How Much is Enough?

a long time and I can't think of one thing the government does better than the free market. Some may say it deos a bang up job of war (get it, bang up? Never mind.) but there is evidence that they aren't so good at that either.

Government doesn't produce anything; it doesn't invent anything; it doesn't do anything that, on balance, has a positive effect on it's citizens.

All it does is shift money from one group to another - taking the money by threat of violence - and skins mafia-like profits for itself in the process. Whit is used to perpetuate itself.

If people are so hell bent on proping up this venture or that, let them use their own money to do it. Keep their grubby hands off of mine.

so many words in that last comment it's almost unreadable. I'm available for a translation - for a fee.

You are operating under the mistaken assumption that what you "earn" is yours. What is truly yours is what the government allows you to keep. They are, as Bill Clinton once stated, still not entirely sure you'll "spend it the right way" so you can be sure that if you don't, they'll just let you have less of their money. Consider it a cut in your allowance until you learn to behave yourself.

I run two small businesses and I pay a CPA an enormous emount every year. I'd rather he got it than the government.

Does that make me a bad person?

Alas, yeah, I think it does

Absolutely outstanding essay!

I can't think of a thing you missed. That certainly sums the whole issue up beautifully.

Guess what? Being a bad person works for me.

Yeah, Kilroy, what was I thinking?

Of course, I'm used to being called the the enemy.

You know why I can take it? Sometimes things happen that make the fight worthwhile. Yesterday Walter Williams took the time to personally complement me on a response to his latest column:

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/WalterEWilliams/2007/07/18/economists_on_the_loose&Comments=true

Believe me when I tell you it made my day!

I didn't respond to some of the later comments (as an Austrian School economist who strays a bit from the true faith, as it were, on the value of empiricism) in large part because most of those comments will disappear soon. Knight of Baawa (incarnation number 356) gets banned every few days for going out of his way to antagonize religious conservatives on other threads.

Fletch - you da man!

I understand this, and usually when somebody starts talking economics, my head spins and I feel woozy.

Your points about evidence for or against governmental intervention (and the lack of evidence to support the "for") made me think: when IS the experiment going to be up?!! When will enough time have lapsed that we can call the welfare state (I'm using that term loosely--to describe all the governmental intervention into things that are not defense of the country) a failure? When I lived in Louisiana, the most effective slogan for Republicans was "Look at New Orleans" (even before Katrina). If Liberalism and the welfare state works, then why does New Orleans look like a war zone?

And I'm totally with you on the funding of these nebulous issues, whether it be some disease or AIDS or art galleries or needle distribution. When I look at how much I paid in taxes last year, it makes me swoon. I tell the accountant just to file it and don't even tell me.

That's awesome, fletch. You need to find some
way to preserve that thread. That's like Tiger Woods complementing your tee shot!

I really enjoy reading and listening to Williams!

That's better than Paris Hilton personally flashing you her panties!

Count me in awe and more than a little jealous.

many heroes, but Walter Williams in one of them. You don't get more clarity than you get from him.

Glad he took the time to respond to you.

Awesome, Fletch, Just awesome! See, you really are an EG!!! and I called you one first! Kudos! Nee
PS Great column!

Dr. Williams, too cool.

Do you argue with the wife the same way you write your posts?

I try not to let that happen - to go from confidence to arrogance (and some, of course don't believe I've succeeded) - and I freely admit that there is much I do not know. I just try to put what I DO know into a form that people can relate to.

Jimmy,

I could answer that question in SO many ways. I could ingratiate myself with all the ladies (including the Mrs.) by saying I never argue with her because she's always right, but I need only look at the paint that has peeled off the walls in the aftermath of previous battles to know that is a lie.

When my wife and I have discussions about this kind of stuff, yeah it goes like this for the most part until her eyes glaze over (she's not as into this stuff as I am), but when we ARGUE ... well, those are usually more about emotion and volume than reason and logic. And, believe me, I can give the loudest DI in the Corps a run for his money.

Despite mutual job searches, things have been pretty quiet on that front of late (at least since we had to lay down the law to my 19 year old daughter about what kind of behavior is unacceptable). And, in our house at least, the storms may be fierce but they blow over pretty quickly.

The people you love drive you the craziest BECAUSE you care - at least, that's my experience.

You ask: "When will enough time have lapsed that we can call the welfare state (I'm using that term loosely--to describe all the governmental intervention into things that are not defense of the country) a failure?"

The answer is simple. Never! You see, this isn't a question about efficiency or common sense or the best way to run an advanced society. It comes down solely to a question of power - political power. It is a vicious spiral in which politicians bribe voters to keep themselves in office, whereupon voters demand even more, whereupon politicians bribe them even more, etc, etc ad nauseum.

This is why I have always been a proponent of term limits for any and all elected officials, whether it is in the executive, legislative or judicial branches. Periodic cleaning out of appointed government bureaucrats would be beneficial too. As a side note, giving greater line item veto powers to the executive branch (President and governors) would also assist in curbing legislative excess and greed.

You're right on all points.

When they brought the FEMA trailors to LA after Katrina, they were planning on placing them pretty far North, at least above sea level, but this would put the trailors too far N. of the districts of most of the S. LA democrats. They spit and stomped until those trailors were stuck right back down south--in spite of the fact that there was no garbage pick up or open public schools or coordinated law enforcement or grocery stores. It was like watching decisions made by a 3rd world country.

I hear ya Fletch.

The way you present your case using these posts must be scathing to those who hold differing opinions. I know I have ticked off a number of females doing the same. That's why I accept the fact they "feel" and then let it pass.

..I disagree.

We already have "term limits." They're called elections.

Also, "line item veto" would only empower the Executive Branch. The "line item veto" would have the House and the Senate kissing the a of the President.

Our Founders were geniuses.

.. there is something in our kool-aid that creates an inevitably Leftward slouch.

It is more than opportunistic parasitism - which, no doubt, accounts for much of the freeloading that goes on in welfare-state-Amerika.

But how do you account for the acquiescence of the producers?

Socialism's biggest victory (albeit a Pyrrhic one) has been the voluntary acceptance of the PRODUCERS that they should live for the sake of their PARASITES.

In America, many hardworking people who are NOT of the looter/moocher persuasion routinely vote for entitlements, or for politicians who support ever expanding programs such as Universal Health Care, Public Education and Welfare.

We (conservatives) spend a lot of our time arguing the case against the implementation of these entitlements. And we should continue this effort ..

But, my contention is that we (conservatives) also need to inspect the REASONS why our public supports this nonsense.

After all, it takes quite a bit of intelligence to be a 'producer' in our competitive economy [I define 'producer' as anyone who works or invests]. So, it isn't a lack of IQ that makes this con-game so successful. Apathy, perhaps plays a role - as in "the system is so rigged that it can't be changed".

What are the pernicious substances dissolved in our kool-aid, other than apathy and stupidity that cause us to support welfare-statism?

I have mentioned numerous times throughout Townhall that the "pernicious[ness]" that you refer is the fact that Women vote. Politicians have to win Womens' vote. How do you do that? Give to them. Give to the causes they care about: other people.

..or making a tongue-in-cheek comment?

Perhaps you are referring to our fascination with altruism, and then are implying that women may be more inclined to support altruistic causes?

I would disagree with that notion - in fact, it could be characterized as misogynistic. And, since some of my best friends are women ..

Keep in mind that it was Ayn Rand, a woman, who wrote about the "Virtue of Selfishness".

I think that it is "altruism as a political posture" that gets us. In our political discourse, it is played as a trump card. What is particularly disastrous is that the (D)s are better at playing that card than the (R)s - not that their 'ideas' work any better - but their posturing has more of a populist appeal to an electorate that is predisposed to accept it.

But I believe that men & women are equally culpable in this regard. Rather than a gender-effect, I think that the predisposition comes from religious bias. Even those who restrict religion to the personal space (or discard religion) retain their fascination with altruism.

Consider how many 'sins' are committed in the name of "caring for our fellow man". Even as we speak, we are about to commit the unpardonable sin of Universal Health Care, because it just SEEMS moral to provide 'free' Health Insurance for all Americans.

Selecting one woman, Ayn Rand, to refute what I state is weak. That would be like me bringing up Elton John to prove all guys are chicks.

Here's what I stated elsewhere:

I'll begin at the 19th Amendment:
The passing of that Amendment led to politicians having to earn the Women's vote. To earn the Women's vote comes down to, basically, "what can I give Her?" That's when the government really took off and began to expand. Once the government began to expand and "give" to Women, it slowly began to replace the role of Men. This led to "The New Deal."

During this time We had WWII. That war ended the lives of many Men. After the war came the "Baby Boom." Mother Nature, in all Her Infinite Wisdom, produced a significant number of more females than males to replenish the population. Therefore, while "coming of age," there was a significant increase in competition among Women for Men. The clothes got smaller, the morals began to loosen. This led to the "sexual revolution." Human Nature being what it is, the amoral began to "justify" their actions. What was once considered a wh0re, they called it "liberation." This led to the Band-Aids of "no-fault divorce," abortion, and a whole host of other societal ills.

Thinking of the "Bell Curve" there are more followers than leaders. And so goes the slope.....

This is one of my favorite quotes for Frederic Bastiat.

"The Government! what is it? where is it? what does it do? what ought it to do? All we know is, that it is a mysterious personage; and, assuredly, it is the most solicited, the most tormented, the most overwhelmed, the most admired, the most accused, the most invoked, and the most provoked of any personage in the world.

I have not the pleasure of knowing my reader but I would stake ten to one that for six months he has been making Utopias, and if so, that he is looking to Government for the realization of them.

And should the reader happen to be a lady: I have no doubt that she is sincerely desirous of seeing all the evils of suffering humanity remedied, and that she thinks this might easily be done, if Government would only undertake it."

This is as true today as it was in 1848. The challenge here is to convince our lady friends, and the rest of the utopians, that the free market, and not the government, is the most effective means to relieve the human suffering that holds their attention.

Good Luck! It's 160 years later and we don't seem to be ANY closer.

Best not lump nee into your calculations.

In all honesty, a sound argument can be made for a causal effect of the expanse of government in the wake of the 19th Amendment in large part because a new right was bestowed upon a segment of the population (as it certainly should have been) without any effort to convey the responsibility of the voter to become informed about the issues before exercising said right.

Other societal changes have had similar effects, most notably the impact of newsreels and then television which has shifted the chief means of evaluating political activity from an assessment of policy to one of short-lived visual imagery.

It ain't all the ladies fault but the problem is all too real.

Dear Fletch,
It is so nice to see someone like you write about things you have no clue about. Just so you can have some accurate info on Gorham's I will splain it to you. Gorhams is a deadly off shoot of Lymphangiomatosis. There are doctors that believe over 1 million americans alone suffer from this disease in one for or another. It is believed by many that Lymphangiomatosis is the opposite of AIDS and through research one bad disease could cure another. Of course these are things that if you do a little research on you would find out. Not just kids are affected by this. There is a beautiful young lady in NC that had a double lung transplant due to the disease. There is a little girl in Wisconsin that has it in her face and can't eat solid food. There was a young lady in vancouver that her spinal column collapsed and pasted away. And then there was Dyan Orr. Read about her. Google her name. Watch her story at NBC15.com. Go to her website at http://www.dyanmarieorr.com. I would say call her but she pasted away at 11 years old on July 11, 2007 and she was my daughter. Come and visit her foundation in Portage Wisconsin and learn for yourself. If you are ever blessed to have a child and see the awefull death she had you will feel different. How many needs to suffer and die to make it worth while for you to care.

Nothing I can ever say could possibly lessen the stuing of your loss and you have my deepest sympathy. The truth is that I DO care. The whole point is that it is NOT a question of caring, but rather a question of how one must choose to allocate one's limited resources.

Again, I DO care about those who suffer from this terrible disease and about those afflicted with muscular dystrophy and cerebral palsy and childhood diabetes and a whole host of maladies but it is beyond my means to help everyone so I - like everyone else - must make a choice about where to focus my actions in an effort to do the most good.

I chose to discuss Gorham's disease because it is both particularly horrible and extremely rare. I did extensive research on the topic before writing this piece and learned that Gorham's and lymphangiomatosis are two distinct conditions - with perhaps similar susceptibilities - that affect nowhere NEAR a million people. Logically, if that many people were affected, there would be ample research underway to find treatment. And I can't say that I found ANY reference to it being the "opposite of AIDS" which is understandable given that AIDS disrupts the T-cells of the immune system that would otherwise fight disease and Gorham's involves growths and bone lesions in ways that are completely unrelated.

Again, you have my deepest sympathies for your loss, but my position stands.

Dear Fletch,

As I know Dyan's dad - I understand his response as the loss of his daughter is far too fresh at this point in time.

I, as the President and Founder of the LYMF Foundation am very glad that you clarified your point in that there are so many different causes. This is what we fight when a disease is still "rare".

I am glad that you used Gorham's Disease although I personally wish you would have used LYMF (the acronym for Lymphangiomatosis) as your example - but as Gorham's does have some relationship to LYMF - your initial post provides some much needed awareness of this terrible disease.

I struggle all of the time in the need to make people care. Not just people such as yourself who may open up your wallets - but physicians and researchers and even the patients themselves...

Your point is very well understood on my part. There are too many diseases and other causes...

It is not until a disease that has no "hope" hits someone who is a celebrity and well known that it finally gets the attention it needs.

Regarding the number of patients out there with these two diseases - it is very difficult to say as so many are not reported and only a few physicians and researchers have chosen to write reports on the diseases.

In the world of research and academia - there are a lot of doctors and researchers that will write up a case just to become published - and then they are on to the next one that comes along... When there are so few cases known about and no organized efforts - it is hopeless.

So here I am - feeling quite lonely in my cause to not only raise awareness of both diseases but also to encourage and motivate the scientific community to take on the cause.

Money of course is very important - but without the human resources and commitments - little can be done.

I understand that the point of your blog/rant is politically/economically motivated and that the use of Gorham's is just an example that you decided to use.

I am so glad you did and hope that although it does take away some from your main point - that indeed you did our small community that needs some recognition a great service.

You were honest and represent many different peoples' views and I remain objective in my understanding of what you were doing.

As a person also affected by LYMF - and a struggling founder of a foundation dedicated to building the required network and resources to better understand the diseases and give hope that a cure may eventually be possible - I truly understand your point as I sit here every day realizing that what you are saying is so true and is the biggest obstacle to all who struggle with a very rare disease where little is known about it.

I thank you very much for your mention of the disease and returning the comment to Dyan's dad. There is much said by doctors treating these patients who have theories - but as you stated - there is very little literature to cite and so far no established research to validate any theory that is brought forward.

The website for the foundation is in clear need of improvement and expanding - it is clearly a work in progress (and hoping that we will continue to progress) ... http://lymf.org for anyone who may have had their curiosity piqued by this little discussion several months after the initial discussion started.

Just to let all of you know - we lost 4 children since this summer who have been diagnosed with LYMF or LYMF/Gorham's combined. The Gorham's seems to be due to rare lymphatic invasion of bones and I truly do not understand it very much myself.

The ages of the children by the way were 4 years old (Luca and Chelsea), 11 years (Dyan), and 4 months (Domminick)...

We are grateful to the Internet for helping us to build a better information source that will hopefully provide better statistical data in the near future - which will potentially better predict the number of patients out there who suffer from these diagnoses.

Thanks again for your choice of diseases to hilight and happy holidays to all who read this.

Sharon J. White
President/Founder
The LYMF Foundation

In the first part of my post regarding Gorham's and LYMF - I stated that I struggle getting patients to care...

The fact is that so many patients have been through so much and have been continually told there are no answers and there is no hope.

When they finally get past the worst humps (short periods of remission so to speak) - they only want to focus on making the most of their lives and don't want to spend time focusing on the disease.

It is so hard for patients and their families to get involved enough to make progress with the research as when they are not well there are so many issues they are dealing with (sort of like the so many causes out there to care about)...

Human characteristics make it very difficult to get the patients to seem to care enough as they have too many other issues to focus on and when a foundation is new and there has been no source of hope for so long - it is hard for them to focus their "disposable energies" (analagous to your disposable income and what to do with it)... and choose what to do with what they have...

Yes - I do understand your point very well and thus is the big struggle for building a foundation...