Wednesday, April 07, 2010

Government of Anointed Intellectuals


The more government tries to fix something, the worse it gets. New England yankees used to say, “If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.” Government, however, goes by the aphorism “If it ain’t broke, we’ll keep on fixing it ’til it is.”

In his most recent book Intellectuals and Society, economist Thomas Sowell dichotomizes Americans into those who view the world with a “tragic vision” and those who look at it with the “vision of the anointed.” The former believe the world will always be less than perfect, but people have the liberty to pursue happiness - and whether they succeed or fail is up to them. The “anointed,” though, believe they have superior wisdom, and with it, they can perfect the world if people will just do what they say. They would use government to impose their vision on everyone else, like it or not.Thomas Sowell

Those of us with a tragic vision see the Constitution as limiting government, which is a necessary evil. The anointed see the Constitution as something to get around so they can use government to “fix” everything. They see human nature as evolving and perfectible. They see no limit to what legislation can accomplish, and see nothing as immutable because they are anointed with superior wisdom. They believe, for example, that the law of supply and demand can be repealed if they will it. But the supply and demand dynamic isn’t the result of legislation; it just exists - always has and always will - independent of the anointed’s ability to discover it or define it. Government can outlaw drugs, prostitution or child pornography, but if there’s a demand, a supply will emerge. In spite of massive expenditures of money and manpower, the best government can do is reduce the supply somewhat and drive up prices. We learned that between the 18th and 21st Amendments to the Constitution, which were monuments to government overreach. The anointed thought they could ban alcohol and found out they couldn’t. Government could outlaw it, but if people wanted it, and they did, they’d find a way to get it. Smugglers got rich supplying it whether they were moonshiners or mafioso.

Maine’s government can increase taxes on cigarettes, but as local merchants try to tell them over and over, people will  continue to smoke and buy their cigarettes in New Hampshire or elsewhere. Government won’t get more revenue from the increased tax, but less. The same is true of income taxes and mandatory workmen’s compensation insurance. Make them too high and people will find a way to get around them. The underground economy will grow, not government coffers.

Our Founding Fathers rule of thumb was: “That government is best that governs least.” This kernel of wisdom is variously attributed to Thomas Jefferson and Henry David Thoreau and, until progressives started  using government to “fix” things in the 20th century, it was the American way. It’s the polar opposite of the anointed progressive mantra, which is: “That government is best that governs most.” In the early days of the century, anointed progressives at least had the decency to abide by the Constitution. To expand government power, they passed four amendments. Two were okay, including the 17th - allowing the direct election of US Senators, and the 19th - giving women the vote. The other two, however, were disastrous. The 16th created the income tax, and the 18th prohibited alcohol. Prohibition was repealed after sixteen years by the 21st Amendment and should have been a lesson on the limits of government for all time, but it wasn’t of course.

Progressives lost power in the 1920s. Then, when faced with economic slowdown, conseervative presidents Harding and Coolidge cut taxes and shrunk government. As a result, the economy thrived. Progressives regained control in the thirties however, and tried to “fix” another economic slowdown by creating a huge government bureaucracy. As a result, they prolonged it and turned it into The Great Depression. It might have gone on even longer if World War II hadn’t started. Nonetheless, progressives were able to give us our first major, unsustainable entitlement - social security - which is now bankrupt.

After an 8-year respite under Eisenhower, progressives came back with Johnson’s Great Society which gave us another major, unsustainable, bankrupt entitlement: Medicare. If conservatives hadn’t taken over Congress in 1994, progressives in the Clinton Administration would have given us still another major, unsustainable entitlement: socialized medicine for everyone. Now, in spite of a $12 trillion federal debt and a projected $100 trillion deficit in Social Security and Medicare entitlements, government is about to “fix” a medical system which is the envy of the world. How long will it take before it resembles the department of motor vehicles and the public schools?

Naturally, the president and the anointed progressives in Congress who imposed this upon the rest of us, have exempted themselves.

20 comments:

Anonymous said...

This is why we must get rid of the "self serving" beltway mentality. This is the essence of the TEA Party movement. Give the government back to the governed! We must STOP birthright inherited positions..(Pelosi,Kennedy,Bush etc) and replace them with GREAT LIBERTY THINKERS..ex:founding fathers.Laurie from Bartlett

Anonymous said...

Nothing new here. I fear the following quotations sum it up only too well.

"The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter."

"Democracy is the worst form of government except for all those others that have been tried."

~ Winston Churchill

I understand that we are not a true democracy but that is the word people understand.

And as always the words of Pogo Possum.

"We have met the enemy and he is us."

I wish I had a better answer. But then it would probably favor me and the circle would close again.

Anonymous said...

Hard to follow your point exactly. Are you really saying that government should stay out of matters such as child porn and other evils and ust let supply and demand take it's natural course?

You seem to take the same viewpoint as does the catholic church in matters like this....there will always be a demand for young children by priests, so why try and create extra departments and spend more money trying to curb it....

Anonymous said...

"The anointed thought they could ban alcohol and found out they couldn’t. Government could outlaw it, but if people wanted it, and they did, they’d find a way to get it. Smugglers got rich supplying it whether they were moonshiners or mafioso."

Tom, I am assuming then that you must also be for the legalization of ALL substances that the government bans - heroin, crystal meth, LSD, crack, etc...

Anonymous said...

Tom, you make the claim that our healthcare system is not broken?

Health insurance premiums have been skyrocketing in recent years, so if you are happy with families suffering while insurance companies flourish and proper then I guess the system needed no fixing. I guess you find it justifiable that despite the fact that the five largest health insurance companies -- WellPoint, Cigna, Aetna, UnitedHealth group and Humana -- took in combined profits of more than $12 BILLION in 2009, ( up 56 percent from 2008!), they still are obsessed with milking every last possible dollar from the American public, jacking up their premiums.

All hail your all-powerful corporations, that do no wrong and do not need to be regulated, huh?

Anonymous said...

Oh, how very funny, Tom! A photoshopped picture of Obama where it looks like he is flipping the bird! Giggle, giggle. It seems that the sophmoric humor of your students is rubbing off on you.

Anonymous said...

...and the photoshopped Pelosi picture...yet again. Well, I guess if you have no qualms about not giving the real picture when it comes to your words, why should your photos be any different? I'm surprised you couldn't think of any "reason" to throw in another photo of a naked man though!

Anonymous said...

You seem to admire Thomas Sowell, yet there is one major area in which you both are FAR apart.

Thomas Sowell,In his writings, has repeatedly emphasized the need for empirical evidence and objective assessments of data, as opposed to the sweeping generalizations, wishful thinking, and distorted or false evidence.

I may not agree with all of Sowell's ideas, yet he is somebody who I can at least respect. The key is "dignity", Tom. Look into it.

Anonymous said...

From USA Today:

WASHINGTON — More Americans now favor than oppose the health care overhaul that President Obama signed into law Tuesday, a USA TODAY/Gallup Poll finds — a notable turnaround from surveys before the vote that showed a plurality against the legislation.
By 49%-40%, those polled say it was "a good thing" rather than a bad one that Congress passed the bill. Half describe their reaction in positive terms — as "enthusiastic" or "pleased" — while about four in 10 describe it in negative ways, as "disappointed" or "angry."

No one gets overwhelmingly positive ratings on the issue, but Obama fares the best: 46% say his work has been excellent or good; 31% call it poor. For congressional Democrats, 32% call their efforts on health care excellent or good; 33% poor.

Congressional Republicans, all of whom voted against the bill, are viewed more negatively. Although 26% of those surveyed rate the GOP's effort as excellent or good, 34% say it has been poor.

Anonymous said...

"Government of Anointed Intellectuals"?

It is not surprising that somebody with your mental limitations has issues with "intellectuals". (Only in the radical right la-la land is being smart frowned upon.) As for our government officials, the word is "elected", not "anointed". The difference may be foggy for a non-intellectual, but it is a big difference nevertheless. Although I suppose if you were talking about the fraudulant theft of the 2000 election you could say that Bush was "anointed" by the Supreme Court.

DAWN said...

To Anonymous who likes to put in quotes from USA Today. You quoted:

"By 49%-40%, those polled say it was "a good thing" rather than a bad one that Congress passed the bill.

but Obama fares the best: 46% say his work has been excellent or good;"

but you failed to quote this from the USA Today:

WASHINGTON — Tax Day is a dreaded deadline for millions of Americans, but for nearly half of U.S. households, it's simply somebody else's problem.
About 47% will pay no federal income taxes for 2009.

Hmmmm isn't it best to put in the rest of the story? So maybe the 47% are the same that you're quoting as ok with Obama's decisions?

There are many people out there with their hands held out looking for something for nothing. There are those who think it's the Government's job to take care of them. So they take from us and give to them.

Just remember taxing "the rich" isn't going to hurt the rich like it's going to hurt the working poor.

Anonymous said...

Dawn, whatever you are talking about, it has nothing to do with the poll saying that more Americans favor the health reform than oppose it. You say:

"There are many people out there with their hands held out looking for something for nothing. There are those who think it's the Government's job to take care of them. So they take from us and give to them."



I agree with that, Dawn. I also think that an even bigger problem than the lazy bums (different than the people that really do need a boost) who are milking free handouts from the government, are the huge corporations that have grown accustomed to corporate welfare and handouts that is ultimatly paid for by the citizens.

We are also in 100% agreement about your statement that "taxing "the rich" isn't going to hurt the rich like it's going to hurt the working poor."

DAWN said...

"I also think that an even bigger problem than the lazy bums (different than the people that really do need a boost)...

How do you determine who needs a boost or not? Isn't that quite subjective?

And who says it's the government's job to give such a boost? Who knows these people better than their own community? If they're lazy and dependant on others for no good reason they shouldn't be helped but if they're hard on their luck and have been good people in their community others will help.

That's how it should work.

Anonymous said...

Yes, Dawn, in a perfect world that is how it would work...people that have experienced horrible luck or a tragedy would be helped out by the wonderful folks in the local community. However, in the real world, one cannot always count on such help.

I think the nature of our capitalistic society makes it necessary for the government to have plans in place to help those in need, especially since our society is imperfect with factors like prejudice and nepotism affecting social status and class in society. Until we’re all on an even playing field and have the same opportunities then there’s no way we’ll be able to do away with welfare programs.

Of course as with all programs there is a chance to take advantage of the system or to get stuck, but that’s for those who don’t really try in my opinion. It’s not fair to punish those who actually benefit from welfare in the short-term for the abuse of others.

Personally if it weren’t for welfare then I can honestly say that my family and I would not be where we are today. My mother and father split and my mom was left to raise us 3 kids alone. Despite the fact that she had TWO masters degrees from Purdue University and New Castle Upon Tyne she was rejected from the most menial jobs for being “overqualified”. How can someone be “overqualified” for a job? If anything an employer should graciously hire them since they’d clearly be a great addition to their team. Being a single mom of 3 young kids she couldn’t let us starve and so she went on welfare. Getting food stamps, free lunch at school, and Medicaid were vital in our survival. My mom wasn’t one of those people to just sit around, she was still working as a permanent substitute teacher all the while. Of course this job alone wasn’t enough to support all four of us but she couldn’t afford to work more because she had no one to take care of us.

Eventually my mom got a better job in Maine so we moved, but we still had to stay on welfare for a bit until she was able to get a better job. I can’t even imagine where we would be now if the welfare system wasn’t there to help support us when we needed it.
That’s why we NEED welfare….because we live in an imperfect society where those who are the poorest often are because of things outside of their control. People always blame others’ choices for their positions in society, but I really don’t think my mom’s choices of getting two graduate degrees were the reason she couldn’t make money.

DAWN said...

"Yes, Dawn, in a perfect world that is how it would work...people that have experienced horrible luck or a tragedy would be helped out by the wonderful folks in the local community."

It does work. That's how it should be. That's alot closer to a perfect world than going in the opposite direction and what we have now.

If you give the money back to the people, they can help their downtrodden neighbors. They can help those that really do need help. One of our tax clients has a million dollar income. As the years went by, the government took more and more of it. They take so much of it now he doesn't give to charity anymore (he used to give alot) because he figures now the government is charity.

"People always blame others’ choices for their positions in society, but I really don’t think my mom’s choices of getting two graduate degrees were the reason she couldn’t make money."

Of course it's choices. We forge our own paths in life. Some things can't be helped like cancer or some other life threatening illness but almost everything else is due to a choice we made earlier.

Take your mom's example for instance. Because I don't know anything other than you wrote here I can see some choices she may have made that went against her. The man she married for one. That was her choice to begin with.

Second, to have two degrees and three children tells me there most likely was very little husband time (seen this before). If she had put into her marriage like she did her education maybe she wouldn't have been divorced?

We don't like to look at ourselves critically but if we're honest we can go back and pinpoint the beginning of our "bad luck" due to some earlier choices we made. It really has very little to do with luck.

But don't get me wrong I'm glad your mom worked things thru and that she was able to set things right and not lean too heavily on the government but I don't think it's the government's job to take care of such things.

The problem is we want the government to take care of these things instead of owning up to it ourselves and admitting maybe, just maybe there were red flags we were ignoring earlier that led to our current crisis.

We always pick what we plant.

Anonymous said...

Dawn, I think you are a bit naive, and are being very simplistic with your thinking. My mother had her two degrees before getting married - devoting time to her husband was NOT the problem. My father turned out to have some previously unknown problems with bipolar disorder which ended up with him being temporarily hospitalized before running off. Do NOT blame this on my mother's "choices". Just knock it off with your self-rightous opinions on my mother. Would you have the government turn a blind eye to her plight and let her and her children fall into despair and end up being a much larger drag on society? I think in helping her instead become the productive member of society that she is, and giving her children a fair shot in this world is much wiser and much more beneficial for society as a whole.

Of course we don't ALWAYS "pick what we plant" - life is not a bumpersticker slogan.

Anonymous said...

America is built on a system whose driving force is the profit motive. Our economy blatantly rewards greed. In classic economic theory greed is good. A person who is motivated by greed will create, as unintended byproducts, benefits for everyone, such as employment and the development of new goods and services. Let the rich get richer, the saying goes, and the benefits will "trickle down" to the rest of us. "A rising tide raises all boats." Under a pure capitalistic system the government keeps hands off and allows the market to decide how the money flows. The problem is, as we have found in the era of deregulation, the money flows to the top. Tampering with the market system to redistribute the wealth or assure that the poor are protected is labeled "socialism."
By these standards Jesus was a socialist.
Jesus spoke remarkably often about wealth and poverty. To the rich he said, "go, sell what you have, and give to the poor." When the rich turned away from him because they couldn't follow his command he observed, "it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God."
For Jesus, helping the poor and the outcast is not optional: it is the essence of what it means to love God. We are to "forgive our debtors" and "give to every one who begs from you." But don't handouts contribute to moral decay? Jesus was more concerned about the moral decay in those who are so attached to their wealth that they would hoard it for themselves. In our better moments most of us recognize that giving does not corrupt. People who have been devastated by misfortune may need even more help because they may not have what it takes to recover on their own. Many of us will help a friend in hard times, even though we know we will never be repaid. It is when dealing distantly with people in the abstract that we fall back on the "moral decay" argument.
Greed may be a driving force for the economy, but Jesus saw it is as destructive to community. Greed may leave a few crumbs behind for the poor, and it may do some unintended good, but it destroys compassion. Compassion is in short supply in our society today where workers are being downsized in the name of efficiency, and the middle class is abandoned by the rich to fight it out with the poor for the table scraps.
Jesus' response to economic inequality is very direct: we are to share the wealth. I once heard a talk about world hunger. The point was that we produce far more food than is needed to feed everyone on earth. The problem is not lack of supply; it is maldistribution. Is concern for the poor to be simply a private matter to be handled by charity, or does it have anything to do with politics or government? The Bible calls upon the rulers to create a just society. We have inherited a system that works efficiently to produce tremendous wealth, but fails to distribute that wealth equitably. It neglects the poor and it corrupts the rich. On both counts it destroys community. A decent life for all is a matter of simple justice, not charity!

DAWN said...

To the rich he said, "go, sell what you have, and give to the poor." When the rich turned away from him because they couldn't follow his command he observed, "it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God."

You are not only misquoting scripture you are misrepresenting it as well. Jesus was NOT a socialist nor was he concerned with politics at all.

The scripture you are referring to is the one in which he addressed the Rich Young Ruler Matt 19:16.

If you read the whole conversation you'd see that this man "claimed" he followed the whole 10 commandments. When Christ asked him to sell all he had he was pointing out the contradiction in this young man. By walking away sadly the young man showed quite clearly he was breaking the commandments he just claimed he had kept since his youth like "Have no other god before me." "Do not covet" "Love your neighbor as yourself."

But most of all he was trying to be self justified "what must "I" do that "I" might be saved?" was his question. We can't save ourselves. Only Christ saves. He didn't understand that. He, most likely, was used to buying himself anything he wanted. Maybe he felt that way about the afterlife as well. It can't be bought.

It has NOTHING to do with telling the man to become a socialist. There were many rich believers in Scripture who were strong men of God and they did NOT give all they had to the poor nor were they ever asked to. Abraham, David, Moses and Job to mention a few.

Later Paul wrote "if you do not work, you do not eat."

Socialism is NOT scriptural. In fact capitolism makes a strong case in scripture. You may want to read the book of Ruth (4 chapters) to see how God's welfare system worked.

the collectivist said...

Dawn - you've outdone yourself. Suggesting that people like yourself would help your downtrodden neighbors is the funniest thing I've ever read. You don't have anything good to say about them, don't want them to have health care (do want to force them to give birth if they're women), don't want them to have any kind of public assistance at all, but you and your vituperous friends would help these folks if you had a little more cash? Hahahahahahahaha!

Anonymous said...

Hello Mr. Mclaughlin Its Fay Pierce I was one of ur students in 2006 I Love ur stories and i know many other ppl do i have one that i really want read by many ppl! its facts about how ppl are here in gray new gloucester send a responce to my yahoo. football4lyfe691@yahoo.com please and thank you