WeblogBahamas.com

But what about welfare you ask

Rick Lowe

A reader of our post yesterday, while sympathetic to the point raised, wondered what happened to those people in society that cannot work or help themselves.

This is a legitimate question, although she was conferring the responsibility to help on the "government". I quickly pointed out that private charity was pushed out by government mandates as noted by Dr. Richard Ebeling in a lecture entitled The Economics of Liberty and The Welfare State, watch it here… and I still think private charity is the best route.

If that doesn't help, read The Poverty of Welfare: Helping Others in Civil Society by Michael Tanner.

Here's what sums it up best as far as I'm concerend.  It's from Donald J. Kochan and his 1997 article for The Freeman entitled, The Pervasive Duty to Rescue: Only Private Charity Can Help Those Truly in Need of Assistance.

"…Government programs create dependency, create flawed incentives, and are too broad and generalized to target resources effectively. They hurt more than they help. In tort law, an individual can be held liable for a failed rescue when his heroic attempts are beyond his capacity and actually do harm to the one in need of assistance. The government, however, is not liable for the harm its rescue programs do.

"Only private charity can meet the requirements of those truly in need of assistance. Private funds can be targeted toward those in actual need. Moreover, private organizations are smaller and more localized, allowing them to address the specific problems that needy people have and apply specific solutions, instead of merely sending out impersonal checks drawn against government accounts. Finally, private charities must be more accountable, for they do not have the coercive power of taxation available to ensure continued funding.

"Government programs, unfortunately, have co-opted this superior private approach. Many people believe that they need not get involved because of a flawed perception that the government is doing the job. Moreover, many cannot afford to assist privately, given the drain on their budget from taxation. In tort law, a person can be held liable for preventing a needy individual from getting more effective assistance.[6] That, essentially, is what the government does by its discouragement of private charity, but again, the government is not liable for the harm it does.

"The rules of the common law, developed over many centuries, usually exhibit a profound wisdom in the ordering of human affairs. The rule against compulsory rescues is such a rule. If you were obligated to help everyone in need, the demands on your time and money would be almost endless. The only solution to the problem that protects the individual’s freedom of action and property rights is the one adopted by the common law: there is no legal duty to rescue. There may be a moral duty, but the law leaves that to the individual and his conscience." (Emphasis added).

Using the coercive force of government to "help" the less fortunate only encourages depedency, and I don't think that's what society wants. It is surely not what's best.

Marathon Bahamas/Susan G. Komen race FOR THE cure

Rick Lowe

We went out for the walk this morning.

Impressive.

Sorry about the blurry photos. Should have stopped walking while I snapped them with my phone.

 

 

 

Click on photo for a larger image if your stomach can take it.

Marathon Bahamas registration open until Saturday, January 14, 2012

Lessons in Freedom: The BBC’s Sorry Journalism

Tibor R. Machan

The BBC recently published the following in a report about the Republican primary contest in Iowa:

“Correspondents say a Ron Paul victory in Iowa would be a major embarrassment to the Republican party as many of his views are seen as too libertarian and isolationist. Mr. Paul would order a $1 trillion (£641bn) spending cut, eliminating a number of government agencies, including the Department of Education. He also proposes returning the dollar to a gold standard and cutting all foreign aid, including to Israel....”

“At a recent campaign stop in Iowa a breast cancer survivor began crying after he told her insurance companies should not have to cover those who are already sick, Reuters news agency reports….”

This passage is worth some attention if only because those of us who have sympathies toward Representative Paul’s libertarian politics should not duck out when opponents target him for criticism, be it fair or not.  Let me start with the last bit, the treatment of a crying breast cancer survivor as a kind of “gotcha” device versus Paul. (And incidentally, who are those correspondents who say that Paul’s “victory would be a major embarrassment to the Republican party”? Let’s have some names her, some attributions, by BBC!)

Political Propaganda is starting to roll out

Rick Lowe

With elections constitutionally required by May 2012, we knew it had to start and as usual the political propaganda is predictable.

The first group through the neighbourhood so far is the Democratic National Alliance - The DNA, and their standard bearer for Montagu, Ben Albury left a flyer outlining his party's goals at the door.

Really they're simply cute phrases, nothing more than symbolism over substance.

Here's a few of them:

1. Re-Establish Social Protection
2. First-World Global Education and Training 
3. Legitimize, Transform and Authenticate Bahamian Culture
4. Strengthen The Family
5. Rebuild Christian Values
6. Diversify Industry Structure
7. Ensure Food Security and Sustainability
8. Climate Change and Disaster Preparedness

And an obligatory quote from the Bible about vision and perishing is thrown in for good measure of course.

Okay, I'll admit that I'm older and more cynical now, but the reality is governing politicians have their hands so full trying to ensure the Civil Service gets the job done with their current responsibilities that to expect them to do just the eight additional items above is nigh on impossible.

Lessons in Freedom: Needing Doesn’t Justify Stealing

Tibor R. Machan

What one needs depends on one’s goals. And much of the time what one needs to pursue various goals is produced by other people, including some rather important stuff or services. Nonetheless, among genuine free men and women whatever it is that one needs may only be obtained voluntarily, not by coercion. Even if the need is great.

Yes, now and then one’s needs can be urgent and great, as when one must get the services of a surgeon lest one lose the use of a limb. Yet, one isn’t by any stretch of the imagination authorized, morally, and should not be legally, to conscript those who can provide the necessary service. That would make slaves of those professionals! And no one is justified in enslaving anyone, however urgent one’s needs may be.

One would think these are elementary matters in a society that has experienced slavery or involuntary servitude and finally abolished it. But no. I recently objected to the first class mail monopoly that the US Postal Service enjoys, as a Constitutional grant in fact, and someone commented that people often need first class mail, so surely it must be provided to them.

Public policies: What would the Opposition parties do differently?

Rick Lowe

So far the talking points from the opposition parties in The Bahamas is to state no more than the government party is bad. I've yet to see them offer specifics on how they will do things differently.

Having a different group in charge because they don't like the present group is not enough for me.

Here's a short list, in no particular order, on several public policies that I would like to see how the Opposition would change the present set up. I need a little more than rhetoric however.

Here's the list:

1. Fiscal Policy
2. Monetary Policy
3. Education
4. Immigration
5. Crime
6. Taxes
7. Health
8. Privatisation
9. Energy
10. Environment

So far I've seen nothing new from either of the Opposition parties other than Mr. Ingraham is a big bad bogey man.

I wonder if some of the pundits can prepare a list like this incorporating the current policies and those the Opposition would change and how they would change them?

In the final, I'd be willing to bet the policies the Opposition would choose would be just or bad or worse than the current administration.

What's your take?

Good news day. Thanks to the Dilbert creator.

Rick Lowe

Dr. Perry at Carpe Diem posted a link to Scott Adams (creator of "Dilbert") blog yesterday, and it's too good not to pass on.

Here's just three of the good news items Mr. Adams posted:

Energy: Amazingly, some say the United States is well on its way to being energy self-sufficient, thanks in part to huge new oil fields in North Dakota and hundreds of other developments in conservation and green energy. One good example is a recent discovery that the United States has far more geothermal potential than anyone predicted.

Crime: On a historical basis, it's low. And if the trend of public opinion about legalizing marijuana continues, one entire category of crime will disappear. We're near the tipping point.

Healthcare: It's better than at any time in human history. Doctors can successfully treat more problems than ever. It's expensive, but arguably there has never been a better value for your dollar.

Check them all out at here…

Anything new in our politics?

Rick Lowe

The "debate" over last day or two in Parliament has been most interesting. The word debate is in quotation marks for obvious reasons.

The young leader of his political party decided to personally attack the Prime Minister so the wolves have turned on him. And frankly I don't have a problem with that.

Successive governments have pursued policies that are obviously in need of an over haul and the young leader had a perfect opportunity to rise above the personal insults that incite the rebuttals we've witnessed as it's all so mindless. Okay it makes cute headlines, and we can all have a laugh, but it's all so unproductive and does nothing to advance the public policy debate.

Why attack the Prime Minster personally to score points rather than debate the issue at hand? Only he can answer that question but if he's really interested in raising the level of debate and offering reasoned public policy alternatives he should visit the Cato Institute.

They have the perfect antidote to sour grape politics and it's called the Cato Handbook for Policymakers, 7th Edition (2009). Check it out here…

I agree it's US centric, but it's the ideas that are important, and many of them are applicable here.

If our leaders would choose the high road we might begin to see some badly needed change in our public policy. But as long as they want to beat each other up with personal insults…oh well.

The young leader of his new party should take stock of the old idiom that when you're attempting to dig a grave for someone, you should dig one for yourself at the same time.

Let's raise the level and stop provoking each other. That will serve us all better.

Lessons in Freedom: Machan’s Archives: In Defense of the Right to Assisted Suicide

Tibor R. Machan

[From Criminal Justice Ethics, Summer/Fall 1985]

Should aiding suicide be illegal? That is the question which faces legislators who are being urged to repeal statutes which state, basically, “Every person who deliberately aids, or advises, or encourages another to commit suicide is guilty of a felony.” I will argue, ever so briefly, that not all cases should aiding suicide be illegal, although the severest onus of proof of justification would be required in such cases.

The issue here is fairly clear, despite many complexities which surround it. Ordinarily it is wrong and should also be illegal to deliberately take another person’s life without a just cause such as self-defense or the defense of one’s community. Even in cases in which ultimately the taking of human life is deemed legally justified, the agent of such action is responsible to show that he or she was justified by standards which a just legal system must respect.

But what about aiding suicide? As Joseph Piccione puts it,

“[Human] Life, as seen in the context of the documents of the nation’s founders, must be affirmed as a bedrock value, and even a foundational right upon which other fundamental rights are based. From the initial words of the Declaration of Independence, the value placed on life is unsurpassed....”