Caution: Do Not Over-Feed Government!
Get a high-resolution screensaver of this image. Click on the image below to open large version that you can download.
Tag: government
Undoubtedly, men have it easy in several ways that women do not. Take something only seemingly trivial: clothing.
When men need to dress to impress, the answer is simple: a suit. There is not really a lot of variety here, and little is required of a man in his choice of suit.
Women, on the other hand, do not have a business and formal occasion uniform to rely upon.
Instead, they have fashion.
Which is a whirl of constant change and a world of enervating expense.
I wouldn’t put up with it. But then, I’m a man. The modern dress suit was developed to meet men’s needs for functionality as well as excellence. And our need to not think hard on a matter of mere garment.
So it is with no small pleasure to read, in the Telegraph, of a professional woman who forswears fashion to wear just one design of clothing. “‘I can tell you the cashier in the store look[ed] pretty confused when I asked if she had 15 extra sets of the whole outfit,’ she jokes, ‘but all in all, choosing the uniform was a pretty pain-free process.’”
And the style choice seemed obvious: “I’ve always felt that black and white is a cool and classy look,” so that’s what she went with.
She made herself culturally equal with men. Took for herself a formerly all-male advantage. And she did not depend upon a man for that advance, he-for-she style.
And did not look to government.
This is the way forward.
This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.
The “unexpected” Donald Trump presidential victory has put the folks at The Gray Lady a bit out of sorts.
Heather Wilhelm at the National Review pokes and prods at the absurdities of the New York Times’s cultural cluelessness. And ably enough. So I’ll stick to The Times’s recent “six views” of America’s ideological divide:
Julie Turkewitz recognizes two well-insulated informational bubbles at play. Nothing too controversial — or very deep.
Campbell Robertson muses upon the dominance of the “elites” against which Trump’s insurgents rebel, noting that “the elites are the still the ones who get to decide who gets to be elite.”
Laurie Goodstein takes on religious culture, making much of divergent spiritual outlooks, left and right.
Julia Preston peers at immigration and the prospect of sending a message by building a “wall.”
In the manner of the other five, Sheryl Gay Stolberg digs up real-world people — as does our speechifier-in-chief, Barack Obama — to lightly probe questions of assimilation versus multiculturalism.
Manny Fernandez concludes with a (yawn) discussion of giving and taking offense.
They all miss the underlying structural basis for the divide.
On one side: folks working in the private sector — or local governments and charities, or at home — who have seen the world pass them by in terms of income and security.
On the other: government workers and consultants (and other college grads) who make more, on average, than their “real world” counterparts.
The latter has advanced as a class; the former remain in stasis . . . at best.
A mystery?
No — it’s the predictable result of what Thomas Jefferson called “the parasite institutions now consuming us.”
This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.
Original (cc) photo by diana MĂRGĂRIT at Flickr
“…the bogeyman government is like the bogeyman under the bed. It’s not real. It doesn’t exist.”
—Elizabeth Warren
Citation:
Is it odd to see government employees and politicians — public servants — hold onto particular laws with a death grip?
Maybe not. In Texas, municipal government employees have been working mightily to prevent citizens from repealing local ordinances. According to a report by WOAI News Radio, the Texas “State Senate Intergovernmental Relations Committee on Monday heard horror story after horror story from citizen groups which have tried to circulate petitions calling for repeal of local ordinances.”
It’s not shocking, I suppose, since those laws may give politicians and bureaucrats more power. And perhaps there’s pride of authorship.
But, despite any merit (or demerit) these laws may possess, public servants are still public servants, which means: serve the public.
Which means: uphold democratic processes.
Government is all about processes, really. This shouldn’t be too hard.
Which is why there’s no excuse for what has been going on:
- “municipal governments . . . employ ‘tricks’ and intimidation in an attempt to halt citizen petition drives”;
- they cite “bogus city ‘statutes’ which invalidate signatures”; and
- “will claim that more signatures are required than the citizens group has managed to collect.”
Basically, these government bodies are setting unreasonably high and arbitrary hurdles for petitions to get on the ballot — such as requiring “birth dates and Social Security numbers” of signers.
That often does the trick. One would have to be very careless to put one’s Social Security number onto a public document — one that anyone could see. And photograph.
For later nefarious use.
The fact that these government tactics are all illegal justifies the Senate committee probe into the malfeasance — and demands action.
This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.
Increasingly, folks in government balk at the commonsense requirement for transparency. They don’t like the basic idea of a republic, apparently — that we have rights; folks in government have duties. They are bound to serve us.
And allow us to oversee their work.
The latest bizarre attempt to wiggle out of transparency comes from California. A proposed bit of legislation, AB-2880, seeks to grant state employees copyright protection — for their everyday work as public servants.
“The bill claims to protect access to the documents through the California Public Records Act,” explains Steven Greenhut in The American Spectator, “but it gives the government the ability to control what people do with many of those records.” Emphasis added — to direct your attention to the enormity of the increase in government prerogatives.
Public records are called “public” not merely because they putatively serve the public, but because they are open to the public. Yet, if this measure passes, those records are essentially privatized . . . to the government.
That is not what we mean, usually, when we say “privatize.”
Using copyright law to protect “thin-skinned officials,” AB-2880 would insulate bureaucrats even further from citizen oversight.
The excuse for the law, to help agencies manage their “intellectual property,” is hardly a big concern, except perhaps in one way: trademark infringement. We do not want private businesses to pretend to be state parks or bureaus. But the overreach beyond this core issue goes so far into crazyland that one must question the intent behind it.
And stop it.
This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.
First… some definitions:
Socialism advocates the public ownership and control of business and industry in service of a more equal distribution of wealth.
“Democratic Socialist” Bernie Sanders places emphasis on redistribution and downplays the public ownership and control part of the system.
However… Bernie seems never to have met a government monopoly he didn’t love, or a private enterprise he didn’t distrust or despise. It’s the state for Bernie, and Bernie for the state.
What are the 9 dangers?
It normalizes envy.
It rationalizes theft.
It idealizes state power.
It penalizes accomplishment.
It rewards indolence.
It preaches obedience to the state.
It encourages dependence on the state by treating citizens as children.
It dismisses the protection of individual rights with a vague appeal to the “collective good” or “public good.”
It has repeatedly led to economic collapse, oppression, poverty and starvation.
So how have Scandinavian democratic socialists managed to avoid these dangers?
Quote from the current Prime Minister of Denmark:
“I know that some people in the US associate the Nordic model with some sort of socialism. Therefore I would like to make one thing clear. Denmark is far from a socialist planned economy. Denmark is a market economy.”
—Speech, Harvard Institute of Politics
From “Scandinavian Unexceptionalism” (from the Institute of Economic Affairs):
Today the Nordic economies are again growing, following a return to broadly free-market policies that served them well before policies changed during the 1960s and 1970s.
The countries are changing in the face of serious long-term problems that have developed over the last 30 years.
Finland, Sweden and Denmark have…introduced far-reaching market reforms. These changes include greater openness to trade, clear reductions in the tax burden, private provision of welfare services, the introduction of personal retirement accounts and, in Denmark, even a shift towards a liberal labour market.
—Scandinavian Unexceptionalism (highly recommended!)
And the moral hazards?
The development of Scandinavian welfare states has led to a deterioration in social capital.
Nordic societies have for hundreds of years benefited from a strong Lutheran work ethic, a strong sense of individual responsibility and high levels of trust and civic participation.
In the early stages of their transition to “democratic socialism”, safety nets did exist, but few used them. Over time, an increasing share of the population became dependent on government transfers. The welfare states moved from offering services to the broad public to transferring benefits to those who did not work.
The situation that exists in Nordic societies today is one in which ethics relating to work and responsibility are not strongly encouraged by the economic systems. Individuals with low skills and education have limited gains from working. This is particularly true of parents of large families, which gain extra support if on welfare.
It is true that welfare systems have reduced poverty. However, especially in the second generation, they have also created a form of social poverty of the same type that is apparent in the countries from which many of the admirers of the Scandinavian systems come. Detailed research clearly shows that welfare systems have formed a culture of dependency which is passed on from parents to children.
All of these problems are widely acknowledged by policy makers in the Nordic states. They are generally ignored by American enthusiasts for “democratic socialism.”
MUCH MORE HERE on the moral and economic capital that preceded the welfare state, and its gradual disintegration over time…
Do you believe that socialism is a good idea that has simply been corrupted by ruthless dictators? Consider the story of the Great Cultural Revolution. . . a mass movement of Chinese youth dedicated to eradicating capitalism and advancing socialism. Its bloody history tells us quite a lot about the logic of this flawed political philosophy. . . “Socialism’s Idealistic Youth”
Useful References
Scandinavian Unexceptionalism (Institute of Economic Affairs)
This paper is especially valuable because it was written by someone who actually favors a large welfare state. His willingness to concede the problems inherent in such a state are refreshingly honest… and useful for anyone interested in the issues.
What Can the United States Learn from the Nordic Model? (CATO Institute)
Myth: The Scandinavian countries are proof socialism works (Being Classically Liberal)
The Myth of the Scandinavian Model
Economic Freedom of the World: 2013 Annual Report
International government spending (Wikipedia)
Index of Economic Freedom (Heritage Foundation)
A healthy democracy depends on the spreading of good ideas. If you found this article useful, please share it with friends by clicking on any of the social media icons below.
Common Sense Needs Your Help!
Also, please consider showing your appreciation by dropping something in our tip jar (this link will take you to the Citizens in Charge donation page… and your contribution will go to the support of the Common Sense website). Maintaining this site takes time and money. Your help in spreading the message of common sense and liberty is very much appreciated!
When you systematically reward failure, incompetence and irresponsibility…what results should you expect?
QE – Toxic Asset Government Purchases
Click below to get a high resolution version of this image:
The biggest problem facing Americans? According to a Gallup poll, for the second year in a row, it’s our government.
Maybe I should say “the government.” Few think it represents us. Which is sort of a big problem for a representative government.
Presidential candidate Donald Trump says our leaders are “stupid.” Were that the case, it’d be easier to correct. The reality is worse.
We have an ethical problem in government. Those entrusted to represent us represent, instead, themselves. And their cronies. And special interests.
Charged with creating a level playing field where we can all succeed through hard work, our elected officialdom have tilted that field. Oh, they’re doing just swell. The rest of us? Not so well.
Elected officials from Washington to state capitols have hiked up their pay, finagled perks, per diems and other bennies, and rewarded themselves with lavish pensions. Meanwhile, most Americans lack even a 401K to help save for retirement, much less a pension beyond a meager (and politician-imperiled) Social Security safety net.
Transparency? Well, it’s not just Hillary Clinton who has conducted public business privately. Even with her scandal looming in the headlines, Defense Secretary Ash Carter confidently did likewise.
Let’s end pensions for politicians, nudging them to return to our world. And let’s change the rules so they work serving the public, not for private gain.
Can we count on our elected representatives to rectify their ethical lapses? Not on your life. We need to do it ourselves, using ballot initiatives to put ethics first.
This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.
Capitalism can be rigged a hundred different ways, apparently. China’s is run by its Communist Party, and even current innovations bear the stamp of the Party.
Take “social credit.”
Not the quaint decentralist economic reform movement that was a minor deal in politics on the West Coast of the U.S. and Canada 60 or more years ago.
What I’m referring to is the innovative credit scoring system devised by a gaming company in cooperation with China’s commie-run government.
But it’s not quite like the credit scoring systems set up by competing companies in the U.S., which cook up “credit scores” based on going into debt and paying off debt. If you pay your bills, you get a higher score. If you don’t, it plummets.
The new “Sesame” credit scoring system is less interested in the debts you pay off and more in what you buy and what you put up on social media. The company has concocted a secret algorithm, and gives higher scores to good citizens — obedient people — and lower scores to lazy people (inferred from, say, if you play a lot of video games) or to folks who are rebellious free thinkers (posting pictures of Tank Man in Tiananmen Square, for example).
That is what it seems like, so far.
It rewards those Chinese who are industrious (yay?) and who kowtow to Communist Party expectations (yikes!) — and makes me extra glad I live in the U.S., where government is too chaotic and stupid to cook up anything quite this insidious.
This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.
