Freedom of Choice

Freedom of Choice

(A prologue, then a delay)

              “Freedom of choice means that the person is able to choose his own course of action and his own pattern of living, subject to the requirement that he shall not act so as to violate the freedom of choice of others.” 

Kemp, A.(1960, February) Freedom of Choice, The Journal of the American Medical Association. Retrieved from https://fee.org/articles/freedom-of-choice/

              Freedom. How many times is this word used to justify competing ideas? How often is it used to rationalize a political or economic policy stance? We often see “Freedom to/from (insert perceived “right” here)” in some form or another on placards in demonstrations or on the infotainment channels. In the United States of ‘Merica, the word “Freedom” has a special place in our cultural identity. I’d like to explore this word as a means of exploring another subject. I’m (slowly) studying Economics in an attempt to understand the Free-Market, Socialism, fiscal policy, and all of the related ideas that push humanity’s decisions of how to use its resources (that’s a little redundant, but not egregiously I hope).

              Back to “FREEDOM!!!”:

              Waaayyyy back in nineteen eighty-something, I was watching the Saturday morning cartoons. Some of us are old enough to remember those. Smurfs, Snorks, GoBots, etc. Anyway, on CBS(?) there was an animated-short that tried to explain and differentiate Freedom From and Freedom To. To summarize: a kid got angry because he wasn’t allowed to do what he wanted, so he was taken to a pretend environment where he was shown how horrible the world would be if everyone could do whatever they wanted to without restriction (Freedom To). The explanation provided was that living in a world that provided Freedom From is much better because we don’t get hurt. Freedom from hunger, pain, emotional distress, etc, is the benefit of having restrictions placed on us by an outside entity (Big Brother, government, parents, school officials, The Boss, etc). The message implied that in a world of utter, complete freedom of action, we’d be under constant threat of attack.

              I’ve never liked that explanation. It never rang true to me in an absolute sense. Of course the world doesn’t care much for absolutes (except when it’s politically expedient leading up to an election), but concepts are often presented as such for simplicity of articulation and comprehension. It seemed to me that Freedom To was better, and that people aren’t so horrible as to attack each other simply because they can. If that were true, wouldn’t we experience that now? Government can only provide a limited protection to the individual, and has no legal responsibility to do so (numerous SCOTUS decisions have reinforced that the government has no constitutional duty to defend individuals), so why don’t we live in borderline chaos? It seems to me that most people are capable of refraining from acting on destructive impulses as a result of enlightened self-interest. Freedom From simply gives someone else domain over us, the products of our efforts, how we use our resources, how we dress, where we live…  It’d be like living under an authoritarian monarch again, perhaps worse. People are, for the most part, able to make good decisions, so why not let them? Expand Freedom To as much as possible, with resources in-place to manage those relatively few instances of self-interest not being very enlightened, and then get out of the way.

              Well, it seems that not everyone wants that. It’s messy. It doesn’t give us what we need, just the ability to get what we need for ourselves. It doesn’t benefit the individual by providing basic needs. Freedom To live the way we want is awesome, when you have the motivation to sow your own fields and don’t like being dependent on others. You want to spend your life writing poetry and painting? You want to sit around your 3^rd floor apartment contemplating Existentialist Philosophy, and consider that a positive contribution to humanity? Then someone else has to provide food, shelter, utilities, clothing, and your mocha latte, and that’s your right, right? I know that I just took a step down a Slippery Slope, but it’s for a reason. I clumsily dance on the edge of a slippery slope constantly, as you’ve seen, and will continue to see. Again, back on track: Many people see Freedom From as being vital. Freedom From hunger, pain, discomfort (emotional and physical), is seen as a fundamental human right. “We have achieved a height of civilization that allows for this, so why wouldn’t we?”. Freedom To is seen as too dangerous. It forces you to work, or starve. Again, a somewhat-slippery slope, but what happens, in an utterly-free-market, if you don’t work and nobody else takes responsibility for you? You starve. I’m including theft as a form of work in this.

              Freedom of Choice is the title of this post. Where does that fit into a discussion of Freedom To versus Freedom From? From my perspective, it’s the other way around. Freedom From and Freedom To have to be understood in order to understand the inherent responsibilities of Freedom of Choice. I’m exploring this because Freedom of Choice is likely what I consider to be the most important subject a human being can contemplate. Religion is a bit too abstract, but overlaps Freedom of Choice. Freedom of Choice underpins our economics, politics…every aspect of our day-to-day lives.

              For the sake of this piece, I’d like to illustrate Freedom of Choice on a one-dimensional spectrum. I’ll differentiate the extremes as Freedom From and Freedom To. I recognize and admit that this is a dramatic over-simplification, but it suits a purpose here. The more Freedom From, the less Freedom of Choice. The more Freedom To, the more Freedom of Choice. Some would argue that more Freedom From allows for more Freedom of Choice; I’ll argue against this. In order to achieve a high level of Freedom From, it is necessary to vest a significant portion of your otherwise-individual liberty in a centralized authority. This centralized authority then makes decisions FOR you, as they feel is necessary in order to provide for a more orderly (and thus secure) society. You may no longer choose what to wear or eat; the central authority may have determined that blue cloth is needed in the public sector market, and removes it from the private sector. They may determine that too many green beans cause cancer, and thus remove them from availability. Whenever you vest your decision-making with another party, you surrender your ability to choose how you will live to a varying degree.

              The other side of the spectrum, Freedom To, allows more Freedom of Choice, but carries its own risks. Freedom To choose what to wear and eat means you have the Freedom To make atrocious decisions. You become responsible for achieving some volume of necessary tasks on a day-to-day basis. Delivering postage, defending your nation (or not, as you see fit), choosing healthy foods (or not, as you see fit), working (or not…), and thus having food and shelter (or not…). It becomes incumbent on YOU, the individual, to conduct research into what the nutritional value of a food is, if a medication has adverse side-effects (the research into which may prove fatal for you, or worse), if an insect from China, brought across in a shipment of wood furniture, may devastate soy crops, etc. And, of course, the broad range of possibilities in between the two extremes provide various levels of risk and protection, with related levels of Freedom of Choice

So what the heck IS Freedom of Choice, and why is it important? Why do some people choose to hand their choices over to another entity, while others (like me) want to take responsibility for our own destiny (if that’s even possible, or are we stuck in predestination? That gets into theology, and I don’t want to wander down THAT road at the moment), and why does this lead to conflict?

             “A freedom-of-choice society in the economic sphere is a market society. Individual economic trans­actions are conducted through the voluntary cooperation of reason­ably well-informed persons in such a way that both parties benefit from them. A free-choice society provides a mechanism for bringing about coordination with a mini­mum of coercion. Human activi­ties, so far as possible, are con­ducted in the market, not in the political sphere. In this way coer­cion of individual persons to con­form is minimized and freedom of individual choice is maximized. Each person can choose the color of tie he wants, the architecture of his house, and the cut of his clothes. He does not have to submit to what the majority wants; he may make his own choice and get it.

This is, of course, exactly the opposite from that organization of society where decisions which could be made by the market are made on a political yes or no basis. Even if these decisions are reached by the expedient of democratic majority rule (which may be transitory) rather than by dicta­torial fiat, the political decisions are the results of group pressures instead of individual choices.”

Kemp, A.(1960, February) Freedom of Choice, The Journal of the American Medical Association. Retrieved from https://fee.org/articles/freedom-of-choice/

             

It seems another term needs to be defined also: “Economics”.

To simplify, for the sake of this specific exploratory piece, let’s say that Economics is about decision-making. Deciding what we want to do with resources, be it time, energy, food, money, housing, love, whatever. I realize that my usage is stretching some aspects of the concept, so I’m going to request indulgence in some…’artistic license’?

So, “Freedom of Choice”. “Freedom”. Individual sovereignty. “Freedom To” would then be the ability to decide how one is going to utilize one’s own resources, rather than the decision being made for them by a third party or outside agency. Or…

Some people define “Freedom” as “Freedom From”, meaning they are not constrained, inhibited, restricted by, or subjected to some limitation. They see it as preferable for an agency (government) to provide for them in order for them to be “free” to use their time in pursuits other than those necessary for the sustainment of life. They are unconstrained by the mundane necessities of living and may follow so-called “higher” pursuits. This becomes possible in a relatively wealthy society in which sufficient resources exist as to provide for such a lifestyle. This economic state is often (normally?) referred to as “Socialism” to some extent or other. In such a State (capital S), a central authority (government) makes economic decisions with the claimed intent of efficiently affecting resource distribution and providing for the individuals’ wellbeing. Since Economics has already been brought into this, I could go down the rabbit hole of “Market Failure vs Government Failure” and the inherent inefficiency of government, but I won’t.

As already discussed with the part about the spectrum of possibilities between Freedom To and Freedom From, this concept runs a wide gamut. There isn’t just a Free-Market OR complete-Socialism/Communism; there are infinite combinations possible. Any State with a somewhat-organized government experiences some socialism, to some extent, if only minimal. Every government provides some level of services on behalf of its citizens, be it postal services, national defense, or garbage collection, there is ALWAYS some socialized service provided. These services can easily be considered a “Freedom From”. The citizens (or subjects, as you wish) are freed from the responsibility to carry their postage to its recipient on their own, disposing of their own garbage, or defending their country if invaded. This is how I envision “Freedom From”. In an exceptionally general sense, it is freedom from responsibility. That sounds bad, on the surface. It sounds like the citizens in that society have no personal responsibility for anything and may behave as they please with no repercussions. THAT is not what I mean. I mean they are free from certain daily responsibilities, and thus are able to focus their personal resources on more productive ventures. Instead of traveling across the country to check on their mom’s welfare, they just send a letter, carried by a government agency (welcome to the 21^st century, Rick. We send e-mail now). Instead of worrying about foreign invasion, and using some of their resources for defense, there is an organized (ish) agency dedicated to that, with a higher level of training and significantly more resources than an individual is able to muster.

Even this runs along a spectrum. Some government provide a minimum of services, while others have attempted to completely centralize all decision-making with regards to resources of every kind. The terms I recall from high school were “Mixed-socialist economy” on one end, and “Damn Commie Scum” on the other. Ok, that wasn’t the OFFICIAL term, but I didn’t want to use expletives, so I paraphrased. It was the Cold War; what can I say!

Wow, I really go off on tangents, don’t I! I’m trying to achieve and provide some comprehension of what’s involved in the concept of Freedom of Choice. It has slightly different meanings for each person contemplating it, and manifests a little differently for each individual in each circumstance they find themselves in. We could dive into the HIGHLY-political venue of “Freedom” and start talking about how many people seem to believe that anyone they disagree with shouldn’t be free to express themselves because it is a violation of their “Freedom From” discomfort, but then we’ll get inescapably lost in the weeds.

Now that I’ve muddied the waters quite a bit, I’ll try to expedite the completion of this piece. The plethora of research on the subject of “Freedom”, in its various incarnations, is expansive. Intimidatingly expansive. Run a quick search in whatever search engine you prefer, and you’ll rapidly end up down a rabbit hole trying to follow every branch of possibilities. I want to limit this to a minuscule aspect of the subject, while still referencing other aspects of it.

Freedom of Choice. An individual’s liberty to exercise dominion over their resources relatively-free FROM interference or third-party administration. This concept, as I’ve indicated, is of exceptional importance to me. From my perspective, it is a fundamental aspect of our humanity. Without it, we become less than fully human. With Freedom of Choice, though, comes responsibility. This is inescapable. Every choice has consequences. They may be dodged temporarily, they may be deflected onto someone else for the short-term (as I hypothesize occurring with high levels of economic socialization), but the residual effects of our decisions ALWAYS come back on us. They may be good, as with selfless sacrifice and the resulting social esteem, or they may be bad, as with poor health from bad diet and lack of physical activity. Many people typically desire a high level of individual sovereignty and a low level of consequence. I’m of the belief that this is impossible. There are ALWAYS consequences.

              This appears to be THE defining aspect of what many people call “maturity”, “adulthood”, whatever term is used. Children want to be able to act on impulses, let emotion dictate their actions and reactions, and not experience the resulting effect. Adults accept that they must restrain themselves. An adult recognizes that there are second-order effects and unintended consequences. “I may grow old, but I’ll never grow up” is a related rallying cry, used by the Peter Pans who perceive childhood impulsiveness as the high point of their lives. When they inevitably reproduce, they justify their lack of active parenting with “let children be children”. They allow their children to be “free”, taking a hands-off approach with the excuse that their children will “grow out of it” and “it’s only a phase” (as though children don’t need guidance. Adult maturity is somehow genetically programmed into humanity and will spontaneously occur at a predetermined age, like an iOS update). There’s no recognition of the need for children to be TAUGHT how to be an adult. One certainly doesn’t hold a child to adult standards, but one should teach children what will be expected of them when they achieve adulthood, and how to meet those standards, which would lead to…

              Enlightened self-interest. This term has been used by various economists, among others, in describing an optimal state. If everyone were capable of engaging each other with enlightened self-interest, they would consider long-term effects when interacting with others, and we could experience a high level of individual liberty with a correspondingly-low level of governmental interference. Laws would be minimal; the concept of a “Social Contract” would be unnecessary. Freedom of Choice would not be up for debate because there wouldn’t be any reason to limit it. My beloved Freedom of Choice, acceptance of responsibility, and “keep your hands off my resources, I’m an adult and can make my own freaking decisions, thank you” would be more than abstract concepts, contemplated by philosophers and social scientists. “Gee, wouldn’t the world be a great place if…?”. Even under those circumstances, some minimal level of economic socialization seems to be of benefit. Even if every member of the human race was capable of acting from a cultivated perspective, we don’t know everything, and circumstances are not always within our control. Trees fall on roofs; ice patches aren’t always visible on the roads; teeth get cracks and require root canals (I’m not looking forward to that. A root canal costs HOW MUCH? And Blue Cross doesn’t cover it? Oh well). And so some level of socialized risk provides benefits. This detracts from our Freedom of Choice, and bugs the heck out of me. Yes, I can acknowledge the benefit of something while still hating it. That’s part of being an adult. I think. Or maybe I’m being delusional. I don’t know. But, taking into account rain-induced, Biblical-type flooding requiring government intervention on some level, if minimal, and similar ideas, humanity is still capable of a high level of individual sovereignty, and could exercise it with a savvy approach that considers potential repercussions.

Some groups believe that there is no true Freedom of Choice. They believe that we are subjected to various forms of divine predestination. This absolves them of responsibility for their decisions because they HAD no choice in the first place; their decisions were pre-planned by an all-powerful entity that allows for no individual sovereignty. I find this position unpalatable. Maybe The Universe, God, destiny, whatever, has decided that I would have an affinity for individual Freedom of Choice. As such, I would be a contradiction. No matter, I dislike the idea that my decisions don’t matter. I accept responsibility for my actions, and prefer to believe that what I choose is what affects the direction of my life, subject to unknowns and spontaneous events that derail plans. I also believe in coincidence. I believe that a congruence of unavoidable and UNKNOWABLE circumstances with our personal decisions allows for what we refer to as coincidence. The result can be catastrophic to our plans, but that doesn’t mean it was predetermined by an omniscient entity. Even within religion, God is supposed to have given humans the ability to make our own decisions. If we weren’t given that ability, why would there be consequences? Wouldn’t the universe simply be a story, already written and thus unchangeable? How could we “change our ways”? Anyone who was not spiritually “saved” would thus be stuck in their part of the story, unable to manifest any command over the direction of their life, and thus efforts to “save” them would be simply playing to a script and have no inherent value. Any decision we make would be devoid of value as we would, again, simply be following programming, with no say in how we eat, brush out teeth, speak, etc. I am unable to perceive this as legitimate. I’m going to ignore this entire branch of thinking for the sake of my own investigations.

Again with the tangential wandering, and back on-track (sort of)…

How do we keep our Freedom of Choice, optimize it on the macro-scale, and do our best to maintain its viability through future generations? This requires the “enlightened” part of “enlightened self-interest”. Without enlightenment, self-interest devolves into the worst parts of Lord of the Flies and we end up with the road the United States occasionally sees. ENRON, AIG, and the “Snowflake” generation saying “we can do what we want and shouldn’t have to experience any consequences”. Adorable concept, but it doesn’t play-out in real life. Instead, all of society pays the price, and our Freedom of Choice becomes restricted in order to minimize those effects. To avoid that, we need to set baseline values of right and wrong, deriving them from a contemplation of consequences and recognition of their long-term constructive effects. Every religion has some variation, then expands on them for their own purposes. I’ll summarize them all as “Be Respectful”. They can be broken down further with “Don’t Murder”, “Don’t Steal”, etc, but I believe they all fall under “Be Respectful”. Recognize that considering long-term effects may reduce short-term profit, but is what’s best for the individual, the species, and The Universe. Economic growth may slow down, and financial wealth may not grow to the same extent, but humanity will benefit with higher quality work output and better resource utilization without necessitating inefficient centralized decision-making, and longevity and sustainment of resources. Think about the secondary effects of your decisions before acting. Don’t act on impulse. Be mindful of your words and actions. “Mindful” and “Respect”. I’m starting to sound Buddhist. Teach your children to do the same. At early ages, this requires simple messages, and maybe a swat on the butt to show immediate consequence. A 4 year-old doesn’t comprehend how disrespectful behavior has a negative impact over the long-term, so they require instant feedback. Then transition to discussing their decisions with them. One story I read had a father engaging in “tea parties” with his young daughter while she played the part of a “Princess”. He used it as an opportunity to discuss the affairs of the make-believe kingdom and talk-through potential actions with her. This taught her how to consider the effects of her choices on others and over the long-term. Don’t “Just let kids be kids”, but engage them pro-actively with age-appropriate conversations about why people behave the way they do, and how cause-and-effect will influence their own lives.

In order to maintain some level of “FRRREEEEEDDDDOOMMMMM!”, we need to ensure that it is used wisely. Corporate executives using federal bail-outs to cushion decision-making that’s driven by short-term profits and stock values is not sustainable (See Minsky Paradox ), and results in more laws restricting and centralizing decision-making. That’s a large-scale example, but it is scalable down to the individual also. The more we see poor decision-making by individual citizens, the more we see laws and policies restricting individual sovereignty in order to mitigate the risk otherwise absorbed by society at-large.

A prosperous society is benefited by people being left alone to make their own decisions, having been provided with, or sought-out, relevant education on their current subject-at-hand. This necessitates a level of Mindfulness (Enlightenment) that must be taught. It is NOT an inherent aspect of our existence. Be a pro-active, mindful parent and/or role-model. Set the example. That isn’t easy, but it IS worth it. Be the example for your peers! When they see you stepping-up and doing “the right thing”, they’re more likely to follow your lead. Educate yourself in how to best use your own resources for their longevity and efficient utilization.

Teach. Inspire. Learn. Consider. Be Respectful. Be Mindful. It’s amazingly easy, and intimidatingly difficult. It’s also vital to our individual well-being and that of humanity as a whole. Are you thinking about your great-great-grandchildren’s well-being, or just how your children are doing right this moment, or only about how you can buy that new car because yours is out-of-style? Are you considering acting on an angry impulse and demonstrating against a political position by blocking traffic on an interstate highway, or by calling an elected representative and letting them know how you feel with reasoned discourse? Which is juvenile, and which has the best long-term effect?

Enlightened decisions take time. They require contemplation, education, and consideration (I hope that isn’t as redundant as I think it might be). Humanity wants a decision RIGHT FREAKING NOW!! Sometimes it’s necessary to make a quick decision, but often it isn’t. When it isn’t a requirement of continued existence, slow down. Don’t be lasagna. That isn’t as exciting, as thrilling, as the drama that would otherwise occur, but it sure makes for a longer, healthier life.

Everything we do as individuals is small. I’m not so delusional as to think I’m going to change the world, and I don’t think I’m so amazingly important as to warrant global recognition. I do, however, think that we can each make small changes for the better, and that those changes add up significantly. If we are able to change our culture for the better, all of humanity benefits. That is one of my core beliefs that helps motivate me. In trying MY best to act on the “Enlightened” part of the equation, I hope to inspire others, who will, in-turn, do the same. I hope that the effect will multiply down the road, through the generations, and there will be a strong respect for Freedom To and Freedom of Choice balanced with a similar respect for others’ rights. This will improve quality of life for everyone, while maximizing the application of “Freedom” in all of its incarnations.

I call this a “prologue” because it is an attempt for me to articulate thoughts regarding my ongoing exploration of economic socialization. My hypothesis is that a high level of socialization of risk, and resulting individualization of profit, is unsustainable and promotes short-term, hasty behavior on the part of individual citizens, resulting in further inefficiency and misappropriation of resources toward non- constructive members of society. I’ve already altered my stance a smidge by finding that some level of economic socialization IS beneficial, but there appears to be a healthy balance of socialized-risk and individualized-risk. Now I’m lead to believe that the U.S. has swung too far into the socialized side and my hypothesis applies, but not in the manner I originally believed. I said "...and a delay" because this specific line of research is going to take a long time. 

As my qualification indicates: this blog is derived partially from ignorance. It is part of my attempt to relieve my ignorance. Writing-out my thoughts helps me understand them better, and lets me more effectively direct my research efforts. I’ll see how that goes.

Life and chocolate mousse

plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose

     For those who don't parlent pa le français, roughly translated "The more things change, the more they stay the same". This came up as I was making chocolate mousse and thinking about the process. This is going to start out a bit disjointed (as always), but since it'll be short, I'll try to force it to coalesce quickly.

     If you want quality, it takes time and effort. If you want what you want NOW!, it'll be sub-par, won't last as long, and will need revisions later. I dare you to find many areas of life in which that isn't the case. You may find one or two, but those will be simple things that are almost fundamental in their existence. Any manufactured thing of any level of complexity falls under this paradigm. Chocolate mousse, cars, theater, politics, society, etc, ad nauseum. and so, to today's (brief) rant:

     The old chant was "What do we want?!" "(insert socio-political change here)" "When do we want it?" "NOW!!" 

     There's another saying: Be careful what you wish for. You might get it.

     That's not to say that ALL decisions made in haste are bad, but many are. Lets consider the political realm (uhh, AGAIN? come ON Rick, can you please not get into this again! Crap. Too late). What are we constantly pushing for our elected officials to do? To make the decisions we feel are right, and to do it NOW! We don't want to wait for change, we want the government to force the change to happen right freaking now! What else is government for!

     It's working. The U.S. government is becoming more and more efficient at passing laws, and the President is able to enact Executive Orders, which have the force of law without having been debated. Congress passes laws faster and faster, using various excuses ("We have to pass the law to know what's in it". Wow, that really inspires confidence. You're willing to pass a law that you don't know the substance of? Wonderful!). We've likely not reached the pinnacle of it with the early months of President Trump's reign, either. I am willing to bet that whoever succeeds him will be even worse.

     There are times for quick decisions. There are times when it's vital, on an existential-level, for decisions to be made quickly. Someone is initiating violence against you? ACT! A child is about to do something dangerous? ACT? The voters are demanding a law that's going to have far-reaching effects on the nation and its economy? WAIT!! 

     Red tape exists for a reason. Run-away legislation is expensive and destructive. Sure, the idea of "Universal Healthcare" is wonderful, but what are the effects in the long-run? Criminals enjoy using a particular tool? Let's just ban it, right? Sounds wonderful, right now, but so did the 19th Amendment, and we see how effective THAT was. Actually, it seems hindsight isn't only not 20/20, but we appear to be utterly blind to history. 

     I'm going to (quickly?) use health care as an example. So-called "Universal Health Care", socialized health care, single-payer system, etc, is all the rage in the U.S. "Everyone gets health care" is the claim. Well, not exactly, but ok. "Other countries have it. So should we!". That's right up there with "Johnny got a toy, so should I" in my mind; it doesn't provide evidence for why we should enact similar legislation. My counter-argument is "other countries don't let women drive. Does that mean we shouldn't let women drive?" "That's different!" Yes, it is, but I'm countering your argument, not the fact itself. Just because another country has it doesn't mean we should; provide a better reason! Anyway, back on track: My main problem with it is the lack of choice provided. You MUST have health care, or you get fined. Wow, really? If I can't afford a consumer product, the government punishes me? I have a problem with that. A huge problem. But, I seem to be one of the few, so on to other parts of the issue. How about longevity. "Sweden and Canada make it work; so can we". Well, sure. Countries with socialized health care provide it to everyone. What happens when there's a limited supply and unlimited demand? In a free-market, the price goes up some, and producers try to provide more, which also has a stabilizing effect on price. In an unfree market, there are huge wait times, rationing, and people die before getting the care they need (http://www.thelocal.se/20150127/swedens-health-care-is-a-shame-to-the-country). 

     "That's just one example". Well, yah. So here's another http://www.forbes.com/sites/theapothecary/2014/06/13/if-universal-health-care-is-the-goal-dont-copy-canada/#5d790505290d.

     "From those who can, to those who need", right? Except that the population that "needs" constantly grows, while the population that "can" will grow at a slower rate, if at all. And there's only so many doctors, nurses, NukeMed Techs, etc. You want to give away health care? Cool, where's it all going to come from.

     This is ignoring that all medical care is the result of people's energy and companies' manufacturing capacity. This has to be paid for or it stops. Are you going to work harder and harder for the same pay? "But doctors get paid a lot". Sure, because their profession requires a high level of technical skill. Should everyone get paid the same for every job? Yah, try to get many people to go through the training for technical skills if they're going to be paid the same as a 7-11 clerk. Some will do it for the challenge, but many will take their skills underground to get paid more. MRI machines? Expensive! Not as expensive as they used to be, because of (somewhat) free-market competition, and an expanding demand. I've had MRI imaging done within a week of it being ordered. Other countries? It could take 6 months. "But it's FREE". Well, no, but it is to you. You get what you pay for though.

     And is anything truly free? No, nothing is. The middle class gets taxed more, the rich get taxed some, and nobody rioting cares because they don't have to pay for it. Well I, personally, would rather not be paying for someone else's health care and not given a say in the matter. What happens if I (somehow, magically) stop paying taxes? Well, remember those guys with badges and guns that you were demonstrating against recently? They pay a visit and TAKE my money to pay for your health care. By Force! Again, my biggest problem with all of this is my lack of freedom of choice. But also that you're fine with the guns, when they're taking from me and giving to you. Yah, well, it's still robbery, if only by proxy. You may claim to be a pacifist, but you're still guilty of violence by proxy, and the government is your proxy.

     Once again, getting back to the primary topic:

     What if there's a better way? What if there's a sustainable way? What if there's a way that is BETTER than what Sweden and Canada have? Something that'll last more than a generation and a half! Perhaps we should consult with economists, accountants, people who comprehend how money ebbs and flows over time. How resources are distributed under different conditions. Perhaps we need to take into consideration how individuals and groups make decisions regarding their resource usage and productivity distribution. Maybe legislation is in order, but it'll take time to get it right!

     Nah, we want it NOW!!

     Bringing my heart rate back down for the moment, let's look at any form of prohibition. The 19th Amendment stopped Americans from consuming ETOH, right (that's alcohol for you non-medical people). No more beer, no more whiskey, etc, right? Uhh, no, it just opened-up a wonderful black market that allowed Al Capone and folks like him to make brazillions of dollars. Now in contemporary America, the call is for banning of guns. "If it saves just one life". Well, what about the research that says guns are used for legitimate self-defense purposes as much as 2 million times annually. "Right-wing propaganda". Ummm, actually that research was done by a left-wing guy who was trying to prove how "dangerous" guns are, but we'll ignore that. "Take guns off the streets". And that'll do what, exactly? What if all it does is drive the firearms industry underground, making brazillions of dollars for the modern versions of Al Capone, and keeping civilians in danger of criminal violence?

     By now you likely know my stand on those precise issues, but my purpose here is actually to address the decision-making process that we, as a collective entity, no matter our political leanings, are demanding of our government.

     

     What, exactly, are the long-term consequences of our actions? I don't mean tomorrow, or next year, or the next decade. I mean in two or three generations. What sounds awesome right this minute might not be good over the long run. Humans have an inability to truly think about future generations. I know, you think about your children and their well-being. Do you really? Do you think about the national deficit when they are in their 90's? I kinda doubt it. It's too abstract. Too far down-the-road. 

     Single-payer "Universal" health care seems to last about a generation and a half before it starts falling apart. I had a couple of great articles about it in Sweden and Canada (because those are the most often cited), but deleted the email rather than send it and piss off the person it was addressed to. What happens? Costs increase at a faster rate than revenues can keep up. Population growth puts excessive pressure on resources. The issue that keeps coming up whenever I research socialization of an economy is stagnation. There is a slow-down in technological development. In short, socialized health care starts to suck. Of course the generation that initially demanded it is dead, so what do they care. All of you screaming for it right now will be dead of old age, and your children will be middle-age or older, when it starts to show signs of collapsing, so what do you care? You got yours!

     Gun control: countries with strict laws on the civilian ownership of firearms have high rates of gun crimes. In China, knives are used more often in place of guns, but illegal firearms are becoming more commonplace (http://www.ibtimes.com/china-seizes-10000-illegal-guns-weapons-raid-gun-culture-becomes-more-popular-1571395) because there's money in it.  In South Africa the same thing is happening, but with higher levels of violence (http://mg.co.za/article/2015-10-14-illegal-guns-fuel-violent-crime-wreak-deadly-havoc-in-south-africa). In every country with strict gun laws, any half-ass machinist can make a gun in their basement and sell it on the black market. Gun control laws have simply driven the trade underground. 

     Specifically with regards to gun control, I ask why we can't find an approach that is social in nature? Why can't we teach our children respect for life? Yah, that's not going to happen. That requires a mindful approach and hands-on, pro-active parenting. Westerners don't do that. We coddle our kids, play to their self-esteem (hey, news flash, the self-esteem movement has been debunked (http://www.nytimes.com/2002/02/03/magazine/the-trouble-with-self-esteem.html). How about, instead of teaching every child that they're "special", we teach them respect, enlightened self-sufficiency, and similar values? Nope, this is 'Merica!

     

     All of the research is out there on any subject you can think of. The few articles I provided are only a grain of sand on the beach. I've seen many over the years, as I've researched these subjects, and I'm finding more as I go along.

     Yes, I think we shouldn't legislate everything. I strongly believe that the government shouldn't have a hand in everything. That does NOT mean I believe in anarchy or a dissolution of government. Laws serve a purpose, and are necessary for the maintenance of a stable, prosperous society, BUT: Legislative red tape exists for good reason: to force our elected officials to slow down and think about what they're doing. To make it more difficult to pass bad laws that won't be of long-term benefit. "The Law Of The Instrument"or Maslow's Hammer. "When all you have is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail". I'm going to change it a little to fit this article "When all you have are laws, every problem looks like it needs to be legislated". Maybe, just maybe, there are more effective ways of addressing things in some instances. Sure, a more mindful approach, involving changes in social outlooks and values, will take longer. You won't get change NOW!, but you'll get change that is substantial and lasts. What if we teach young football players that they don't deserve sex from whatever girls they want. Maybe sexual assaults will go down? (I only use football players because of the stereotype. I'm perfectly aware that the problem isn't limited to them by any means). What if we teach young men that hard work isn't a bad thing, and that maybe entry-level wages are what you get when you are performing menial labor with no technical skills, and that's ok? What if learning carpentry or welding was pushed more than "everyone should go to college"? Maybe we wouldn't have huge student loan debt with useless degrees (I still love the example of the B.A. in Hip Hop. REALLY? WTF are you going to do with that!). What if young women were taught that they can be modest while being feminine, and that their value isn't in their body? (no, I'm not saying sexual assault is the woman's fault, see above about what young men are taught, I'm making reference to young women's acceptance of their own objectification and sexualization because they've been acculturated to believe that it's appropriate). 

     When we demand laws be passed in an attempt to force cultural change, all we're doing is forcing the illusion of change. Gun control takes guns away from those who follow laws, but not the criminals who are supposedly targeted by the laws. "Universal" health care punishes those who can't afford health insurance in the first place by fining them for not having coverage, and giving them huge deductibles that they can't afford, putting them back in the same position they were in before, but with even less money. There are many other issues that I could bring-up, but these are some of the most prominent.

    I'm NOT saying we shouldn't do ANYTHING. I'm saying we need to change our philosophy on HOW laws are created and enacted. 

     Why is any President able to push agendas we think are destructive? Because we gave the last few Presidents more and more power to act quickly, believing it would benefit us. It did, in the short-term, but it backfired in the long-term, and will continue to do so. Instead of passing laws for everything, how about we look inside. Lets look at our own attitudes. Let's look at the examples we're providing for our children, and how we guide them. Let's teach them that there are better ways of doing things. Do we preach environmental conservation, and then throw our plastic wrapper out the window? Do we teach respecting our bodies, and then show them that we actually eat crap? 

     And when legislation IS needed, let's take our time and figure out what the long-term effects are going to be. How effective IS that law going to be? Will it actually address the issue? What are the second-order effects going to be? "That will take too long". Will it? If it addresses the short-term, micro-scale issue right now, but creates more problems down-the-road, did we really need to pass THAT piece of legislation RIGHT NOW, or could we have waited and looked at the issue more in-depth to find a better way of putting that law together? It may save a few lives this year, and cost millions of lives in two or three generations. Call me weird, but that makes a difference to me. Sorry, not sorry. 

     I'll use a concept from the shooting world: Can you miss fast enough to win a gunfight? For those who I just confused, think of it this way: If I shoot really fast, but miss with every round, am I successful in the gunfight or competition? Similarly, if we pass a bunch of laws quickly, but we don't consider the entirety of their effects, were we successful? I'll argue that we weren't.

     Can we legislate morality? No. Can we teach it to our children, and try to live it as an example to them? Yes. Are laws still necessary? Yes. Do they solve all problems? No. Can the legislative process be improved? Yes. Where does that start? With us, the voters. Where does social change start? With us, the citizens. Significant, substantial, sustainable change takes time and intensive work. It doesn't happen with the passing of a law or executive order. Those are short-term patches. Sometimes they're the right thing; sometimes they aren't.

     And so, back to the beginning: what does this have to do with chocolate mousse? If you want something quick, it'll be low-quality crap. If you put it together and try to use it too soon, you get an incomplete product (the almost-pourable not-quite-mousse that happens when it doesn't set long enough, as was discovered about two hours ago). The instant stuff isn't as good, but it's quick. Which would you prefer? It seems to me that most people want their mousse, and their social change, right NOW!! Sometimes it's better to wait and let the different parts come together organically. Substantial, long-term change takes time and considerable effort. Over time, it gets easier (tonight I didn't splatter mousse all over the kitchen because I've learned how to hold the mixing bowl while using the electric mixer). Get the right ingredients, take your time putting them together correctly, and give the result time to "set". This goes for cultural change as well as mousse.

     Are we going to change the way we do things? If history is an accurate guide, we are doomed to repeat our mistakes. Thus: The more things change, the more they stay the same.

     That first picture really is of the mousse I made. No, it didn't turn-out right. Sometimes it does, sometimes it doesn't. When it turns-out right, I'm willing to share. When it doesn't, I don't. Get the idea?