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?
No comments:
Post a Comment