A Well-Deserved Reward

I just searched for the lyrics of a tune recorded by many artists in 1942. And I found them on line. I don't know how I would have discovered them otherwise since I didn't remember the name of the song. Remembering some of the words, I used Google^®, which is amazing. But I suspect that I would also have found what I sought using one of the other “search engines” instead.

Clearly the person who conceived of the concept, made it practicable, and found a way to display it to the rest of us, is a genius – both in computer skills and in his entrepreneurship. And he's (or she's – I didn't bother to Google^® it so I don't really know) helped us all. I assume he's been well rewarded and he deserves it. He's opened up a new world to us by providing a means of negotiating the information highway. By now he's probably in the “1%” (actually the 0.1%) and everybody hates him. Not what he did, but him. He's rich and we're not.

Not me. All I have for him is praise. He earned what he earned. And computer users (that's a lot of us) benefit directly from his work. He should be rich. He's enriched the rest of us. I'm especially happy that the service is free, even if I have to tolerate the ads.

I wonder if, whoever he is, he took “shortcuts” along the way – both in the development and in the implementation. If he did anything unethical or criminal, he should be punished appropriately, but that does not take away from his accomplishments. For those he should be rewarded. And the reward should be his, not one that is shared. He did it, and he should profit from it.

It's not a unique story. Creativity – originating something that no one thought of, or could figure out how to implement – is a rare commodity. And it's something that seems to be part of American DNA, which is why so many new ideas originate here. There are creative ideas in all fields, and we're all better for learning what they are and utilizing those that help us. There are ideas in all fields: new medicines and medical techniques have increased our life spans; new ideas in agriculture have made nutrition available to more people; and better mouse traps have made for both improves aesthetic and health situations.

But I want to focus on the ones whose primary purpose is to make a buck. Those are the ones that are most apparent to us and most likely to earn our anger. Even if the product is something we need and the originator has produced something that makes our life easier, we resent the fact that we have to shell out the money that makes him rich. He should be paying higher taxes. He should be helping the poor by supporting entitlement programs. He has taken advantage of the rest of us.

Such penalties of the creative, however, are counter productive. They are our way of convincing ourselves that there are others whose main aim is to take advantage of us. They are creating what we consider useless variations of already existing products – variations that we don't need. But we buy them anyway. We don't need them but the guy down the block has them and we don't want to be left behind. And, of course, we'll pay anything for something that makes us healthy.

We tolerate the developments that don't cost us money – like Google^®. We know that its developers are making lots of money from ads and fees – money that should be taxed and given to the needy – but we don't realize that our tax money is going into the same programs. So since the new tools that others develop are free and of value to us, we use them.

We don't realize that the use of economic penalties lessens the likelihood that creativity will continue. Creative people are like the rest of us – they want to earn (or “get” if they don't want to work) as much as they can, however they can. Thomas Edison didn't spend his 99% perspiration simply out of the goodness of his sweat glands. He expected, and received, a reward for it. And modern drug companies don't develop drugs that will lose them money. Perhaps they overcharge; perhaps they could get by with smaller profits, but we'd be less healthy as a society if we discouraged their development of new products. Suppose, for example, that drug companies, in fear of taxes, opted not to develop antibiotics. We'd all suffer.

That's not to suggest that there is no room for tax law review and change, but stifling the impulse to be creative, by taxing the rich to help the poor. is not the best idea. Let's start our search engines and look at the ways creativity has been encouraged around the world, and look as well at the policies that discouraged it. Lest we dissuade the creative from their activity, it's better to support their efforts to help us all. Society will get its cut even if taxes aren't raised.

Deep Pockets

If there's one thing that illustrates the similarity between capitalism and socialism it's “deep pockets.” Clearly that requires some elaboration, and the best place to start is with a definition and explanation.

The term usually refers to a party that is well endowed – fiscally, not physically. It may be an individual or a commercial enterprise, but it's one with a lot of money. So the term indicates someone or something that has its “pockets” filled, or even overflowing.

Whoever has deep pockets, therefore, is a target for someone wanting the money. He's rich. Probably one of the 1%. So it is someone (or some organization) we hate, and about whom we feel no guilt when trying to obtain some of his (her, its) funds. It may be in the form of an unwarranted or inflated insurance claim, a legal action, or the call for a handout. Whatever it is, you pay. And whoever is nominally billed doesn't really matter – you pay, one way or another.

One of the most publicized forms is by law suit, or the threat of one. A claim is made against a(n individual or a) large corporation – one that is very rich – and whether the claim is or is not legitimate is irrelevant. The cheapest way for the corporation to make the problem disappear, and to minimize the negative publicity, is to negotiate with whoever is suing – and that means with the legal firm that is handling the claim (as it has done many times before with similar justified or unjustified claims). A moderately large settlement with the plaintiff, or a huge one with the “class,” can usually be arranged to end the unpleasantness quickly. Even if the claim has no merit, it is usually cheaper to settle than to fight and risk a hostile press and public.

That's especially true since we live in a capitalist system, and the cost of the settlement is incorporated into the cost of production, so prices rise. After all, the stockholders shouldn't be made to suffer. Even if the claim is legitimate, the costs are passed on (to you) after a scapegoat is found – usually a low-level employee who can't fight back. No executive is ever considered responsible unless the publicity or the political exposure requires it. And the company will get back the costs anyway. They'll raise their rates and charges, and the price of the settlement will actually be split among members of the population – including you. The company is in business to make money, and they'll do so by passing on the costs to the consumer. Cough it up. You need them.

There are occasions, however, when a case goes to trial and a congenial jury can be made to identify and sympathize with the plaintiff's plight, although that may have nothing to do with the claim. There are occasions when such a jury will decree large enough verdicts – both “compensatory” and punitive – to bankrupt the company. Which means that a product or service is no longer available to you and the remaining companies control more of the market. It's inconvenient, but that's fair repayment for all the “suffering” that the plaintiff has endured. You'll certainly be sympathetic, even if you suffer because of it. After all, it could have been you.

And if it is you, all the better. You'll become rich and have your own deep pockets if you succeed, but you can live with that. After all, you're not one of “them.” You'll never be one of them, one of the 1%. You're just a hard working citizen, indemnified for what you've been through.

The same is true with insurance. Whatever the cost of claims made against the company, they'll eventually be passed on to those buying the protection. It doesn't matter if the claims are justified or not – though the insurer may investigate astronomical or obviously false claims to lower expenses and increase profits. Still you can be sure that the deep pockets will be yours, and, eventually, you'll wind up paying for all those claims.

But, lest you think this is solely a product of capitalism, the same is true in the public sector, though the language is changed a little. We're all sympathetic of the plight of the needy, and we demand that our government help out. They certainly will, and so will the politicians who seek their votes. In a society that provides various kinds of welfare, a society that tries to take from the rich and give to the poor, the deep pockets belong to “the government.” But that's the taxpayer – you – so you wind up paying. (Or your children and grandchildren do.)

“From each according to his means …” So the earnings of the workers are apportioned to those who lack. It's a redistribution of income from the “rich” to the “poor.” Karl Marx was right. It's socialism. We call it generosity, or the provision of services to the poor, or concern for the needy among us. It's the least we can do. We feel good about what we've done. (We do, however, curse the politicians for raising taxes to pay for all the programs we favor.) But whether or not it's “right,” it's socialism.

In short, whether it's capitalism, as exemplified by a “greedy” company, or socialism, in the form of support of “needy” citizens, you fund it. No matter who submits the bill, you wind up paying. The “deep pockets” are inevitably yours, irrespective of the economic system. They have that in common. There's no such thing as a free lunch.




November 3, 2016

Eric Hoffer

Perhaps you've heard of Eric Hoffer. I did about six decades ago when I read his book, The True Believer, while in college. I've reread it since. It certainly changed the way I think of fanatics and, indeed, my fellow man.

He wrote several books afterward and I'm in the midst of reading some of them. They're not nearly as famous as his first, but I'm learning from them as well. Hoffer was an autodidact who lacked formal education, but was wiser than almost anyone else. He was a product of the period of the Second World War and the world it yielded. He spent his life as a longshoreman, hobo, and doer of odd jobs. And he read and wrote. His style of writing (in addition to the wisdom of his words) reflected his peripatetic life-style (a term not current so many decades ago) and his varied experiences. He was a man of strong opinions and his ideas were expressed succinctly – in short bursts that were to the point and clear. And then he moved on to the next idea, which was often related to the one that preceded it, but not always.

Though compact, his writing wasn't usually the “twenty-five words or less” [sic – “fewer” is the correct word, not “less”] style so much in vogue in the past when there was a competition of some sort. It's a kind of writing that appeals to me because I appreciate someone who makes a point and moves on. That's the way I try to write, though I lack Hoffer's intellect. So rather than try to imitate him or improve on his words, I want to simply present some of his thoughts. I won't cite the sources (though The True Believer is not one of them – I urge you to read that yourself). It doesn't matter. There's no specific theme nor order. I'll include some comments when they might help.

One of the surprising privileges of intellectuals is that they are free to be scandalously asinine without harming their reputations. The intellectuals who idolized Stalin while he was purging millions and stifling the least stirring of freedom have not been discredited. They are holding forth on every topic under the sun and are listened to with deference. … The metaphysical grammarian Noam Chomsky, who went to Hanoi to worship there at the altar of human rights and democracy, was not discredited and silenced when the humanitarian communists staged their nightmare in South Vietnam and Cambodia. Is there a greater freedom than the right to be wrong?

[Hoffer was not a fan of “wise” men. He was more interested in what they had to say.]

-----------------

I cannot see myself living in a socialist society. My passion is to be left alone and only a capitalist society does so. Capitalism is ideally equipped for mastering things but awkward in mastering men. It hugs the assumption that people will perform tolerably when left to themselves.

[I, too, want to be left alone. I must be a capitalist. But I don't assume that people will perform tolerably under any system.]

-----------------

I have a hunch that the Arabs will use their oil billions not to modernize their countries but to redress the balance between the Christian West and the Islamic East. … Idi Amin is a Moslem hero kept in power by Arab money in largely Christian Uganda. … The Islamization of Africa is a dream to fire Arab hearts.

[This was written in 1974, but things haven't changed. Except that they've expanded the they've scope of their dreams. Hoffer's hunch was prophetic.]

-----------------

A world that did not lift a finger when Hitler was wiping out six million Jewish men, women and children is now saying that the Jewish [emphasis added] state of Israel will not survive if it does not come to terms with the Arabs. My feeling is that no one in this universe has the right and the competence to tell Israel what it has to do in order to survive. On the contrary, it is Israel that can tell us what to do. It can tell us that we shall not survive if we do not cultivate and celebrate courage, if we coddle traitors and deserters, bargain with terrorists, court enemies and scorn friends.

[Also from 1974. The more things change, … Incidentally, Hoffer wasn't Jewish.]

-----------------

It is now fashionable to contrast authority with human rights. But we are learning that the moment authority becomes ineffectual most of our rights are nullified by the many-headed tyranny of anarchy.

[Nowadays we face the tyranny of the protest mob and its demands. We give them free rein and advertise their views as if they represent what is right or what we all believe. Our rights are nullified.]

-----------------

A revulsion from work is a fundamental component of human nature. It is natural to feel work to be a curse. A social order that grants only minimal necessities but asks for little effort will be more stable than a system that offers superfluities but demands ceaseless striving. One reason that communist governments seem so stable is that they no longer insist on hard work. Islam too is markedly stable because it functions tolerably well in an atmosphere of indolence.

[In our own society in the twenty-first century (and before) the goal has been the “superfluities” without the striving. They're entitled. Someone who's rich will pay.]

It would be hard to hide my admiration for Hoffer, and I do not intend to do so. I fear, however, that his hunches and prophesies will be overlooked or ignored by a world that needs to confront them. I'll continue his ideas and aphorisms next week.

Labor Day And The One Percent

No. No. You misunderstand. But I'll get to that.

First of all, happy Labor Day. Unofficially it's the end of summer, but we know better. Lots of hot days left. And Election Day's coming, so it's “Silly Season.” (But it's always Silly Season.) It was especially so during the run-up to the Democratic Convention when Senator Sanders's supporters outnumbered those of Colonel Sanders, and his ideas were “finger lickin' good.”

But I'll get to that too.

First let me comment on the “one percent.” It's a what, not a who. According to Thomas Edison, Genius is one percent inspiration and ninety-nine percent perspiration. It's not the idea that counts, it's the effort that goes into turning it into a usable “product,” whether that's a concept or a physical construction, whether it's commercial or simply for personal use.

The perspiration is certainly something any worker experiences, though not all workers share equally in that experience. There are many who “play the system,” making enough to get by while working just hard enough to keep their jobs. Or at least being seen to do so. Better still, with enough effort spent in doing so, work can be avoided entirely, with support provided by various unemployment and welfare programs. It certainly isn't the life of Riley, but it's far better than the life endured by so many around the world.

And the United States isn't the only generous country. There are many that provide for the needy. Unfortunately, however, everything comes at a cost, and someone has to pay. Can you guess who? You. And me. From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs. (Louis Blanc, 1851. Later Karl Marx.) Socialism. That's the perspective of many, as exemplified in the “Occupy ...” movements a few years ago. And even if the movements no longer exist, the idea remains.

The “one percent” of whom they speak are the rich. But they are not the lazy. In addition to the perspiration, they have the inspiration. And much of their perspiration, their ninety-nine percent, is the effort to turn their ideas into usable products. (That's not to say that all the wealthy are good people with good ideas, but at some point in the history of each fortune is the effort, imagination, and hard work that created it.)

Inspiration is not present equally in everybody. Nor are capital, knowledge, and opportunity. But, if society is to advance it should be encouraged, not punished. By and large it benefits society, not only with both its products and employment for those who participate in its manufacture, but because the inspired one percent are the source of so much of society's philanthropy (see “Who Really Cares” by Arthur C. Brooks, “Why Philanthropy Matters” by Zoltan Acs, and other similar works) – and we all profit from that.

And, for better or worse, we're all selfish. We all want a peice of the pie. Of course we'd prefer not to work for it, but the greater rewards come to those who put greater effort into problem solving. If a man has good corn or wood, or boards, or pigs, to sell, or can make better chairs or knives, crucibles or church organs, than anybody else, you will find a broad hard-beaten road to his house, though it be in the woods. (Ralph Waldo Emerson. Now usually quoted as Build a better mousetrap, and the world will beat a path to your door.) Society rewards imagination and innovation. As it should. If we are to advance we have to encourage our citizens to come up with and develop new ideas. And the best encouragement is fiscal. That's fair.

There are many, however, who adocate sharing. Usually they want what someone else has. They would have the rich provide for the poor. No one should benefit at another's expense. From their perspective that is what's fair. The Robin Hood approach. Irrespective of its effects on motivation and progress. Among those who take this position are politicians, like Senator Sanders who was recently a candidate for President. And his voice has had its effects on the Democratic platform. But popular as such a concept may be among the majority, it may not be for the good.

The following letter appeard recently in The Wall Street Journal:

Regarding Bret Stephens’s “What's Socialism Dad?” (Global View, May 17): I had a similar discussion with my grandchildren as did Bret Stephens with his son regarding the meaning of socialism. I pointed out to them that they all work very hard to achieve the grade of “A” on their tests. However, the student next to them may not have worked as hard, or may have goofed off, or just didn’t care, and as a result received a failing grade. But under socialism, the school administration (i.e., the “government”) could reduce your hard-earned “A” to a “C” to lift the failing student’s “F” to a “C.” They all immediately responded as I hoped they would, saying: “Not fair,” and “Why would I work so hard again?” They understood immediately the disincentives and the mediocrity of socialism

Steven Shanok

Northbrook, Ill.

I hope even the politicians – especially Senator Sanders – can understand its message. But I doubt that they want to.

Anti-Social And Anti-Socialism

I'm anti-social. I've said it before. But I recognize that most people aren't like me. They enjoy interacting with others and want to instill the same values in those whom they rear. And, to a degree, I accept that judgment. Society requires socialization.

Share. And care. They're among the first lessons we teach our children in jargon and political correctness. We see them as necessary steps in that socialization. And they are. In order to get along you have to go along. That's the theory, but the theory is stifling us as members of a democratic commonwealth. We've turned into a nation of sheep that would not be recognized by our Founding Fathers. For example – although it's not the focus of this discussion – the concepts of Freedom of Speech and Religion have been converted into the freedom to say only what is acceptable to the loudest and most dogmatic among us (lest your right to speak be withdrawn), and freedom from religion. But I won't dwell on those perversions of America's philosophy today. I have another concern on my mind. Taxes.

Yes, taxes. I don't question their legitimacy. They have an important place in managing our government and our lives, and they're prescribed in the Constitution – primarily to pay debts and to provide for the defense of our country and the protection of our citizens.

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence [sic] and general Welfare of the United States

Who can argue with that? But, of course, the devil is in the details. Who gets taxed, and how much? And what is the meaning of “Welfare,” which seems to be related to “the common Defence [sic] ... of the United States?”

For most Americans the answers to these questions are uncomplicated: tax those who have more money than I do, and provide for me whatever I believe I need for my welfare. Perhaps that's too much of a simplification, but I suspect that it doesn't miss the mark by much. The “Occupy Wall Street” movement (and its clones) made the will of “the People” clear: tax the rich (“the 1%”) and provide everyone else with whatever he or she wants. That, however, would seem to be a direct contradiction of the philosophy of most of those who wrote and adopted the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. Their view was that people were

endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable [sic] Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness

and that, in accordance with John Locke, “pursuit of happiness” meant “estate.” Locke also wrote

Reason, which is that Law [“Natural Law”] teaches all Mankind, who would but consult it, that being all equal and independent, no one ought to harm another in his Life, Health, Liberty, or Possessions.

And

Government has no other end, but the preservation of property.

It's unlikely that Locke, or the Founding Fathers, would have understood or accepted Marx's view (actually it was stated [in French of course] by Louis Blanc nearly a quarter of a century earlier)

From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs.

It represents a socialist philosophy which favors the redistribution, by government edict, of one's possessions. It's forced sharing. It's a system that denies the individual the “unalienable [sic] Right” to dispose of his or her property as (s)he sees fit (including the right to pass it on to children). It reflects the envy of the possessions of others, and the readiness to give away or take what isn't yours. And by demanding that kind of action from the government they rationalize it as a societal need. But whatever the claimed justification for such redistribution, it (including a punitive tax system designed to accomplish its ends) is no more than theft. But calling it “redistribution” makes it sound so much better. It makes it sound like sharing and caring. And we all know how idealistic and “right” that is.

When we teach our children to share, however, we are teaching them to voluntarily provide others with the things that are important to them. We are less sympathetic when others noisily make demands of them. And we're unlikely to tolerate an outside party taking from our children and giving to the squeaky wheels. There's a difference between charity and extortion.

When we think about the principle of respect for private property it is worth remembering that it is an old precept. And perhaps the ancient proclamation of that principle played a part in our founders' thinking as it should in ours.

You shall not covet ... anything that belongs to your neighbor.

Richard Brodsky, Edward G. Robinson, General Patton, And Robin Hood

                                                           

Quite a collection.

It's hard to know where to start, so I'll begin with a little background on each before getting to the point: Richard Brodsky was a New York State Assemblyman (1983 to 2002); Edward G. Robinson (1893-1973) an actor; General (George S.) Patton (Jr.) (1885-1945) was a United States officer during the First and Second World Wars; and Robin Hood, who may have been mythical, but if he lived at all, it was probably some time between the twelfth and seventeenth centuries.

What have they in common? It was a noteworthy view of human nature, responsibility, and man's relationship with his fellow.ⁱ Interestingly, the most memorable of them is the least believable. In all likelihood, the Robin Hood we all know was a conglomerate of various different legendary characters, and the act for which we most remember him – stealing from the rich and giving to the poor – wasn't attributed to him until about the nineteenth century.ⁱⁱ Still, whether or not he ever actually existed, his name will always be associated with this particular version of resource distribution – a kind of medieval socialism that was instituted by an individual rather than by the government.

Richard Brodsky's view – actually it was proposed as a governmental policy – was that an individual's most personal physical resources – his organs – would be up for grabs after his death. It would be presumed that he wished to be an organ donor unless he specifically denied such a choice,ⁱⁱⁱ and his heirs couldn't overrule his “wish,” whether expressed or assumed. One might wonder if it is ethical to impose such a policy.^iv However the view that the resource should be shared – that there is no inherent property right unless it is demanded – is considered more pressing than views in opposition. And there are many ethicists who support that view.

The ideas of these two – Robin Hood and Richard Brodsky – would be imposed on people irrespective^v of their wishes. Their views might be wise policies in some sense, and ethical in the view of those who want a share of the resources, but they are not voluntary. They reflected the philosophy of those who favor “the greatest good for the greatest number” – which is, in essence, “Jeder nach seinen Fähigkeiten, jedem nach seinen Bedürfnissen!” – “From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs.”^vi That is another way of saying that we are may take property from those who have it, and we should give it to those who don't. It's up to us. We are entitled to dispose of the property of others if that is what seems fair to us. It's the philosophy of socialism and was the way Karl Marx viewed an individual's responsibility to his government and his fellows.

“No bastard ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making the other poor dumb bastard die for his country.” That was General Patton's take on bravery and responsibility to one's country and countrymen. Patton was a soldier and a patriot. He knew about love of country, responsibility, and bravery. He knew of those who had died to protect their fellows and their country. But he also knew that such actions were not the general ideal, even if necessary in some cases. Better that the forces of the enemy die than that you do so; better to kill than be killed. Don't turn the other cheek or a blind eye to tyranny. Many might not view this as the ethical position, but they're usually those who preach from the sidelines.

Patton's position was more like capitalism than the others. His perspective was very different from that of Karl Marx, and from the way Marx viewed an individual's responsibility to his government and his fellows. Patton instead believed that the best thing you can do for your country was to keep and preserve it and your own most important property – your life; not only weren't you obligated to give your property for your country, but he discouraged it. True, there were times when it might happen, and they might be the result of governmental decisions, but they were “collateral damage” and were regrettable rather than the specifically desired outcome.

Sol Roth, the character played by Edward G. Robinson in the science-fiction film “Soylent Green,” had a different view from that of his society. Living at some time in the future,^vii he learned of a conspiracy which was contrary to his view of human behavior, and he related it to his friend, Detective Thorn (Charleton Heston). Both were appalled by it. So much so that Roth chose suicide (in the form of government-sponsored euthanasia) while Thorn was shot^viii trying to expose and stop what was happening. It was a time of overpopulation and food shortages. And, unknowingly, society had turned to cannibalism. There were forces^ix that took and processed into “vegetable” wafers the corpses of those who submitted to the euthanasia provided by government, though those who chose this option presumably trusted society and were ignorant of what would then happen.^x Almost no one was aware of the next step for them, and there was no knowledge among those others about the source of their food.^xi The conspirators, who made large amounts of money in the process, used human remains in place of other food sources – sources that had been exhausted. The entire body was the possession of the state and there were no property rights at all. And it is hard not to wonder if this is the direction in which we are heading.

“Life, liberty, and property.”^xii These were the three legs of the stool on which our country was founded. They were the basis for our separation from Great Britain. Unfortunately they are no longer fashionable. Individualism and individual responsibility no longer exist. They are outmoded. General Patton spoke out for them and Sol Roth died for them, but Robin Hood and Richard Brodsky had other ideas and favored the redistribution of “resources” – society over the individual.^xiii

So always ask what your country can do for you. And whine about your need and the unfairness of someone else having what you want.

Never ask what you can do for your country. The politicians have already figured it out.

Next episode: “Sandy's Children” – First the bad news.

i      In Robinson's case he portrayed such an individual.

ii      J. C. Holt, Robin Hood, cited in Wikipedia.

iii    Actually, rather than his wish, it would be his denial in writing of a contrary assumption. If he disagreed with the policy he would have to opt out. But even if he knew about such a possibility, he might not take the time to act on his wish. So for most people the default position – one that could not be overridden – would hold sway.

iv     Is it ethical to impose such a policy? What are the ethics of preserving resources for future use and denying them to those not considered valuable to society? Is euthanasia ethical? Who decides in particular cases? Will presumption of wish to donate, along with the need for transplantable organs, lead to other medical decisions than would otherwise be taken? What are the religious implications?

v      Notwithstanding Mr. Brodsky's presumption, the failure to opt out of a program is not the equivalent of a decision to opt in.

vi    Karl Marx, “Critique of the Gotha Program,” (1875) – Many consider “ability” to mean property or resources. While this is not a precise definition, it expresses Marx's view.

vii    2022 to be precise. The movie appeared in 1973.

viii   And presumably killed, though this is not explicit in the film.

ix     It's never made quite clear who they are.

x      Roth did know, and it is ironic that he chose euthanasia. But it was an easy, and depicted as desirable, method of dealing with the intolerable situation. Both he and Thorn knew that irrespective of their efforts, there was no way to end the conspiracy. It was too profitable and too useful in wake of the overpopulation.

xi     In all likelihood they wouldn't have cared. Self-preservation was all that counted and as long as they had food it wasn't important where it came from. Dirty as they may have been, they were cleansed of morality.

xii    The “Pursuit (not achievement – emphasis added) of Happiness” – was the phraseology used in the Declaration of Independence instead of “Property” which had had been the term earlier, but it is clear that the Founders were referring to the right to own property which, at that time, was an evidence of liberty. Indeed, “taxation without representation” – the ability of a government to take your property without your consent – was viewed as tyranny.

xiii   Property rights no longer existed either for the deceased or his heirs. The dead gave all for society. It was the greatest good gone mad. Except for those who profited.

Richard

Paying The Bills

                                                                                

Percentage of United States budget for Health Care:ⁱ

Other health care costs:

Total cost of your health care:

I'm not a sophisticated economist. No. Change that. I'm not an economist. But my mind wandered a little this morning and I started wondering about health care costs. The presidential election's over now, and with it the rhetoric that usually clouds such issues with the complicated overlays of emotion and politics that make any real understanding difficult at best.

So I have the luxury of considering [selected] numbers without having to factor in such distractions [from the numbers] as guilt, responsibility, and the purpose of society. It's even easier since I've decided not to look up the numbers right now. I'll do that presently – after I've given some thought to the nature of the problem. Only then, when we both have a little more information, can we try to quantify it. I may be surprised and find out that no problem exists, but in the meantime I can give some thought to the way we manage money in our current society.

So let me get to some basic considerations, and they're really considerations of human nature. Because I spent most of my life in medicine (no, not taking, it but working as a physician) I'm focusing on health care. I noticed early on – in fact I noticed as a college student before I became a doctor – that there was a paradox in the cost of scientific glassware. It was both unconscionably expensive, and it was free. It was “free” because someone else was paying for it – usually the government or a granting foundation – but the price was inordinately high because the vendors knew that the people ordering it weren't paying for it themselves. And very often they didn't even need it. I also learned that there was a basic rule that you always spend all of the money given you, or you may get less the following year.

That's the way money management works. An individual may be very careful with his own budget, but will freely disburse what he doesn't see as his own. And he'll spare no effort to increase his intake – as income for himself or as money he can give away or spend on others. There's always an organization or some sucker with deep pockets who can be convinced to pick up the slack.

But that philosophy is one that involves not only people: governmentsⁱⁱ have little hesitation about spending our money on programs that sound good, and we don't care – especially since we don't recognize that in the end we'll wind up paying the tab. More likely our grandchildren or their grandchildren will wind up with the bill. We're paying for the generosity of those who preceded us. We're paying for their guilt and magnanimity, and our descendants will pay for ours. Actually we're only making the interest payments, but sooner or later our creditors will demand that we – really it will be those who follow us – start paying off the principle. That principle is the National Debt, which now amounts to … (I'll look that up later, too). We keep kicking the can down the road, but sooner or later someone will get it and have to open it – and it's a real can of worms. Greece knows that.

The needy, however, are everywhere, not just in our country. And they suffer not only from poverty but from disease and oppression.ⁱⁱⁱ The basic idea, and it is a beautiful one, is that we are all responsible for each other. In the Western tradition, the Bible tells us to help the poor, the widow, and the orphan. “Love thy neighbor.” And I have no doubt that there are similar injunctions in all other cultures. But religious teachings often place limits on the amount that one can give away, and realpolitik governs the extent of involvement we're permitted in the affairs of other countries. We're not always wise to try to care for all of humanity, nor are we always free to do so. We know about the tribulations of those around the world, but we can't afford to deal with all of them. And, many believe, it's not our place to do so.

That, however, is neither here nor there. At least it's not the subject of today's discourse. More to the point is our consideration of the cost of caring for the health of our own citizens. That used to be a family obligation but not any longer. Now it is a duty that has devolved onto society in general, even if we may disagree on what standards we should use to judge it^iv and those who receive it, we all pay for it.^{v vi} We consider it self-evident that those who can better afford it than we should pay more to support the kind of care that all our citizens deserve.^vii

Oh. I finally got around to checking. Health care makes up about 23% of the national budget. Apart what you pay for your own care, $230 of every $1,000 you pay in income taxes goes in that basket.^viii As well as 23% of what you pay in a variety of other taxes you pay – like tariffs for imported items – and the costs incorporated into the prices of whatever you buy. The latter reflect producer's and manufacturer's costs that are simply passed on to the consumer. Congratulations. The bottom line is that you're probably paying not only for your own medical costs but for those of others as well. I trust you feel magnanimous.

By the way, our National debt now is over $16 and a quarter trillion and rising rapidly with each new program. But who cares? There isn't any real problem (for me). It's only money, and soon enough it will be someone else's burden.

Next episode: “Growing Down” – It's a tall order.

i      By the way, the use of health care costs is only an example The same issues and calculations can be considered for all parts of our budget. I won't look up any numbers for you though.

ii     Or, more accurately, our elected representatives who are looking for votes in the next election.

iii    Sickness doesn't stop at the water's edge. Nor does guilt.

iv    We wish to raise our standards, but as more and more individuals become eligible for subsidized care, as payments for that care diminish, as medicine becomes more assembly-line, standards are more likely to diminish.

v      That includes Christian Scientists and others who may oppose the programs in general or some who oppose particular parts for religious reasons (like those who consider abortion to be murder). The First Amendment guarantee of religious freedom does not extend to health care.

vi      The reimbursement for some services can be lowered artificially, but that doesn't actually change the costs of performing or providing those services. If it leads to a lowering of salaries it will drive the best practitioners into other fields, diminishing both the number of providers and their quality. It may be necessary to enlarge the bureaucracy to supervise these services even if that will raise costs. The more people involved in regulating and minimizing the costs, the higher they'll be. But it will provide jobs.

vii    “From each according to his ability to each according to his needs.” It was good enough for Robin Hood and it's good enough for us (even if it's not clear who decides on ability and needs). The redistribution of resources makes a lot of sense in a society that prizes equality. Those who view Marx's words ("Jeder nach seinen Fähigkeiten, jedem nach seinen Bedürfnissen!") as a call for socialism are simply mean-spirited. And those who fear that this kind of redistribution will lessen the initiative of the capable are fear-mongers. We'll all work hard and work long hours to support those who don't.

As for those who contend that actions of this sort are contrary to the ideas of the Founders, they should be aware that the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution are outdated, and we now have the Supreme Court to make the laws.

viii   As you must certainly realize that is the amount expended by the government only. It covers Medicare and costs that cannot be paid by the poor and the disabled. It does not cover your costs to private insurers (I pay for long-term insurance to protect my children), deductibles, and out-of-pocket expenses for medications and the like.

The Elephant And Insurance

So here's how it works. If I'm injured or killed in an attack by someoneⁱ riding an elephant, I'm entitled to full payment of medical or funeral costs – even if I'm merely stomped by the elephant. In fact, I get benefits even if I'm stomped by an elephant who isn't attacking. The benefits are lower, but I can count on them. There's a moderate deductible (larger if I'm not within twenty-five miles of my residence) and the insurance is only good in the United States. But it's solid insurance. The government stands behind the companies that issue it.

It has to. According to the new law I have to buy it. Perhaps it's of greater value to those who appear in Aida or work in zoos or circuses, but the cost for them alone would be too great, so everyone gets the insurance. And you never know. Anyway, that's the law.

And that's the way the new health care legislation works – at least to a degree. Everyone is required to buy the insurance or pay a penalty. It doesn't matter if they need or want the insurance. That's the law.

Actually it's contradictory to the concept of insurance, which is little more than gambling. The insurance company is betting on the insured, and the insured is betting against himself. But the payout, if there is one, is supposed to be large enough to cover the risk for which it is designed. As is the case with all betting, the house – the insurance company – will come out ahead. In this case, however, the individual who “wins” will be protected from a large loss. In reality, the government is forcing the individual to protect it from the lossⁱⁱ it would face if it had to pay for his health care. The program, however, forces those in good health, and who would prefer to take the risk of going uninsured, to buy in and, in effect, pay for those more likely to need help. There's a spreading of risks so that they're equalized among all participants. If there were similar equalization of salaries we'd call it socialism. But it's not that. It's more of a method for acquiring a national health service that is paid for without the risk of being accused of raising taxes. From the point of view of the taxpayer, however, it's a distinction without a difference.

Important features of the new health care system include the provision that no one can be excluded because of pre-existing condition, and the cost will be the same for men and women. Notwithstanding the evidence that it costs more to provide health care for women than men, there will be “gender”ⁱⁱⁱ equality.^iv Women will pay no more than men.^v And with programs like Medicare, we are already ensuring that those who don't smoke or drink will help underwrite the costs of those with lung cancer, emphysema, and cirrhosis. Those poor people are already suffering enough from their medical conditions and have had to deal with increased costs from the cigarettes and whiskey. They should have help from the rest of us. If they've worked some, and are eligible for Medicare, they'll get it.

Perhaps that will be viewed as reductio ad absurdum but it's hard not to conclude that obligatory participation is little more than a tax on the healthy and a method of shifting costs to the taxpayer in order to save the government money. Because the word “tax” is viewed negatively, a method has been found to change the label. And for those who elect not to participate, there is a “penalty,” not a “tax.” Well played. The government's done it again!

The case^vi has been argued in the Supreme Court and some time soon we'll learn where the Justices stand.^vii The law, however, seems to be in conflict with previous policy and with American thought. The Court decided that certain issues involved privacy and that individual decisions should be respected. Elective abortion is a matter of choice. It's difficult for a legal layman to understand why the decision to buy health insurance should not be a matter of choice, with that option having become a major factor in the country's thought. The termination of a pregnancy – what some view as the taking of another's life – can hardly be viewed as more private, and more a matter of choice, than the decision about payment for one's insurance policy.

I have health insurance, and there really is no mandate to have elephant-stomping insurance, so I'm in good shape. The principle, however, will have to be decided by the Court. More and more the extent of government intervention in our lives is likely to pop up in a variety of forms, and this is as good a time as any to decide on its propriety.

Next episode: “People Are No Damn Good” – Except me, of course.

i      Hannibal, for example.

ii     The government – or more accurately the governments, since it's usually paid for locally– is ultimately responsible through public hospitals.

iii    We don't say “sex” anymore.

iv    Other insurance is “rated.” Those with increased risks pay premiums proportional to the increased risk. That's business. And insurance companies usually have the option of declining to insure the really bad risks. “Assigned risk” is one answer to ensure coverage of drivers who are “accident prone” (some of whom, perhaps, shouldn't be driving for the protection of the rest of us), but their rates are certainly not the same as safe drivers. And drivers have the option of refusing to buy insurance. In some states this will mean that they don't get driver's licenses, but it's their option, and there is no monetary fine for the choice not to have coverage. Where uninsured driving is legal, the uncovered driver who is in an accident – he lost his bet that he could drive accident-free – will have to pay costs from his own resources.

v     The argument is made that an accident of birth should not affect the cost of insurance. It makes sense. But there are other “accidents of birth” that do affect an individual's standing and choices: intelligence, location of birth and subsequent citizenship and residence, and family income for example. Although we may wish it otherwise, a child born in Bangladesh is more likely to be hungry and poverty-stricken than an American. It may not be fair, but it's the case. Attempts to equalize situations like that and millions more will fail however much we wish their success. And despite what may seem unfair, most firms will not hire someone born blind to be a security guard.

vi     Regarding the new health care law.

vii    Actually, they usually sit.