Problem-Solving Via The State Monday, January 07, 2008
Two news stories, a little imaginary dialog and then my commentary, bear with me here. First, Bush Acknowledges Mixed Signals On Economy at NYT.com:Here's another, Energy Costs a Top Concern for New Hampshire Voters, again from NYT.com:Dampening the administration’s customary upbeat tone on the economy, President Bush acknowledged Monday that the economic signs were “increasingly mixed,” but he also suggested he would oppose Democratic initiatives to increase spending to head off a recession.
...
In New Hampshire and elsewhere, the Democratic presidential candidates have also increasingly begun warning of a possible economic downturn and the need for actions in Washington, though they too have not been specific.
(Huh? I don't get that last part, I see how you can reduce oil prices or reduce consumption, but I don't see how you could accomplish both at the same time. Not without shooting a lot of people rioting because of a severely rationed energy supply, anyway.)Gasoline and home heating oil are no longer comfortably affordable, especially for the roughly 60 percent of residents who commute more than 25 miles to work. Of about two dozen people interviewed here in recent weeks, nearly all said energy policy was a top concern as they looked to the presidential primary on Tuesday. Some said they had bought wood-pellet stoves to supplement oil heat; others said they had looked into installing solar panels or even living off the grid, with no reliance on public utilities.
“Oil affects everything,” said Paris Wells, who owns the Central Square Ice Cream Shoppe on Main Street. “We need someone in office who’s going to look seriously at alternative power of some form.”
Mr. Wells said he was spending more than $1,000 a month on heating oil in winter, which, judging from the estimates others gave, is within the norm. New Hampshire is more dependent on oil heat than any state except Maine and Vermont, according to the Energy Information Administration, with 58 percent of homes using it. The average national cost of home heating oil was $3.34 a gallon last month, up from $2.44 a year earlier.
...
“I remember when the center of a presidential campaign was a promise to take care of people in our country,” said Norma Hubbard, who runs the local food pantry and feeds about 100 families a week. “That is not there for most of the candidates now.”
Many here, including Mr. Wells, spoke admiringly of Gov. Bill Richardson of New Mexico, a Democrat and former energy secretary who they said seemed more passionate than most candidates about reducing oil prices and consumption.
Based off those two articles, I imagine a scenario like this has played out at least once in New Hampshire recently:
NH Voter 1- Gee, would you look at this? My heating bill went up $100 last month!Outrageous? Sure, that millionaire bit, anyway, but the rest of that is basically what people were complaining about in the NYT article about energy costs. So where did I come up with the "millionaire problem?"
NH Voter 2- Wow, only $100? Mine went up $200! And on top of that, it costs me an extra $50 a week these days to fill up my tank.
NH Voter 1- Oh I know. I drive a pretty fuel-efficient car but I am still paying about $20 more a week to fill up than I did a few years ago even. We've got a serious problem on our hands.
NH Voter 2- Yeah no kidding. Someone should do something about this problem.
NH Voter 1- Wait a second, I just realized something. We've got a much bigger problem on our hands than even these energy costs! Are you a millionaire?
NH Voter 2- Uh, no, I don't think so, why, are you?
NH Voter 1- No, not at all. Don't you think that's a problem, too?
NH Voter 2- What, not being a millionaire?
NH Voter 1- Exactly.
NH Voter 2- Well I'll be... I never thought of it like that, but, yeah, you're right. That is a big problem!
NH Voter 1- Someone should do something about this problem, too. I hope that in our state primary the presidential candidates will not only address how they're going to solve our energy problems, but also if they have any plans for solving the "Not everyone is a millionaire" problem.
I think having the government solve the problem of everyone not being a millionaire is where the current political logic leads to. Consider where we are now-- if there's an economic problem, the voters demand a statist remedy. Medical bills too high? Let's implement price controls! (this was a serious recommendation from a woman I debated this subject with, a woman with an economics degree... and apparently no knowledge of the history of the Soviet Union). Energy costs spiraling out of control? Let's have the government fund alternative energy research!
But all these problems are all just subsets of one larger economic problem, that being "low" incomes or lack of wealth. Why target each individual problem as it turns up, when you could solve them all by getting to the root of the matter? Why not just make everyone a millionaire so they don't have to worry about rising costs anymore? Speaking of getting to the root of the problem...
That seems to be something many people don't understand anymore, judging by the demand for statist solutions to (in large part) State-created problems. It used to be that if someone realized they had a problem, they first went in search of the cause of the problem before attempting a solution. Now, it seems like no sooner do people discover problems before they start trying to solve them, causes be damned.
What an impractical way to problem-solve! Consider the results if you utilized such a method in your own abode, never mind the nation's. So, you've got a leaky faucet, now what do you do?
Reason dictates that you do some research on plumbing and water mechanics so you can understand why your faucet is leaking. Instead, however, you take a baseball bat and smash the faucet repeatedly. Nope, that doesn't work. In fact, now the faucet is just leaking even more. Hmmm. You take your baseball bat and smash out a window. Did that stop the leaky faucet? No, the faucet is still leaking, and now you have a draft coming through your broken window. You take your baseball bat and smash a couple of lamps and light fixtures to pieces. Did that stop the leaky faucet? Not at all, and now on top of your other problems you can't see your way around the house as soon as the sun sets. Ultimately, in frustration you decide to fire-bomb your neighbor's house, destroying it completely, in the hopes that this will at least distract you from the fact that you have a leaky faucet (and a broken window and no lights).
This is how voters attempt problem-solving via the State. They see something is broken, or so they think at least, (the leaky faucet, which maybe just wasn't turned off all the way and wasn't actually leaky), and they beg the State to start smashing up other things in an attempt at a fix. No one ever stops and asks "Is the faucet leaking?" and if so "Why is the faucet leaking?" People just start demanding a violent solution. And when those violent solutions bear no fruit, but rather destroy the fruit hanging from other trees, the State sometimes turns to destroying other people's things through aggressive war as a means of distracting voters from the root of the problem in question, which almost always has something to do with the State itself.
The government can't solve economic problems, it can only make them worse. The government can't magically lower energy costs, it can't magically invent (cost-effective) alternative energy sources, and it most definitely can't spend the poor voters' money and bring them out of a recession and into perpetual prosperity. The government is made up of people like me and you (okay, okay, people like me and you with a penchant for antagonistic violence and hypocritical behavior), not super people.
Causes must be sought before solutions, and solutions, when implemented, must be individual solutions, because the problems are individual in nature as well. If it costs me $20 more per week to fill up my tank, that's my problem, not John Taxpayer of Tennessee. He didn't cost me an additional $20 per week so I shouldn't be begging the State to point a gun at his head as it tries to find a way to save me or give me $20 per week to help me with my energy expenses.
Labels: absurdist society, childish dependency, communazism, democracy, paternalism, politics, statism
[ posted by TAYLOR @ 9:14 PM | | Digg this! | del.icio.us | Permanent link | links to this post ]
