 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
We are rapidly approaching yet another one of those days of society-wide self-deception so common in this country: another election for president and our other would-be, lesser masters. The candidates pretend that they mean what they say even as they spout contradictory words from both sides of their mouths. The voters pretend that they believe what they politicians are saying to them even as they know they are being lied to. And nearly everyone pretends that it makes a whit of sense to accept the phantasmal notion that the road to prosperity is to be achieved by everyone stealing from everyone else.
I'm reminded of a Sidney Harris cartoon. Two mathematicians stand at a blackboard where one has written two sets of impressive equations. Linking them are the words "Then a miracle occurs..." The second academic points to the words and says, "I think you should be more explicit here in step two."
Yes, indeed.
Divorcing desirable "good" ends from the means used to achieve them is a time-honored tradition in the universe of statist politics. People are aware of their particular circumstances in everyday life and know that to purchase a new car or take a European vacation or enjoy a plasma screen television, they have to find a way to earn and/or save the money to pay for them. Even if they buy on credit, adults know (or at least should know...) that, short of declaring bankruptcy, they will have to repay that loan.
As any good economist can tell you, the desires people have for goods and services is, essentially, limitless. The problem is that resources are, compared to wants, finite. Though new resources can be discovered and developed, they will still always lack behind what is wished for.
The problem today arises when people begin pondering those areas of life which the State has made its special province. The politicians promise that they will provide health care to every single damned one of us. The politicians promise that they will provide housing for every man (and woman...) jack of us. The politicians promise that they will provide security for all people of the earth. The politicians promise that they will provide education to every child and college student in the country.
Amazing, isn't it? That the president or whoever is able to pay -- from his own pocket -- to give millions and millions of people...their...er... Oh. Wait. Even though the politicians take personal credit for handing out all that largesse, they don't actually pay for those "gifts" themselves, do they? No. It's all accomplished via the Miracle of Voting!
Wonderful! Astounding! Shiny!
Yes, Fellow Citizen, to obtain all the medicine or housing or safety or learning you could conceivably desire, all you have to do is vote. Vote and ye shall receive...
Wow.
To accomplish this marvelous and spectacular goal, all we have to do is walk into a little booth every few years, pull a lever, and, voilá! Instant riches.
Hmm. Perhaps people who naively believe this fairy tale should consider that "second step" and examine a bit more explicitly what pulling that lever really means.
A discussion I had in a recent college course I taught illustrates well the illusion that causes otherwise reasonable people to go blind during that "second step" and spout that shudder-inducing phrase, "But we voted for it!"
Over the course of the semester, we had read and analyzed quite a few articles and essays on various modern-day controversies. On the final day of class, I presented a line of thought designed to test just how well my students had learned to think through the implications of their positions.
The hypothetical example I gave is, in some form or another, a common one that freedom-loving individuals offer to their skeptical friends. (See, for instance, my essay, "Principles: Public and Private" for another version.)
The particular topic I dealt with was, essentially, how to get other people to do what you want them to do. We had all agreed that a person's life "belonged" to himself. Each person had the right to commit suicide, for example, even if that act was not necessarily the right thing to do in a given context. That principle underlay what I offered.
"Imagine," I said, "that a neighbor of yours, Bob, has a hundred dollars laying on his kitchen table. You need that money to pay a bill or to buy food. Whatever. Doesn't matter. But you want that money and know that Bob just has it sitting there, unused."
Everyone nodded.
"Okay. Now. Would it be right for you to walk into Bob's house and simply take that money?"
"No," the students said.
"Why?"
"That's stealing," Sally said. (Not her name.)
"Why?"
"Because it belongs to Bob. It's his property."
"Okay. What if Bob is a big guy? You're afraid he might try to stop you or hurt you if you take that money off the table. Would it be okay for you to bring along another neighbor to restrain Bob so you can safely take the money?"
The students looked at me askance for asking such a silly, obvious question. "No," they said, as though talking to a not-so-bright cousin.
"Well. What if you and ten of your neighbors got together and didn't actually restrain or hurt Bob but just made it clear that he had better stay in his chair while you take his money?"
"No." Exasperated.
"All right. What if all your neighbors did this?"
"No."
"Okay," I said. "Suppose that you and your neighbors are still a bit afraid of Bob. None of you are very good at physically intimidating others. What if you and your neighbors contacted a local gang to break into Bob's house and take the money for you while you stay in the safety of your homes and never have to see Bob? You give the gang a cut of the dough, say thirty-percent, and divide the rest of the money among you. Is that all right?"
A student, "Sam," shook his head and said loudly, "Of course not! That's still stealing!"
"Hmm. Let's suppose next that you and your neighbors aren't really happy about forking over thirty-percent of the money to the gang. So you contact a rival gang who agrees to do the same thing for only twenty-five-percent. Maybe the first gang is meaner and more likely to be successful, but the second gang is less expensive. You and your neighbors hold a vote, and the majority votes in favor of Gang #2. So the second gang takes Bob's money, keeps their fee, and gives you the rest. Now. How is this situation any different than when citizens vote in politicians who take other people's money, keep some for themselves, and distribute the rest to the voters?"
The students were silent for a moment. I could tell they didn't like where this example was heading.
With a kind of desperate, ah-ha!-gotcha note in his voice, Sam raised his hand and said, "But Bob didn't get to vote!"
And at that juncture, of course, the myth, the "miracle" of voting was revealed in all its stark and nasty reality. For his entire life, Sam had been dutifully brainwashed into accepting and extolling the virtues of democracy; the phony notion that voting was sacrosanct, a process that all of us must accept and follow regardless of our feelings, our values, our own judgments.
I laughed. "Okay. Let Bob vote then. Is that going to change the result?"
No one said anything. What could they say? What that made any sense, that is. Stealing is stealing regardless of who or how many people do it or the specific manner in which it is done. Taking someone's property without his permission -- even if to reach a goal he might well favor -- is theft.
Unless and until all voters understand the true nature of modern-day voting as a means to distribute other people's wealth (rather than as merely a procedural means to elect those who will guard and protect our rights); unless and until they realize that it is wrong -- immoral -- to rob Peter to pay Paul and vice versa, we will continue down the path to a burgeoning State and a diminishing freedom.
I accept and acknowledge that such a sea-change in awareness and action among people today is unlikely to occur anytime soon. But there was a time not so long ago in this country when most citizens realized that they had no claim on the lives of other Americans. If such attitudes prevailed once, they can gain ascendancy again.
Oddly enough, though, it would not require a real miracle for such a glorious change to occur. All that would be necessary would be for a majority of adults to vote...for liberty.
