The Smallest Minority on earth is the individual. Those who deny individual rights cannot claim to be defenders of minorities. – Ayn Rand
Quote of the Day – Economic Edition
“The stimulus is what’s toxic — we’re poisoning ourselves and the global economy with it.” — Peter Schiff, president of Euro Pacific Capital, quoted in the New York Post‘s piece, Dollar loses reserve status to yen & euro
More evidence of Tough History Coming.
Normally I don’t comment over at Markadelphia’s blog. He does enough of that here, but yesterday I couldn’t resist. Read his very short post, Yep.
I was the first to comment:
Great! Let him and his organization provide that coverage, and let’s see how long he and his organization stay in business.
Health care is not a RIGHT.
There were, of course, responses to that, but here’s the one I’m going to respond to with an Überpost:
blk said…
From the preamble to the Constitution:
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
A basic education is a right in this country. It wasn’t always. Most people would agree that protection by the fire and the police departments is a right. It wasn’t always that way.
Why isn’t health care a right? What else would promote the general Welfare of our population than ensuring that everyone has a long and healthy life? What could be more Just than making sure that every child, worker and elderly person can see a doctor when they’re sick?
National health care would promote domestic Tranquility by giving everyone peace of mind, knowing that if their kid comes down with some awful disease they can get treatment. If you have cancer, the emergency room just ain’t gonna cut it.
To enjoy the Blessings of Liberty you have to be alive. Many people die in this country because they don’t have health care.
We are a rich country. As we’ve become wealthier and as technology and science have advanced the notion of what is a right has changed. Now that we can afford them, education, police and fire protection are rights. The way health care costs are exploding, we are going to go bankrupt. We have to change the way the system works to reign in costs. By covering everyone we can make it cheaper for each person. When everyone is covered and everyone is paying, we’ll finally have the leverage we need to prevent the explosive rise in costs.
That will mean squeezing out unnecessary middlemen who get between you and your doctor. The most expensive and least useful middlemen are insurance industry execs. By eliminating them we can squeeze literally billions of dollars from health care overhead (health care company execs pull in salaries, bonuses and options in the range of tens of millions, to hundreds of millions to a billion dollars).
Where to begin? Why, at the beginning!
A basic education is a right in this country. It wasn’t always.
No, indeed it was not. Back when I started this blog, one of the very first posts I published was an essay entitled What is a “Right”? That essay has, over the years, drawn a lot of commentary and inspired a six-part exchange with a professor of mathematics on just that very topic. (Check the left sidebar if you want to read the whole discussion. I recommend it.) The original essay was written to win me a year’s membership at AR15.com, and that contest required that I limit myself to, I think, 800 words, but the core point of the essay was this:
A “right” is what the majority of a society believes it is.
That’s the pragmatist in me coming out. What people believe is a “right” they will agitate for and defend against encroachment. Conversely, if they don’t believe, they won’t defend. Is universal education really a “Right”? Philosophically, no, it’s not, but we’ve had it hammered into us for so long the majority believes it is. They believe that it is the job of the government to educate our children to the point that many parents no longer take any responsibility for that education on themselves, and don’t pay any attention to what their children learn (or don’t) while those children spend six to eight hours a day under the control (or not) of our public education system.
I’ll come back to that.
Most people would agree that protection by the fire and the police departments is a right. It wasn’t always that way.
Obviously I’m not “most people.” I know better. I’ve lived where residents had to pay a local private fire company to get them to come to their homes if there was a fire. If they chose not to pay, the firefighters could choose not to come. Or if they did, the homeowner would get a big damned bill for their appearance afterward that would represent a lot more than a few years of subscription to their services. If the homeowner chose not to pay that bill, they’d be taken to court.
Does that sound like a “right”?
I also understand that I have no “right” to police protection. That happens to be just one of many reasons I’m an activist for the right to arms. As I said, I’m a pragmatist. I try to deal with the way the world works rather than how people think it ought to be. And given your assertion that police protection is a “right,” you ought to read both pieces of that essay. You might be surprised.
Why isn’t health care a right? What else would promote the general Welfare of our population than ensuring that everyone has a long and healthy life? What could be more Just than making sure that every child, worker and elderly person can see a doctor when they’re sick?
Let’s take these one at a time, because they’re not a set. This is a textbook example of argumentum ad consequentiam – the proposition that belief in X will lead to good consequences, therefore X is good.
Why isn’t health care a right? For the same reason having a fire engine show up at your door in the event of a fire isn’t a right – it demands that someone else do something for you. One thing I try to do with this blog is make sure that if someone can say something better than I can, I let them. Let me quote Dr. Pat Santy, a psychologist and MD on the topic:
Let me be clear. I don’t believe that people have a “right” to health care; because, what advocating such a “right” basically means is that you believe you have a “right” to my mind; you have a “right” to my professional competence; i.e., you have a “right” to enslave me.
In that six-part series on ‘What is a “Right”?’, I concluded that there is only one fundamental right, and all others are corollaries of it, but one defining factor is that YOUR rights end when they require DEMANDING something of another. That’s the idealist in me.
And I’m able to tell the difference between idealism and pragmatism.
What else would promote the general Welfare of our population than ensuring that everyone has a long and healthy life? Excuse me? Everyone? What do you do with the chronically ill? The disabled? The terminally ill? Define “long” and “healthy.” Who gets to be the arbiter of what is and what isn’t a “long and healthy life”? You? Or some bureaucrat? You’re postulating a utopian outcome as achievable fact when it is obviously fantasy.
What you’re doing is appealing to emotion: “Wouldn’t it be wonderful…” Why yes, it would. But back to reality. Life doesn’t work that way, Sparky. Some people get roses, some get fertilizer. Wishing it weren’t so won’t make it not so. If you are incapable of dealing with what is, you shouldn’t be advocating change.
What could be more Just than making sure that every child, worker and elderly person can see a doctor when they’re sick? And they can’t? This is Argumentum ad Misericordiam – the appeal to pity. Let me quote the author of the blog Bloodletting, an up-and-coming doctor now doing his residency training, from a post he wrote in 2004 back when Bush was pushing for expanded Medicare drug prescription entitlements. Fisking Nancy Pelosi’s response to a Bush speech:
HEALTH CARE AND MEDICARE PRESCRIPTION DRUGSThird, our “opportunity society” is built on the belief that affordable, available health care is not a luxury, but a basic foundation of a truly compassionate society. [OK, now we are going to get into the real nitty-gritty about the difference between “want” and “need.” Healthcare is denied to nobody. NOBODY. Nobody is denied a ferrari, either, but most people do not want to spend the money on one.]
This is from a man in the system, providing that care – what Markadelphia calls “a primary source.” And let’s stop playing semantic games. What you’re advocating is universal health care insurance – the method of paying for health care. If health care is a right, why should anyone have to pay? What we’re debating about here is the level of that care and its cost. I’ll come back to this, too.
Next up, National health care would promote domestic Tranquility by giving everyone peace of mind, knowing that if their kid comes down with some awful disease they can get treatment. If you have cancer, the emergency room just ain’t gonna cut it. I’m tempted, but let’s wait until I come back to the “level of care” question.
To enjoy the Blessings of Liberty you have to be alive. Many people die in this country because they don’t have health care. No, they may die because they don’t have sufficient or sometimes competent health care, but health care is available. If you’re deathly ill and call 911, an ambulance will come, an EMT will examine you, you will be transported to a hospital, and (assuming you live long enough) you will get looked at by a doctor, and probably admitted somewhere. Might be a crappy hospital, might not be enough to save you, but it’s a lot more than our Founders got when they wrote the Constitution you quoted.
Now to the meat of it.
We are a rich country. Well, I’d say we were a rich country, but not any more. You are aware of the thing called “the national debt”? As of Monday the Treasury reports that our national debt was $11,919,879,121,739.54. That’s $11.9 trillion dollars. That’s the total of what the government has spent in excess of its income and not paid off. Per the CIA World Factbook the 2008 US GDP – defined as “the sum value of all goods and services produced in the country valued at prices prevailing in the United States” – was $14.26 trillion. On Sept. 30, 2008 (end of the 2008 fiscal year) the national debt was $10,024,724,896,912.49. According to this site, the total federal income in 2008 through taxes, fees, etc. was $2.524 trillion, or a mere 17.7% of GDP, and each and every year our federal government spends several hundred billion dollars more than it takes in – thus making the national debt ever larger.
Are we a “wealthy nation” or are we a debtor nation, living on money we don’t have? Could you run your household that way? Can you spend, each and every year, more money than you earn, borrowing to make up the difference? EVERY year? Do you owe more than five times your annual income to creditors?
As we’ve become wealthier and as technology and science have advanced the notion of what is a right has changed. That’s the only thing you’ve said that I agree with without reservation. We certainly have “advanced the notion,” but that doesn’t change the reality. As we’ve changed the notion of what is a right, we’ve spent ourselves into the poor house. “Entitlement” spending – and “health care” is just an expansion of entitlement spending – makes up about 45% of the federal budget now. (PDF)
Now that we can afford them, education, police and fire protection are rights. Really? Police protection isn’t a right. The courts say so. Fire protection isn’t a right. Education isn’t a right either, but I will agree that the majority certainly believes that it is.
But can we still “afford” it? I invite you to read The George Orwell Daycare Center. Pack a lunch.
The way health care costs are exploding, we are going to go bankrupt. Regardless of what health care costs do, we are going bankrupt. All you have to do is look at the numbers to see that.
We have to change the way the system works to reign in costs. Who’s this “we”? You want the government to do it, no? An army of bureaucrats appointed by our elected officials. Lots of GSA employees with great benefit packages, administering health care claims or monitoring those evil health insurance companies to ensure no one (especially Uncle Sugar) gets ripped off?
By covering everyone we can make it cheaper for each person. Really? Show me the data. Then explain, using small words, why a healthy 25 year old should be made to pay for the dialysis of an 86 year old (s)he has never met and will never meet? Explain to me how making that healthy 25 year old pay will make it cheaper for him/her.
When everyone is covered and everyone is paying, we’ll finally have the leverage we need to prevent the explosive rise in costs. Again, really? Everyone? So you’re going to make the poor pay too? I thought the deal was to cover everybody including those who can’t pay. Who picks up their tab? I’ve heard various numbers bandied about, but we’ll use 47 million, since that seems to be a popular number. You honestly are going to tell me that adding 47 million people to the health care system is going to make it work better? That it’s going to reduce costs? How long does it take for you to get an appointment with your regular doctor, and when you go, how long do you spend in that doctor’s actual presence? You’re playing in fantasy-land again. It sounds wonderful, but it doesn’t pass the smell test.
That will mean squeezing out unnecessary middlemen who get between you and your doctor. And here we go. Who decides who is “unnecessary”? And won’t this add to unemployment? Why do those “unnecessary middlemen” exist in the first place? How about this example: What if lawyers had to bill like doctors do? (Stolen without shame from Dr. Westby G. Fisher, MD.)
Beginning July 1, 2010, under the Legal Billing Obfuscation Act of 2009, lawyers will receive their payments for services rendered after approval by a central US government Payment Distribution Authority (USPDA). To receive payment from the Authority plaintiff and defendant complaints must be coded and filed electronically using the International Classification of Legal Complaints, 10th edition (ICLD-10), copyright © 2009, American Bar Association and Legal Proceeding Terminology (LPT) codes, copyright © 2009 American Bar Association. The full publication of each of these codes will be available in print March 1st 2010 and in electronic form on DVD in July 2011.
To familiarize lawyers with the new coding scheme requested by the USPDA, a small sample for the complaint of “Spilling” is shown below:
- Spilling 200
- Spilling, Water – 210
- Spilling, Water, Hot – 211
- with blisters 211.1
- without blisters 211
- Spilling, Water, Warm – 212
- Spilling, Water, Cold – 213
. . .
- Spilling, Coffee – 240.1
- Spilling, Coffee, Hot – 240.11
Spilling, Coffee, Hot, With Cream only – 240.12
- with blisters – 240.121
- without blisters 240.122
- Spilling, Coffee, Hot, With Regular Milk only – 240.13
- Spilling, Coffee, Hot, With 2% milk only – 240.14
- Spilling, Coffee, Hot, With Skim Milk – 240.15
- Spilling, Coffee, Hot, With Soy milk only 240.16
- Spilling, Coffee, Hot, With Sugar only – 240.17
Spilling, Coffee, Hot, With Artificial Sweetner (of any type, including, but not limited to Nutrasweet, Splenda, Sweet ‘n Low) – 240.18
- Spilling, Coffee, Hot, With Cream and Sugar 240.16
. . .
Pairing of improper complaint codes with legal proceeding codes will result in non-payment. “Up-coding” of legal proceedings shall constitute grounds for prosecution with some additional fines imposed by the IRS, as determined by the Office of Health and Human Services. For instance, pairing a legal complaint of “Spilling, Coffee, Hot, with blisters” to and of those of Divorce, same gender, living apart, male (or female) (shown below) will result in non-payment.
- Divorce: 100-199
- Between husband and wife 100.1
- Between same gender couple, living together, male, 100.011
- Between same gender couple, living together, female, 100.012
- Between same gender couple, living apart, male, 100.021
- Between same gender couple, living apart, female, 100.022
. . .
Valid code pairings for spillage include Accident codes (0010-0059), Assault codes (4400-4499), or Battery codes (5500-5599) provided documentation supports the requests for payment.
You’re talking about adding another layer of government oversight to a system already buried under paperwork. You won’t be “squeezing out unnecessary middlemen,” you’ll be replacing them with government drones. Yet you think that will make the system more efficient?
What planet do you live on, because it isn’t mine.
And, finally: The most expensive and least useful middlemen are insurance industry execs. By eliminating them we can squeeze literally billions of dollars from health care overhead (health care company execs pull in salaries, bonuses and options in the range of tens of millions, to hundreds of millions to a billion dollars). Ah, yes: Argumentum ad Invidiam, the appeal to envy.
Total health care expenditures in fiscal year 2009 are estimated to reach $2.5 trillion, according to the National Coalition on Health Care. (Edit: Did, in fact, reach $2.6 trillion in 2009 according to this site.) According to Crooks and Liars, the compensation of the top 10 highest-paid insurance company CEOs totals out to $85,429,970. Assuming the top 100 insurance company executive’s compensation is ten times that amount, you’re still looking at less than a billion dollars total. Hell, lets assume that the top 1,000 is 100 times that amount, you’re looking at $8,542,997,000 You’re talking about cutting – at most – 0.3% of total expenditures, even if you don’t include what the government employees that replace them will cost.
Whoopee-fucking-doo.
Halving total health care expenditures would increase that savings to a whopping 0.6%! Be still my beating heart! But by G*d those greedy fucking fat-cat executives won’t have three vacation homes!
You believe that everyone should have a right to health care. How noble of you! Another example of self-congratulations as a basis for social policy. You asked, What could be more Just than making sure that every child, worker and elderly person can see a doctor when they’re sick? You’re concerned about Justice? OK, here are some questions for you: How much health care is “Just”? Who decides, and on what basis? Is it “Just” that someone who can afford to pay gets more care than someone who would be dependent on government provided insurance alone? Or do we “level the playing field” and require everyone to accept the same level of care? Would that be “Just”? Or should everyone get every single bit of care that modern medical science can provide? What would that do to the costs you’re so concerned about?
Here’s the deal, from my perspective. The government does only two things well: nothing, and overreact. (Thank Congressman Adam Putnam for that pithy observation.) You want the federal government, which took in only $2.54 trillion last year, to expand by another $2.5 trillion, and you expect me to believe that it will do better than what we have now. You honestly expect me to believe that the federal government, currently responsible for the administration of Public Education, Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, will run America’s health insurance system better?
Go ahead, pull my other leg. And read today’s Quote of the Day.
Don’t deny that what you are advocating is the doubling of the amount of money flowing through Washington D.C. You hold up Education, Policing, and Fire Protection as equivalent “rights” yet all those are all paid for through taxation. You claim that the U.S. is a “rich nation,” yet you ignore the fact that at our current level of national debt, every man, woman, and child in the country is on the hook for over $39,000 to pay off that debt – far more, in fact, since we’re doing it on time and paying interest.
Do you have a spare $39k laying around? I don’t know about you, but my VISA card limit is pretty far below that, and I don’t think I could float a loan for it, either. And if 47 million people can’t pay for health insurance, how many can pay their portion of the national debt?
You’ve interpreted the Preamble of the Constitution to require the federal government to do a lot of different things. You’re hardly alone. FDR put forth the idea of an Economic Bill of Rights that I’m sure you’d love, but have you read the rest of the original document? It’s quite short. As P.J. O’Rourke put it,
The U.S. Constitution is less than a quarter the length of the owner’s manual for a 1998 Toyota Camry, and yet it has managed to keep 300 million of the world’s most unruly, passionate and energetic people safe, prosperous and free.
That document spells out, with brevity and clarity, how the federal government is arranged, how it is to be staffed, and what the powers of each branch are and are not. As you’ve noted, the public’s perception of what are and aren’t “rights” has certainly changed over the years, and I put the blame – yes, blame – on our education system. The founding documents of our nation were based on the idea of limiting how much government could do, both for us and to us, yet we’ve been taught for decades that it’s the job of government to take care of us, that only government is big enough to do certain jobs, that we’re not qualified to do things for ourselves. In fact, we should be actively discouraged from doing so.
Alexis de Toqueville wrote long ago, “The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public’s money.” Congress discovered that little trick some time back, and the bill is now coming due.
And that’s brought us to where we are today, $14-plus trillion in the hole and digging ever faster. Yet you and millions like you want us to redouble our digging in the name of “Social Justice!”
No, health care is not a right. Fire protection is not a right. Police protection is not a right. And pretty damned soon if we don’t get our shit in one sock and our heads on straight with the nose in front, just living is going to become damned difficult because Reality won’t be ignored forever.
And I guess I’m just not human for realizing and articulating that fact.
(Ah, well, only 3,500 words or so in this one. I may be losing my touch.)
UPDATE: Marko writes on the specifics of why health care is not a right. It is, typical of Marko, crystal clear and precise.
And the Dominoes Continue to Fall
In a graphic illustration of the new world order, Arab states have launched secret moves with China, Russia and France to stop using the US currency for oil trading
In the most profound financial change in recent Middle East history, Gulf Arabs are planning – along with China, Russia, Japan and France – to end dollar dealings for oil, moving instead to a basket of currencies including the Japanese yen and Chinese yuan, the euro, gold and a new, unified currency planned for nations in the Gulf Co-operation Council, including Saudi Arabia, Abu Dhabi, Kuwait and Qatar.
Secret meetings have already been held by finance ministers and central bank governors in Russia, China, Japan and Brazil to work on the scheme, which will mean that oil will no longer be priced in dollars.
The plans, confirmed to The Independent by both Gulf Arab and Chinese banking sources in Hong Kong, may help to explain the sudden rise in gold prices, but it also augurs an extraordinary transition from dollar markets within nine years.
RTWT.
Gold prices should continue to climb . . .
UPDATE: This is interesting – Whodunit? Sneak attack on U.S. dollar. RTWT, too. Did we just get played?
Our currency is tanking. Our debts are climbing. Our energy needs are breaking us. Our borrowing is out of control. The country is divided in a 1859/1968 mode. And the world is smiling as Obama, now hesitant and without the old messianic confidence, presides over our accepted inevitable decline. The country needs to buck up and meet these challenges head on, since the world smells blood, whether in Iran, Russia, the Mideast, North Korea, or South America, and in a mere 9 months of the reset button.
– Victor Davis Hanson, Works and Days, Change and Hope
This sh!t is really starting to worry me.
The Things Worth Believing In
In relation to my two recent posts, Restoring the Lost Constitution and Entropy Happens, I was reminded of an überpost I wrote almost three years ago, The United Federation of Planets. That post begins with a quote from a movie. Here it is on YouTube:
[youtube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E2MWKaDHUNs&hl=en&fs=1&rel=0&w=640&h=505]
You might find that old post interesting in relation to the two new ones . . .
Can we?
Don’t doubt that it’s been lost. A while back I struggled through Randy Barnett’s Restoring the Lost Constitution: The Presumption of Liberty, a college-level text on that subject. Barnett thinks we can, but first he spends some time detailing how we went from, in his words, “islands of government power in a sea of liberty” to the exact opposite – sinking islands of liberty in an ever-expanding sea of government power. For Barnett, a law professor, the changes are viewed through a narrow lens – that of legislation and court decisions. He views the path back largely as a reversal of that course, but I don’t think the courts can save us.
If you’re a hardcore Three-Percenter, you may believe that the Constitution might be restored by men fighting a 300 meter Second Revolutionary War with small-arms. I’m not so sanguine about that one, but I appreciate the sentiment. If I thought it could actually work, I’d be on the front lines pulling triggers.
Current pundits think the path back might be through a “throw the bums out” sweeping change of our legislative bodies. I’m not so sanguine about that, either, as I’ll explain.
But don’t for a moment doubt that whatever the government is operating under presently, it isn’t the Constitution of the United States that each and every elected and appointed public official still swears an oath to uphold and defend, and it hasn’t been for quite some time.
Back in October of last year, I posted a short video of a portion of an interview of Soviet defector Yuri Bezmenov discussing the socialist strategy of “ideological subversion” of an enemy country. That interview was taped in 1985. As Bezmenov explained, the process of “ideological subversion” was:
To change the perception of reality of every American to such an extent that despite of their balance of information no one is able to come to sensible conclusions in the interest of defending themselves, their families, their community and their country.
It’s a great brainwashing process which goes very slow, and it is divided in four basic stages. The first one being demoralization. It takes from 15-20 years to demoralize a nation. Why that many years? Because this is the minimum number of years it takes to educate one generation of students in the country of your enemy.
—
In other words, Marxism-Leninism is being pumped into the soft heads of at least three generations of American students, without being challenged or counterbalanced with the basic values of Americanism, America patriotism.
Recently I’ve been reading John Taylor Gatto’s The Underground History of American Education. Gatto states in no uncertain terms that from his perspective something changed radically in the American public education system in 1965. It did so in all the metropolitan school systems nationwide, and later spread to the suburban and rural school systems. Bezmenov states that “at least three generations of American students” had socialism “pumped into their heads” as of 1985 – that is, a minimum of 45 years of “ideological subversion,” dating back between 1925 and 1940, and putting the first generation subject to that subversion into positions in the educational system that enabled enaction of that widespread systemic alteration by 1965, and accelerate the process further.
Here we are in 2009, a further twenty-four years on, and we have elected as President a man whose supporters see Ché Guevara as a hero, who was surrounded by active supporters of socialism, who appointed at least one advisor who is an open communist, and his history strongly suggests that the President was heavily influenced by socialists throughout his life.
Many of his generation (which is mine) were.
I’m not saying that the entire population of the country has been brainwashed by an organized, orchestrated conspiracy of the Tuesday Night Socialist Club, far from it. But the evidence strongly suggests that the undeniably attractive “from each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs” ideology has set deep roots in the American culture since Marx first cast the seeds of his philosophy to the four winds. In fact, a 2002 Columbia Law School survey found
. . . that sixty-nine percent of respondents either thought that the United States Constitution contained Marx’s maxim, or did not know whether or not it did.
The survey result cannot be dismissed as anomalous, for it parallels the outcome of a survey conducted by the Hearst Corporation fifteen years ago.
And law professor Michael C. Dorf, who I quote from above, next asks the real question of this essay:
These results, taken together, are troubling for a constitutional democracy in which popular consent underwrites the government’s legitimacy. How can Americans be said to tacitly ratify the Constitution over time when so many of them have a deeply erroneous idea of what it contains?
What Constitution would we restore? Sixty-nine percent of the survey respondents couldn’t even tell you that it didn’t contain Marx’s maxim!
I haven’t read the book, but Orson Scott Card, in a piece he wrote five years ago, reviewed a book by Jane Jacobs, Dark Age Ahead. In that review, he quotes this:
Jacobs sees us as being well down the road to a self-inflicted Dark Age, in which we will have thrown away many of the very things that made our civilization so dominant, so prosperous, so successful. We are not immune to the natural laws that govern the formation and dissolution of human communities: When the civilization no longer provides the benefits that lead to success, then, unsurprisingly, the civilization is likely to fail.
As she says in her introduction, “People living in vigorous cultures typically treasure those cultures and resist any threat to them. How and why can a people so totally discard a formerly vital culture that it becomes literally lost?”
Dark Age Ahead gives us a series of concrete examples of exactly that process.
“Every culture,” she says, “takes pains to educate its young so that they, in their turn, can practice and transmit it completely.” Our civilization, however, is failing to do that. On the contrary, we are systematically training our young not to embrace the culture that brought us greatness.
A civilization is truly dead, she says, when “even the memory of what has been lost is lost.”
A civilization is truly dead when even the memory of what has been lost is lost.
That quote has stuck with me ever since. (And I recommend you read the rest of Card’s post as well.)
For whatever reason, we have not passed on our culture. We have systematically discarded it, forgotten it, refuted it, and in some cases reviled it. Card himself, in one of his more recent novels, described America thus:
(America) was a nation created out of nothing – nothing but a set of ideals that they never measured up to. Now and then they had great leaders, but usually nothing but political hacks, and I mean right from the start. Washington was great, but Adams was paranoid and lazy, and Jefferson was as vile a scheming politician as a nation has ever been cursed with.
…
America shaped itself with institutions so strong that it could survive corruption, stupidity, vanity, ambition, recklessness, and even insanity in its chief executive.
But can it survive enmity?
The Constitution is the fundamental legal document of our nation. It is the philosophy of John Locke laid down as the basic law of the land: Life, liberty, property. Protect all three against attacks from both private individuals and governments – including our own.
But socialism is based on the philosophy of Rousseau, and the two are totally incompatible. As Jonah Goldberg put it during an interview with radio host Hugh Hewitt back in February of last year:
Rousseau says the government is there, that our rights come from the government, that (they) come from the collective. Locke says our rights come from God, and that we only create a government to protect our interests. The Rousseauian says you can make a religion out of society and politics, and the Lockean says no, religion is a separate sphere from politics. And that is the defining distinction between the two, and I think that distinction also runs through the human heart, that we all have a Rousseauian temptation in us. And it’s the job of conservatives to remind people that the Lockean in us needs to win.
And I’m afraid we’ve already lost that fight. There aren’t enough Lockeans left, and we awoke too late. Rousseau’s beautiful but flawed philosophy has, like the pied-piper, led our children to the pier, and the Endarkenment cometh.
And there’s your free ice cream for the day.
I guess I’m supposed to say something about Ted Kennedy’s passing. The only thing that comes to mind is that he indeed got to skip out of the party without paying his portion of the check. From Peggy Noonan’s WSJ piece a few years ago, A Separate Peace:
Do people fear the wheels are coming off the trolley? Is this fear widespread? A few weeks ago I was reading Christopher Lawford’s lovely, candid and affectionate remembrance of growing up in a particular time and place with a particular family, the Kennedys, circa roughly 1950-2000. It’s called “Symptoms of Withdrawal.” At the end he quotes his Uncle Teddy. Christopher, Ted Kennedy and a few family members had gathered one night and were having a drink in Mr. Lawford’s mother’s apartment in Manhattan. Teddy was expansive. If he hadn’t gone into politics he would have been an opera singer, he told them, and visited small Italian villages and had pasta every day for lunch. “Singing at la Scala in front of three thousand people throwing flowers at you. Then going out for dinner and having more pasta.” Everyone was laughing. Then, writes Mr. Lawford, Teddy “took a long, slow gulp of his vodka and tonic, thought for a moment, and changed tack. ‘I’m glad I’m not going to be around when you guys are my age.’ I asked him why, and he said, ‘Because when you guys are my age, the whole thing is going to fall apart.’ “
Mr. Lawford continued, “The statement hung there, suspended in the realm of ‘maybe we shouldn’t go there.’ Nobody wanted to touch it. After a few moments of heavy silence, my uncle moved on.”
Lawford thought his uncle might be referring to their family–that it might “fall apart.” But reading, one gets the strong impression Teddy Kennedy was not talking about his family but about . . . the whole ball of wax, the impossible nature of everything, the realities so daunting it seems the very system is off the tracks.
And–forgive me–I thought: If even Teddy knows . . .
I think there’s a real good chance “the whole thing is going to fall apart” in just the next few years.
I’m really curious to know just how old Teddy was when he said that.
Another Blast from the Past
Recently, perpetual commentator (and personal “reactive target range”) Markadelphia has made noises about how the Left just isn’t as mean and nasty and violent as the Right.
Orly?
I invite you to read an op-ed printed in an “alternative” weekly immediately after Bush won re-election in 2004. (The link to the original piece is still good – I checked.) Remember: This is something they printed. What do you think they didn’t put in ink?
There’s this, too, but the link to the original is now broken.
And these are the people with their hands on the levers of power. Don’t doubt it.
It’s been an ongoing theme here: The system’s broken, the occupants are happily breaking it, and everything’s going to come crashing down.
On the one hand, as commenter Fred Everett said at a post at Protein Wisdom:
(E)very generation, feels like the “wheels are coming off” in some sense.
On the other hand, as Billy Beck retorted:
Yup. But you know what?
Every now and then, they’re right about it.
I take some comfort in the fact that H.L. Mencken, Will Rogers and Mark Twain spoke and joked about how everything was going to hell in a handbasket back in the 20’s and 30’s. I don’t feel so sanguine when I realize that seventy-plus years later all we’ve seen is further decay.
We’re at war with a loosely associated group of fanatics, many of whom are willing to die in order to kill us and tear down our civilization, and our reaction? Half the population seems to believe that if we leave them alone, they’ll leave us alone. Never mind that Iran and North Korea want (or may have) nukes. Never mind that nearly every day in Iraq or Afghanistan, some jihadi happily sends his soul to Allah just so he can kill some infidels, and he’d love to do it in the heart of the “Great Satan.”
Some of us understand the stakes. Most of them seem to be on the pointy end of the stick. Back here in Disneyland, though, the remainder are called “chickenhawks” – or worse.
The November elections have been taken by our political masters as a consensus vote on the war in Iraq, although Joe Lieberman won his race based on his support for that war. Nobody seemed to be paying attention to the fact that the Republicans lost. They gave it away by pissing off the people who voted them into power in the first place. Most of the Democrat victories were by default. But now the Dems control both houses of Congress, and are hell-bent (words chosen carefully) on pushing their agenda.
From my perspective, that agenda is perfectly illustrated by that Far Side cartoon above. We’re all merrily running for the sea. Those not so inclined are being swept along anyway.
I’m tired of it. I’m tired of standing up and trying to get people to look. I’m tired of “Global Warming” – the next boogeyman the people who believe that only an all-powerful State can save us from certain destruction (though many will unfortunately have to be sacrificed, of course – eggs and omlettes, you understand) are pushing as the excuse to control our lives. I’m tired of the War on Terror – to some extent a boogeyman itself – being used to build the mechanisms that can (and will eventually) be used to the same end. I’m tired of the War on (some) Drugs™ being used to disembowel the Fourth and Fifth Amendments. I’m tired of politicians butchering the First Amendment. I’m tired of the Courts eviscerating the Second. I’m tired of our institutions of “higher learning” turning out ignorant but politically correct useful idiots in an endless cycle that ever more resembles the swirling of a toilet bowl.
In short, I’m tired of watching Western Civilization commit seppuku with a dull, rusty spoon. No ceremony. No hope of restored honor. No hope.
Half of me wants to help pull it all down just to get it over with. The other half wants the world to go on so that my grandchildren can have a good life of their own. I understand that most of the people on this planet live in poverty, and that we here in the United States have built a society where very, very few live in anything even resembling the squalor that the majority of humanity considers “normal.” I refuse to feel guilty for this. I refuse to calulate my “carbon footprint.” I refuse to recycle anything but aluminum cans (the only thing that makes economic sense to recycle.) I don’t want my grandchildren to have to live like the majority of the planet just to make it “fair.”
Call me selfish. I don’t give a shit. I don’t want a life preserver, I want a life BOAT.
Back in February I wrote Slouching Towards Despotism on the Kelo v. New London eminent domain case. At that time I wrote:
First step down the slippery slope: “Urban renewal of blighted areas and slums” as justification.
Second step down the slippery slope: “Fair redistribution” as justification.
Third step down the slippery slope: “Boosting tax revenue” as justification.
Read the whole piece.
I’m not surprised by today’s decision. I’m not angry. But I am heartsick, and I’m not alone.
Connecticut residents involved in the lawsuit expressed dismay and pledged to keep fighting.
“It’s a little shocking to believe you can lose your home in this country,” said resident Bill Von Winkle, who said he would refuse to leave his home, even if bulldozers showed up. “I won’t be going anywhere. Not my house. This is definitely not the last word.”
When I wrote Freedom’s Just Another Word for “Nothin’ Left to Lose” last week, this was precisely what I was writing about. Bill Von Winkle now has three choices: Submit, go to jail, or die. His legal options are finished.
And still this isn’t the straw that will break the camel’s back.
But it ought to be.
UPDATE: Due to the herculean efforts of reader John Hardin, the original JS-Kit/Echo comment thread for this post is available here.