I just blogged that there is no such thing as an American conservatism that is not libertarian. It is also true that the rights of people who believe in a literal interpretation of the Bible should be recognized and protected. Those who believe in secular humanism have no right to enforce their views on those who hold a contrary view. John Stuart Mill made these two points in On Liberty (I memorized them when I was a teenager):
"If all mankind minus one, were of one opinion, and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person, than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind...We can never be sure that the opinion we are endeavoring to stifle is a false opinion; and if we were sure, stifling it would be an evil still."
As much as this is true of opinion, it is even more true of religious belief. Those who believe in evolution have no right to stifle the beliefs of those who do not. That is not the job of education.
There is no reason for evolution to be taught in high school. The problem facing high schools is that the students do not learn the basic skills--reading, writing and arithmetic. They do not know history. They do not know civics. American education is a disaster area. Students graduate from high school without knowing how to multiply fractions. So why do the schools have time to teach the theory of evolution? Do they teach the theory of the evenly rotating economy of Ludwig von Mises? Do they teach Locke's ideas on natural rights?
No, they don't. They have plenty of time for failed, irrelevant, left-wing ideology in Karl Marx's Communist Manifesto but they do not have time for Locke or Smith. No set of ideas have been more wrong or more destructive than those of Karl Marx. Yet, the public schools in New York continue to teach Marx's ignorant fantasy.
Just why any high school needs to talk about the theory of evolution when they are graduating students who do not know how to multiply fractions is beyond me. Since the subject is offensive to many, it should be dropped. There is plenty of space in the court of public opinion to discuss Scriptural versus Darwinian ideas.
Secular humanism is bunkum.
Thursday, October 15, 2009
A Living Faith Does Not Need to Be Conserved
I have claimed that there is no such thing as American conservatism that is not libertarian. That is, the only possible kind of conservatism is one that aims to preserve institutions that protect liberty. A conservatism that claims to be cultural is either not American or not really conservative. The reason is that American institutions were started from scratch and had little to do with the Medieval approach to government that existed in England and Europe at the time of the colonies' founding. The Americans started their free market approach to political economy despite instructions from the British companies that funded them to do otherwise. They established churches that were frequently at odds with established religion in England and Europe. Theirs was not a traditionalist belief system but one based on living faith.
A living faith is NOT CONSERVATIVE. A direct belief does not require adherence to past tradition. It can, but it does not have to. Thus, anyone who claims that their faith is "traditional" either comes from a specific faith that is traditionalist or else lacks faith and simply mimics past practice in the name of tradition. The first is fine, the second seems weak kneed to me. In either case, people who believe these things cannot be said to be particularly American or to preserve American values any more than people to whom faith is revealed directly or who find a new faith.
It is the people of living faith and living ideas who are true Americans. Whether that faith is traditional is beside the point. But it is ONLY INSTITUTIONS THAT PROTECT LIVING FAITH that can be said to be truly American institutions. Enforced conservatism in faith is anti-American because it is anti-libertarian.
A living faith is NOT CONSERVATIVE. A direct belief does not require adherence to past tradition. It can, but it does not have to. Thus, anyone who claims that their faith is "traditional" either comes from a specific faith that is traditionalist or else lacks faith and simply mimics past practice in the name of tradition. The first is fine, the second seems weak kneed to me. In either case, people who believe these things cannot be said to be particularly American or to preserve American values any more than people to whom faith is revealed directly or who find a new faith.
It is the people of living faith and living ideas who are true Americans. Whether that faith is traditional is beside the point. But it is ONLY INSTITUTIONS THAT PROTECT LIVING FAITH that can be said to be truly American institutions. Enforced conservatism in faith is anti-American because it is anti-libertarian.
Thoughts on Health Reform
I just posted some thoughts on health reform on Raquel Okyay's blog.
Health care costs started going up within a decade after establishment of two government programs: Medicare and Medicaid. In the rest of the world government limits the amount of testing and the kinds of operations people can get. In America, socialists dominate the public health schools and the literature on health reform. They do not consider the effects of socialism on innovation and downplay the interaction of socialism and rationing.
1. Most medical innovation has occurred in the United States, which is also the only nation with anything resembling a free market in health care. If America goes the way of Europe, then what will happen to medical innovation world wide? This issue is not discussed in the academic literature on health reform, and no Democratic Party media has had the competence to ask this question.
2. Excessive use of health services is stimulated by tax exemption of health benefits. This is further magnified by government-paid benefits. Furthermore, third party payers and what economists call information asymmetries stimulate demand (that is, doctors demand excessive services because they are shielded from competition by government-enforced licensing that was established in the early twentieth century).
3. Health care is one of several government-dominated fields that have not globalized and so have had costs increasing more rapidly than general inflation. These include higher education and government services (including lower education) as well as health care. What does college tuition have in common with fixing your kid's broken arm? Both are prevented from being globalized by government regulation and both are dominated by government. As a result, both have rapidly escalating costs.
4. Health services can be globalized just like other products and services. An operation done in India or Mexico costs one tenth of what it costs here.
5. Many Americans are willing to pay 10% of gross national product to satisfy the narrow-minded, chauvinistic belief that American doctors are better than Indian doctors and so globalization of health services is an absurd idea. I disagree.
6. In my region and yours, Kingston, NY and New Paltz, NY, virtually all of the physicians were born in India, Arabia and other countries that are likely suspects for health care globalization. Hence, the chauvinism is based on illusion.
7. Globalized health care can be regulated through joint treaty. America's health providers are fully capable of developing quality systems equal to those in other industries such as Japanese car makers. If Toyota or General Electric can operate international organizations to capture low labor costs, why not hospitals?
8. The health care debate is fake. Since regulation and government programs cause rising costs, the debate starts from a false premise, that GOVERNMENT IS THE ALMIGHTY AND ETERNAL. Government-run health care is a reactionary concept. Free market health care is an innovative, radical concept.
9. There is no need for health reform if regulation is scrapped and health companies are freed to globalize as companies in low cost, high quality industries have and high cost, low quality organizations in education, government and health care have not.
So long as the American people prefer chauvinism and regulation over affordable health care, I have little to more say to them about this topic except, as in most every field, their discussion is nonsensical and conducted by a bird-brained, Democratic Party media.
And I am tired of being forced at gunpoint to conform to the crappy services and stupid ideas of the violent Democrats and Rockefeller Republicans. If they like crappy health care, why can't they buy their own instead of forcing me to participate?
Health care costs started going up within a decade after establishment of two government programs: Medicare and Medicaid. In the rest of the world government limits the amount of testing and the kinds of operations people can get. In America, socialists dominate the public health schools and the literature on health reform. They do not consider the effects of socialism on innovation and downplay the interaction of socialism and rationing.
1. Most medical innovation has occurred in the United States, which is also the only nation with anything resembling a free market in health care. If America goes the way of Europe, then what will happen to medical innovation world wide? This issue is not discussed in the academic literature on health reform, and no Democratic Party media has had the competence to ask this question.
2. Excessive use of health services is stimulated by tax exemption of health benefits. This is further magnified by government-paid benefits. Furthermore, third party payers and what economists call information asymmetries stimulate demand (that is, doctors demand excessive services because they are shielded from competition by government-enforced licensing that was established in the early twentieth century).
3. Health care is one of several government-dominated fields that have not globalized and so have had costs increasing more rapidly than general inflation. These include higher education and government services (including lower education) as well as health care. What does college tuition have in common with fixing your kid's broken arm? Both are prevented from being globalized by government regulation and both are dominated by government. As a result, both have rapidly escalating costs.
4. Health services can be globalized just like other products and services. An operation done in India or Mexico costs one tenth of what it costs here.
5. Many Americans are willing to pay 10% of gross national product to satisfy the narrow-minded, chauvinistic belief that American doctors are better than Indian doctors and so globalization of health services is an absurd idea. I disagree.
6. In my region and yours, Kingston, NY and New Paltz, NY, virtually all of the physicians were born in India, Arabia and other countries that are likely suspects for health care globalization. Hence, the chauvinism is based on illusion.
7. Globalized health care can be regulated through joint treaty. America's health providers are fully capable of developing quality systems equal to those in other industries such as Japanese car makers. If Toyota or General Electric can operate international organizations to capture low labor costs, why not hospitals?
8. The health care debate is fake. Since regulation and government programs cause rising costs, the debate starts from a false premise, that GOVERNMENT IS THE ALMIGHTY AND ETERNAL. Government-run health care is a reactionary concept. Free market health care is an innovative, radical concept.
9. There is no need for health reform if regulation is scrapped and health companies are freed to globalize as companies in low cost, high quality industries have and high cost, low quality organizations in education, government and health care have not.
So long as the American people prefer chauvinism and regulation over affordable health care, I have little to more say to them about this topic except, as in most every field, their discussion is nonsensical and conducted by a bird-brained, Democratic Party media.
And I am tired of being forced at gunpoint to conform to the crappy services and stupid ideas of the violent Democrats and Rockefeller Republicans. If they like crappy health care, why can't they buy their own instead of forcing me to participate?
Town Subsidies to Democratic Party Legal?
Dear Board of Elections;
I have a question. I am aware of a Town that provides in-kind benefits in the form of trash removal and police serving as labor for a Democratic Party fundraiser in the town. The Democratic Party holds an annual fundraising event and the Town pays police to entertain children. When other groups (such as the Republican Party) hold equivalent fundraisers (that are much smaller as the Democratic fundraiser is the largest event) they are charged for park cleanup and there are no services provided, but when the Democrats hold their fundraiser they are not charged, services are donated by the Town and the amounts are much larger into the thousands of dollars (whereas the other groups are small).
Is it legal for the Town to subsidize the Democrats and not the Republicans or anyone else?
Sincerely,
Mitchell Langbert
I have a question. I am aware of a Town that provides in-kind benefits in the form of trash removal and police serving as labor for a Democratic Party fundraiser in the town. The Democratic Party holds an annual fundraising event and the Town pays police to entertain children. When other groups (such as the Republican Party) hold equivalent fundraisers (that are much smaller as the Democratic fundraiser is the largest event) they are charged for park cleanup and there are no services provided, but when the Democrats hold their fundraiser they are not charged, services are donated by the Town and the amounts are much larger into the thousands of dollars (whereas the other groups are small).
Is it legal for the Town to subsidize the Democrats and not the Republicans or anyone else?
Sincerely,
Mitchell Langbert
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
