dead when we came back down.” Their sherpa did manage to help one of the people they found who was still alive.
http://www.theguardian.com/world/shortcuts/2012/may/28/mount-everest-ethical-dilemma
This ethical dilemma is not dissimilar to the decision of an entrepreneur or corporate CEO climbing the ladder of success. In reaching the top, he will have to step around, over, and on several persons. Some of us refuse to participate in the “rat race.” Others of us choose to forego personal opportunity in order to help others or to keep them from slipping from a rung. Most persons realize that in reaching down to help others or in carrying others on our backs, they will likely tire before reaching the top. Such personal sacrifice while commendable should be voluntary.
Some of us stay home and never climb the mountain. Such persons enjoy the safety of home, but they never have the sense of conquering the mountain. Some persons accept the challenge, and in doing so will suffer loss, perhaps death. No one “has” to climb the mountain. So, each climb is arguably a vain and selfish act. Few of us would chastise the person, who stayed home rather than face the risk of death. Fewer still will know the sense of accomplishment and satisfaction from reaching the ultimate peak not only of the mountain, but also of our chosen professions or in any other aspect of our lives. Only those who followed their passions, planned properly, and committed themselves to the trek can reach the summit.
Those of us, who choose to enjoy the comforts of home, should certainly not be heard to say that a climber should have risked himself to help another. From the comforts of an easy chair, such persons were never in a position to make that decision; therefore, they cannot say what decision they would have made. We should be similarly reluctant to tell the “rich” or “privileged” how they should live their lives. We do not know the efforts, challenges, and sacrifices, which they made to get to that point. Similarly, we should have no more right to demand a share of their largesse than the right to share in the accolades for their having reached the summit of their chosen mountain.
We can certainly debate the finer points of ethics and morality in deciding what “should” be done, but much legislation today is an effort to codify morality (e.g. alms to the poor, sanctity of marriage, life at conception, etc.). The finer points of morality cannot be legislated any more than one can be commanded by statute to be a “good person.”
“Good” by whose definition? Where reasoned minds can disagree as to the propriety, much less the “morality,” of a given action, wouldn’t it be best for government not to take sides?
If the decision is truly based upon sincerely-held belief and/or it is reasonably defensible, should it be expected that the opponent of the act will simply acquiesce and submit to the required action simply because a bare majority (or worse a controlling minority) disagrees with him? Or, is such a person reasonably entitled, if not personally obligated, to do everything in his power to thwart the action against which he sincerely objects and opposes (and which infringes upon his individual liberties)? Is one entitled to live his own life for the benefit of himself, or is he an indentured servant to the collective?
I am of the opinion that if government avoided “close calls” and stayed out of the “morals” business, then the business of government would be much more efficient and less problematic. Similarly, if persons found themselves responsible for their own lives, they would be more inclined to be self-sufficient rather than generationally dependent. After all, necessity is the mother of invention.
That is not to say that some will not become lost or fall by the wayside. Some of those will be helped or guided along the way by fellow travelers. However, my fear is that government in the interest of “fairness” and “safety” will require that everyone remains tethered to each other. While this may seemingly provide safety, the detriments are twofold:
First, it may be that those, who could have reached the eventual destination cannot because they were held back by group. Second, one or more persons may fall or take the others down an errant path, and all may perish.
Ultimately, the issue may be as simple as whether one prefers to travel among the herd or chooses the road less traveled.
[NOTE: Originally written May 21, 2015.]
