Sunday, July 02, 2006
Political poles
I've told people that I would be equally comfortable being in charge of either the Pro Choice or the Pro Life Movement. I could lead either charge with honesty and sincerity. The reason is because most people are in the middle. They don't want their 13 year old daughter sneaking out for an abortion without knowing about it nor do they want abortion to be absolutely outlawed. If I were in charge of either one, the first thing I would do is try to get Roe v. Wade struck down and then allow legislatures (both state and federal) to create laws that people want, and allow those laws to change over time as the people's views change. If I were on the Pro Life side, I would focus on changing people's minds with reasonable methods that they would respect. At one time they had TV commercials talking about choosing to "have the baby" and I believe this was definitely the best direction to go.
At various times in history, various groups have lost power and become paranoid and ridiculous. The political left in the US is clearly there today (example). That's a bad thing. We need to have at least two basic groups of political thinking which have very different foundations in order to have a healthy political climate. If we end up with only one effective group, things will definitely go downhill for a lack of competition. A monopoly will damage any field of activity.
This article points out the similarities between the "progressives" of today and the John Birch society from the 1950s or so.
First, accept the basics of economics, of cause and effect, that people respond to incentives. Accept that there are successful cultures and unsuccessful ones and that it's hard to keep a good culture down. In other words, remove the big obstacles and then let things take their course. Some groups will flourish, some will flail. Those that flail have the choice of changing, or not. And finally, accept that wealth is created by wealthy people. Within the US, contrary to much opinion, they usually got wealthy by creating something of value and not by taking something away. Our economy is not a zero-sum game, which should be obvious since the global economy grows over time at varying rates. The US economy alone has grown [around] 20% since the Bush tax cuts! To put that in perspective, we've added an entire large sized country to our economy since 2003. And like the saying goes, "I never got a job from a poor man." Don't punish success, don't reward failure. No, we don't want people starving to death in the streets or (more relevant today) to be homeless.
Don't say that you're against homelessness while complaining about suburban sprawl. If you really care about homelessness, then you should be lobbying for changing zoning laws to allow cheaper, smaller homes. Stuff like Habitat for Humanity is a joke. Far better is to allow (not mandate, not have the government create, but allow) very small homes packed closely together. And in some cases perhaps even something similar to capsule hotels for people to live in temporarily. But only if it's run as a going enterprise by private industry (which has a motivation for overall success).
If we really are heading for major global warming, then we probably want developing countries to burn even more CO2. If we're going to have massive disruptions, it's better if people in places like Bangladesh can move up the social ladder into the industrial age so that they're wealthy and smart enough to deal with the impending problems of flooding. In the US, we'll be OK. It would be very costly and massively disruptive, but we'll figure something out. As they are now, Bangladesh won't.
At various times in history, various groups have lost power and become paranoid and ridiculous. The political left in the US is clearly there today (example). That's a bad thing. We need to have at least two basic groups of political thinking which have very different foundations in order to have a healthy political climate. If we end up with only one effective group, things will definitely go downhill for a lack of competition. A monopoly will damage any field of activity.
This article points out the similarities between the "progressives" of today and the John Birch society from the 1950s or so.
There was once a movement, born of desperation and a sense of embattlement at being on the losing side of historical forces. This movement saw itself as the inheritor and the guarantor of true American tradition and identity, and it sought to restore those things to their rightful primacy in national life. But because the movement did feel embattled, and because it did view itself as the victim of powerful forces, it chose to not merely fight its foes, but emulate them. It saw the prime virtue of its enemies as their ability to win, and if they could just crack the code — if it could grasp the very methodology of victory — then they would turn the tables, and victory would be theirs.If I wanted to work in politics, and if I truly wanted to make the world a better place, I suppose I'd join the "progressives" and try to fix what they're doing wrong.
First, accept the basics of economics, of cause and effect, that people respond to incentives. Accept that there are successful cultures and unsuccessful ones and that it's hard to keep a good culture down. In other words, remove the big obstacles and then let things take their course. Some groups will flourish, some will flail. Those that flail have the choice of changing, or not. And finally, accept that wealth is created by wealthy people. Within the US, contrary to much opinion, they usually got wealthy by creating something of value and not by taking something away. Our economy is not a zero-sum game, which should be obvious since the global economy grows over time at varying rates. The US economy alone has grown [around] 20% since the Bush tax cuts! To put that in perspective, we've added an entire large sized country to our economy since 2003. And like the saying goes, "I never got a job from a poor man." Don't punish success, don't reward failure. No, we don't want people starving to death in the streets or (more relevant today) to be homeless.
Don't say that you're against homelessness while complaining about suburban sprawl. If you really care about homelessness, then you should be lobbying for changing zoning laws to allow cheaper, smaller homes. Stuff like Habitat for Humanity is a joke. Far better is to allow (not mandate, not have the government create, but allow) very small homes packed closely together. And in some cases perhaps even something similar to capsule hotels for people to live in temporarily. But only if it's run as a going enterprise by private industry (which has a motivation for overall success).
If we really are heading for major global warming, then we probably want developing countries to burn even more CO2. If we're going to have massive disruptions, it's better if people in places like Bangladesh can move up the social ladder into the industrial age so that they're wealthy and smart enough to deal with the impending problems of flooding. In the US, we'll be OK. It would be very costly and massively disruptive, but we'll figure something out. As they are now, Bangladesh won't.
// posted by Bruce @ 10:07 AM 
