Daily Archives: June 28, 2009

Limits of central government

Standard theory views government as functional: a social need arises, and government, semi-automatically, springs up to fill that need. (see Murray Rothbard) Furthermore, and this is always true, whether or not the “need” is satisfactorily met by government action, the newly hired government employees will be the first (and sometimes the only ones) to benefit from the government expenditure.

We ought always to be clear on what part of government monies (taken of course by taxation from the people) goes to government employees and what part actually reaches the people, structures, programs in need of that funding. We ought to be told upfront what part of the dollar will go to administering the new programs.

The apparent needs for government actions are myriad. The problem is to decide which ones should become the government’s responsibility, and which ones not. And among them all what are those that may best be met by government expenditures? Roads and bridges, certainly. These may be the best examples of appropriate government actions. The expenditures probably do by and large represent the cost of the bridge itself, as well as that of the non-governmental bridge workers.

What are the needs of the people that are worst met by government expenditures? Probably all those falling under the headings of health, education, and human services. And in fact along with defense spending these three represent the largest part of the federal budget.

These programs employ government workers in the tens/hundreds of thousands, are consequently very expensive, and pretty much fail to satisfactorily meet the health, educational, and job needs of the people. And these programs continue to expand and grow.

Is there another solution? It may very well be that health, educational, and other such services are best met on the local level, where the givers (the teachers,  doctors, and social workers) and the recipients (the students, the patients, and the broken families) are all members of the same community, and have therefore perhaps the best chance of becoming more responsible to themselves and to ne another, less in need of central government services. Wasn’t this how it once was?

But this is not happening. Instead, as central government roles have increased so have the responsibilities of the individuals, the families, the local communities decreased. And as a result the movement of the government programs and government dollars into an area of need accomplishes little by itself. Learning to read, for example, becoming ready to take and hold a job, being a father to one’s child, not trying drugs and going to prison, all these goals remain out of reach.

Mortimer Adler on Multiculturalism

“The world, certainly, is multicultural, and so we should be taught about its cultural diversity. But this, it seems to me, is the time to ask whether society as a whole or its educational institutions should be multicultural in all respects, or only in some.

If only in some, I propose that the word transculturalism should be employed for those respects in which multiculturalism or cultural pluralism should not be safeguarded or promoted….

For example, Chicago is multicultural in its restaurants but not in its hardware stores. A ruler or tape measure, in centimeters or inches, does not differ from one ethnically special neighborhood to another; nor does the candlepower of a light bulb and the difference between direct and alternating electric current.

There …are differences in French, Italian, Japanese, and Thai cuisines. Clocks and calendars are the same in all sections of the city. They are the same everywhere in the world.”
(To read Mortimer Adler’s full account go HERE)

Adler is correct about this (and, in my opinion, about most things). For there is a fundamental and substantial sameness in the lives of men, including not only the measures we take of the sizes of things, but also the values we give them. It is this sameness that we ought to be promoting in all our contacts, not only with our neighbors of differing ethnic and national origins at home, but also abroad, throughout the world, in our encounters with people of other cultures and civilizations.

The answer to the multiculturalists is that sure, there are many cultures of equal worth, reflecting the myriad ways that men and women have dressed themselves up to meet the world and live their different lives.

But these differences are only skin deep. They do not extend into our hearts and minds, the two vital organs that most make us what we are and that under a microscope are indistinguishable among us.

Finally, the sharing of our thoughts and feelings, when we are free to do so, as in public in a liberal democracy, or as in private in a totalitarian society such as today in Iran or earlier about a kitchen table in the Soviet Union, far surpasses in significance the great differences of clothes, customs, language, and even beliefs, that the multiculturalists would use to draw us apart.

Khomeini/Khamenei, lest we forget

During the Iran-Iraq War, the Ayatollah Khomeini imported 500,000 small plastic keys from Taiwan. The trinkets were meant to be inspirational. After Iraq invaded in September 1980, it had quickly become clear that Iran’s forces were no match for Saddam Hussein’s professional, well-armed military. To compensate for their disadvantage, Khomeini sent Iranian children, some as young as twelve years old, to the front lines. There, they marched in formation across minefields toward the enemy, clearing a path with their bodies. Before every mission, one of the Taiwanese keys would be hung around each child’s neck. It was supposed to open the gates to paradise for them.
(from Matthias Küntzel, A CHILD OF THE REVOLUTION TAKES OVER,  Ahmadinejad’s Demons, TNR, 4/24/06)