Government hand crafts progressive fairy tales
Published in The Tennessean, March 28, 2010
Government hand crafts progressive fairy tales
by Richard J. Grant
In a world where the word "diversity" is uttered in tones normally reserved for worship, we might wonder why all truly meaningful signs of diversity are in retreat. We are told that we are to be color blind in our social relations, yet we are reminded in the new census forms, and in the plethora of affirmative action programs, of our government's obsession with race and gender. But shouldn't our government be less interested in race and gender than any one of us as an individual would be?
There was a time when diversity was more valued in human ideas and achievements, rather than in terms of those characteristics, such as gender and race, that are givens and that we would not likely change even if we could. Although many would object that we do indeed value new ideas and great achievements, the real trend of recent times is toward centralization of standards and regulations.
Just as every child is now at risk of getting a trophy just for showing up, each individual is now at risk of being given the necessities of life just for showing up. The word "risk" is not inappropriate here, for the risk lies in the deeper, real cost of living in this easy, homogenized world of contrived fairness and imagined social justice. The necessities of life don't just show up; someone must produce them.
That is the catch that lies at the heart of all our government entitlement and regulatory programs. They go way beyond the basic laws that better enable us to live and cooperate together. In fact, they generally counteract those rights with which citizens were "endowed by their Creator."
What does it mean, for example, for Congress to declare a "right to health care"? This is what we euphemistically call a "positive right" – the right to exercise power over others who have or produce something that we might want. And our new right is backed up by the threat of officially sanctioned coercion against those who do not conform.
Trained in medicine? We will now tell you how to conduct your practice, which facilities are available to you, and how much we will pay you. Your time is ours.
You run a hospital or an insurance company? We will now tell you what you must offer your customers, and then we will tell you how much you can charge them. We'll buy you off at first by sending a flood of customers your way, and for some of them we will even help pay their bills. But when it suits us, we will price you out of the market.
This is where progressive fairytales really begin. We find ourselves in a world of abundance and then assume that we can rearrange the distribution without diminishing the wealth. We tell insurers that they may not classify customers by risk, and then we wonder why everyone's premiums must go up or why real medical insurance just disappears. We treat doctors like glorified conscripts and then soon wonder why the best candidates for medical school choose other careers, and why we must import doctors from overseas.
Governments often cater to those who can't handle the fact that diversity in life means diversity in outcomes. The incessant drive towards equality in outcomes serves only to sacrifice the efforts of those who excel at production for the short-term benefit of those who excel only at consumption.
But it is worse than that. The coercion inherent in all government control, notably when such control exceeds that warranted by natural rights, sacrifices the dignity of all those who have something more than their appetites to offer. It is not charity. It treats producers like second-class citizens who, as if in payment for their virtues, must give up a commensurate portion of their lives in deference to the demands of those who lack such virtue.
Richard J. Grant is a professor of finance and economics at Lipscomb University and a scholar at the Tennessee Center for Policy Research. His column appears on Sundays. E-mail: rjg@richardjgrant.com
Copyright © Richard J Grant 2010
Government hand crafts progressive fairy tales
by Richard J. Grant
In a world where the word "diversity" is uttered in tones normally reserved for worship, we might wonder why all truly meaningful signs of diversity are in retreat. We are told that we are to be color blind in our social relations, yet we are reminded in the new census forms, and in the plethora of affirmative action programs, of our government's obsession with race and gender. But shouldn't our government be less interested in race and gender than any one of us as an individual would be?
There was a time when diversity was more valued in human ideas and achievements, rather than in terms of those characteristics, such as gender and race, that are givens and that we would not likely change even if we could. Although many would object that we do indeed value new ideas and great achievements, the real trend of recent times is toward centralization of standards and regulations.
Just as every child is now at risk of getting a trophy just for showing up, each individual is now at risk of being given the necessities of life just for showing up. The word "risk" is not inappropriate here, for the risk lies in the deeper, real cost of living in this easy, homogenized world of contrived fairness and imagined social justice. The necessities of life don't just show up; someone must produce them.
That is the catch that lies at the heart of all our government entitlement and regulatory programs. They go way beyond the basic laws that better enable us to live and cooperate together. In fact, they generally counteract those rights with which citizens were "endowed by their Creator."
What does it mean, for example, for Congress to declare a "right to health care"? This is what we euphemistically call a "positive right" – the right to exercise power over others who have or produce something that we might want. And our new right is backed up by the threat of officially sanctioned coercion against those who do not conform.
Trained in medicine? We will now tell you how to conduct your practice, which facilities are available to you, and how much we will pay you. Your time is ours.
You run a hospital or an insurance company? We will now tell you what you must offer your customers, and then we will tell you how much you can charge them. We'll buy you off at first by sending a flood of customers your way, and for some of them we will even help pay their bills. But when it suits us, we will price you out of the market.
This is where progressive fairytales really begin. We find ourselves in a world of abundance and then assume that we can rearrange the distribution without diminishing the wealth. We tell insurers that they may not classify customers by risk, and then we wonder why everyone's premiums must go up or why real medical insurance just disappears. We treat doctors like glorified conscripts and then soon wonder why the best candidates for medical school choose other careers, and why we must import doctors from overseas.
Governments often cater to those who can't handle the fact that diversity in life means diversity in outcomes. The incessant drive towards equality in outcomes serves only to sacrifice the efforts of those who excel at production for the short-term benefit of those who excel only at consumption.
But it is worse than that. The coercion inherent in all government control, notably when such control exceeds that warranted by natural rights, sacrifices the dignity of all those who have something more than their appetites to offer. It is not charity. It treats producers like second-class citizens who, as if in payment for their virtues, must give up a commensurate portion of their lives in deference to the demands of those who lack such virtue.
Richard J. Grant is a professor of finance and economics at Lipscomb University and a scholar at the Tennessee Center for Policy Research. His column appears on Sundays. E-mail: rjg@richardjgrant.com
Copyright © Richard J Grant 2010