April 10, 1996
The Ron Brown Assassination Conspiracy Convention will convene May 30, 1996, at the Dallas Convention Center (overflow at Texas Stadium). Tours to the Kennedy Memorial and the Sixth Floor Museum available. Lecture and discussion topics include the Arkansas Secret Police; mass hypnosis in national parks; covert modification of a crime scene; Croatia: Roswell redux; how to get messages from tape hiss; and never-before-released information on covert CIA/KGB/CFR/Tri-Lateral/Masonic operations.
The severest penalty for evil-doing is to grow into the likeness of a bad man.
... Plato
The hero is one who kindles a great light in the world, who sets up blazing torches in the dark streets of life for men to see by. The saint is the man who walks through the dark paths of the world, himself a light.
... Felix Adler
Critics generally agree that Social Security is a giant Ponzi scheme; if the base of the pyramid fails to grow at the required rate, the pyramid collapses. We have seen this kind of thing numerous times, and the "pay as you go" notion being used to disguise the transfer of income from working people to the retired does nothing to change its fundamental nature.
The moral expectation from a Ponzi scheme is zero: if you knowingly invest in a Ponzi scheme, you can expect to lose the entire investment, and you have no right to expect better. Why is Social Security any different? Well, some people argue, its participants had no choice, which means that they should be paid what they were promised. And if this were really true, I would agree that the participants should be compensated.
But, this is a democracy; we voted for Social Security by voting for those politicians that promised to maintain it. A week does not pass but some politician, from either side of the aisle, repeats the vow, with fear and trembling at the voters' wrath, "not to touch Social Security." But the truth is that the American people elected to have and maintain a Ponzi scheme. Since the entire investment is already expended, a more-or-less perpetual condition with Social Security, Americans can therefore expect to lose it all and have no right to expect anything else. This includes that giant tsunami of people called baby boomers, when they approach retirement, of which I am personally in the vanguard.
That is the price for investing in a Ponzi scheme: it is moral, it is right, and it is inevitable.
I noticed with some alarm recently that the average income of doctors actually decreased slightly last year, as compared with the previous. That may sound like good news to some, but frankly, when the surgeon starts cutting on me, I would like him to be concentrating his skills on his job, with confidence, care, and enthusiasm, not thinking about how he is going to make ends meet or nursing resentment over the decline in his fortunes.
Which raises a question: those who note that the United States expends 14% of GDP on medical care, while, for instance, Canada expends only 12% of GDP, frequently make the inference that the United States therefore spends too much. I cannot follow this reasoning; it seems at least equally reasonable to infer that Canada spends too little. (The choice of Canada is for illustrative purposes only; it is not necessarily a criticism of Canada's medical system, though I would not have it here for anything; nevertheless, that is up to our Canadian neighbors, about whom I have only good things to say.)
Good health is the most precious thing there is, at least in terms of physical life; in its absence, good medical care is the next best. I ask, what is money for, if not to acquire the things that are most precious?
Then shall the King say unto them on his right hand, Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world: For I was an hungred, and ye gave me meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me drink: I was a stranger, and ye took me in: Naked, and ye clothed me: I was sick, and ye visited me: I was in prison, and ye came unto me. Then shall the righteous answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, and fed thee? or thirsty, and gave thee drink? When saw we thee a stranger, and took thee in? or naked, and clothed thee? Or when saw we thee sick, or in prison, and came unto thee? And the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me. (Matthew 25:34-40)
... Jesus of Nazareth
It is paradoxical, perhaps, that the more good that the government does, that is, the more that the government acts to relieve suffering and hardship, the less good there is. This is so for the following reasons:
1) Anyone can be generous with someone else's money;
2) "Good", to have any merit, must be done with one's own hands, personally (see Gospel);
3) By mandating an end to suffering and hardship, the government mandates an end to charity.
Of course, the government's programs to relieve suffering and hardship are rife with misappropriation, mismanagement, and corruption. The entire business is a swindle of magnificent proportions. But even if it were not, even if the government were able to relieve suffering and hardship with a scope and effectiveness equal to its claims, it would still not be a good thing. Oh, no doubt the recipients of this relief would be grateful to have it. But this would only be a perspicacious or prudent thing, not a charitable one.
The fundamental reason for this is simple: government is force, naked and raw. In order to expend such magnificent sums on good works, it must raise the funds through taxation. Taxation is, by its very nature, coercive; if you do not pay your taxes, you will quickly see how coercive it is. Forcing someone to pay for charity does not make them charitable. Voting for public welfare does not make one charitable. It is, at best, a salubrious fiction that public welfare is charity; it is not. Charity is voluntary, and no governmental proclamations to the contrary can change that.
Of course, the government is fully aware of all this, not perhaps in precisely these terms, but at least in the sense that government welfare programs must operate in a somewhat different way from private charities. For instance, they are not permitted to use moral judgement in choosing the recipients of public welfare -- hence the alcoholics and drug addicts that receive "disability" payments. Public money must first be sifted through the hands of thousands of bureaucrats before any of it can be permitted to leak out to the final recipients. In a marvelous swindle, the government agencies that distribute public welfare money have co-opted some of the large charitable organizations, burdening them with overhead, accounting, and paperwork, but tying them down and making of them dependents on the funds that government can provide or withhold, depending upon the political support it receives as a result.
But the biggest swindle of all is the belief that the government must take responsibility for public welfare because the problem is too large for private agencies, and anyway, private citizens would never contribute enough money to have it done right. (We even hear duplicitous politicians calling our taxes "contributions" now.) They cast doubt on the charitable nature of the America people, citing the Decade of Greed (the '80's). The truth is that America has been a river of charity; the billions that have flowed from the pockets of generous Americans in my lifetime have often been too great for charities to dispose of efficiently. If the income to charities from private sources has declined (which I am given to understand, in general, it has not), then perhaps we should examine the progressively larger bite taxes have taken out of the discretionary income of typical American families.
Truthfully, Americans are generous with aid of all kinds; this is why, in a misguided way, Americans have supported all the public welfare and aid programs that politicians have foisted on them. They revolt now, in many cases not because they see that the mechanism is immoral, but because the result is so pitifully inadequate and degenerate.
The defenders of the present system often hide behind the welfare of children, claiming that, even though the present system has some things wrong with it, the cost of change would be borne primarily by children. Of course, the recipients of payments are NOT children. Since parents have a moral obligation to provide support for one's children, what is one to think of the morals of someone who refuses to do so when the welfare check is reduced? Supporting these children was not a public obligation in the first place. Whenever a politician hides behind children, one can be assured that the argument is bogus and the cause is unworthy of support.
Good can come of all this: if you want something done right, do it yourself. This alternative has the highest possible endorsement (see Gospel). By attacking its moral foundations, the citizens can bring the whole enormous machine of public welfare, transfer payments to undeserving recipients, and aid to the bureaucrats down to the disgraceful crash that it deserves. With a little time, I am confident they will.
"Anti-government writings" have been found in the cabin of Unabomber suspect, Theodore Kaczynski, a fact that presumably suggests his guilt. Dear me, I hope they don't look here!
Youthful violinist Gil Shaham, who performed on a highly successful recording of Vivaldi's Four Seasons, has recently teamed up with Andre Previn and the London Symphony Orchestra to record Samuel Barber's Concerto for Violin and Orchestra, opus 14. This wonderful work is gradually finding a well-earned place for itself in the standard performance repertoire for the concert violin. Although I will always be attached to Elmar Olivera's rendition of this concerto, Gil Shaham gives it a great reading, exciting and thoroughly enjoyable. I highly recommend this entrancing recording. It is found under a Deutsche Grammophon label, 439 886-2, along with the artists' recording of the violin concerto of Erich Korngold, also well done.
All contents © Copyright 1995, 1996 by Redmon Barbry ¶ 9:43 PM
