Lockerbie

This article by Dennis Prager points out the absolute moral backwardness of the recent decision to release the Lockerbie bomber on humanitarian grounds.

If a serial killer murdered 270 people, would judges still think releasing him to die at home is the humane thing to do? Or does that principle only apply to politically-motivated terrorists?

Some highlights of the article are below. Also, if you've never read the details of the Lockerbie attack, I highly recommend reading this so you can fully grasp the inhumanity of this man's actions.

***

The Scottish government released Abdel Baset al-Megrahi, the one person convicted in the mass murder of 270 people when Pan Am flight 103 was blown up over Lockerbie, Scotland, in December 1988.

As the Chicago Tribune noted in an editorial appropriately titled "Scotland's Shame," at al-Megrahi's 2001 trial, the Scottish prosecutor pointed out that "four hundred parents lost a child, 46 parents lost their only child, 65 women were widowed, 11 men lost their wives, 140 lost a parent, seven lost both parents."

But all these people and all their loved ones were not the recipients of Scotland's compassion; the murderer was.

What the Scottish government, its Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill, and millions of others in the West do not understand is that, unlike justice, compassion cannot be given to everyone. If you show compassion to person X or group X, you cannot show it to person Y or group Y. Justice, by definition, is universal. Compassion, by definition, is selective.

That is why, generally speaking, governments should be in the business of dispensing justice, not compassion. Individuals can, and often ought to, dispense compassion, not societies.

When governments try to dispense compassion, they usually end up hurting people, as in the case of Scotland.

Moral Foundations of Economic Beliefs

John demanded that I post this article on my blog, which is a strange request given the fact that John is pretty much my only reader.

Actually, it is one of the best articles I've read in a very long time. It forces the reader to question the fundamental moral assumptions of their economic beliefs. I doubt seriously that it will convert the "true-believer" in socialistic or redistributionist economic policies, but it should reinvigorate those jaded free-marketeers who have begun to accept as inevitable their caricature as selfish, immoral, robber-barons.

***

Lately, I've found myself more frequently at odds over economic and political issues with people I know from church. Granted, this is probably explained by the fact that I've recently relocated to Chicago from central Texas, but I don't think the change can be entirely attributed to geography.

It used to be the case that most "bible belt" protestant christians were reliably fiscal conservatives, but that seems not to be the case as often anymore. I can only conclude that Americans (who are generally people of faith) have begun to drift toward the idea that redistributionist economic policies are morally preferable to free-market ones.

How can this be? How can those who claim to serve the poor (as all Christians must) demonize an economic system that is historically unique in its ability to eradicate widespread poverty? How can they endorse political and economic systems that have, in the name of "equality" and "community," crippled individual liberties and plunged entire populations into material destitution?

Conservatives, and particularly Christian conservatives, cannot continue to cede the moral high-ground, especially if we really do care about the least fortunate among us. The article above is a good first step in learning to take it back.

Rules for Radicals

I thought this line from Andrew McCarthy's recent article summed up the nature of Obama's recent missteps perfectly:

Saul Alinsky’s bag of tricks doesn’t say what to do when the opponent to be smeared in the public mind is the public itself. So our organizer-in-chief is adrift at sea, and sinking.

Great Cartoon

Is the President Mistaken, or Dishonest?

As a follow-up to my earlier claim that the President is actually being dishonest about the cost of Obamacare in order to get americans on board, check out this article by Caroline Baum.

Especially this part:

Everyone makes a mistake or flubs a line when asked questions on the spot, including the president of the United States...[but] the proliferation of Obama’s gaffes and non sequiturs on health care has exceeded the allowable limit.

He has failed repeatedly to explain how the government will provide more (health care) for less (money). He has failed to explain why increased demand for medical services without a concomitant increase in supply won’t lead to rationing by government bureaucrats as opposed to the market. And he has failed to explain why a Medicare-like model is desirable when Medicare itself is going broke.

The public is left with one of two unsettling conclusions: Either the president doesn’t understand the health-insurance reform plans working their way through Congress, or he understands both the plans and the implications and is being untruthful about the impact.

Neither option is good; ignorance is clearly preferable to the alternative.

****
As I said earlier, I'm hesitant to accuse anyone - and especially the president - of lying. The accusation usually rings of desperation or vindictiveness (just think of all the "Bush lied!" nonsense from years past). But as the president's claims are so completely at odds with economic reality, it's hard to avoid the conclusion that dishonesty, rather than faulty intelligence, is at work in the current situation.

Goldberg

Jonah Goldberg puts Obama's claims about health-care costs and rationing in perspective:

Under the plan discussed at President Obama’s infomercial-esqe town halls, America would cut costs and expand coverage while avoiding rationing. Apparently, it’s paranoid to think that’s too good to be true.

Imagine you’re in charge of bringing pie to a company picnic. You’re planning to provide dessert for 100 people. Then, your boss says you need to hand out pie to 150. Fine, you say, I’ll make more pies. But — oh no! — you can’t, because you’ve also been told costs must go down. Okay, then you can cut slices of the existing pies smaller so everyone can have a piece. Wait! You can’t do that either, because you’re not allowed to ration (i.e., give less to more).

According to Obama, the health-care pie will be sliced into more pieces, of equal or greater size than available now, for less money — all because government is so much better than the private sector at managing large projects.

Pope Benedict and Moral Relativism

This is a good article by Robert Knight, pointing out the historical fact that societies embracing a relativistic approach to faith and morality always move away from the rule of law toward despotism.

As a protestant Christian, I think Pope Benedict's lifelong commitment to denouncing moral relativism in all its forms has clearly made him one of the most important theologians of the last 100 years. As the protestant churches increasingly shy away from making moral judgments of any kind for fear of losing relevance in an unblushingly libertine society, it is refreshing to see a high-profile person of faith (bit of an understatement there) taking a stand for Truth.

To identify and denounce certain behavior as morally wrong or sinful is not an act of bigotry or intolerance. The fact that so many now equate moral conviction with intolerance is the fault of Christians who have lost the courage to stand for truth and accept the ridicule of a shameless society. And when you stop standing for truth, eventually you stop believeing in it too.

Another Health-Care Myth

Before reading this, answer this question: Does preventative care have a net effect of increasing or decreasing medical expenses for an individual? For society generally?

Once you've reached your conclusion, read this article by Charles Krauthammer to discover whether or not you were right.

...
My two cents:

I make it a practice never to openly impugn the motives of those with whom I disagree. I generally assume that people (no matter how wrong-headed I think them) are sincere, that their intentions are good, and that most harms caused are unintentional. But sometimes - and I think this is true for all of us - the best intentions can be used to rationalize the worst behavior, and while a person can be forgiven the unforseen harmful consequences of their well-intending actions, they cannot be excused for any intentional wrongdoing in support of those sincerely-held beliefs.

To clarify - President Obama believes that socialized medicine will, generally speaking, benefit the American people. That's his sincerely-held belief. If he achieves his goal and the resulting reforms are damaging to American health-care, I can certainly blame him for the harm done but I cannot claim that he acted maliciously. He would have only been doing what he thought was right. But if he intentionally deceives or misleads the American people in an attempt to persuade them to support his plan, he has crossed a distinct moral line and can be judged accordingly.

Which brings me to my conclusion: When it comes to the health-care debate, President Obama is lying. He is lying with good intentions - to get the American people to vote for reform that he believes will inure to their benefit - but lying nonetheless. Think this is a bit harsh? Consider:

As Mr. Krauthammer points out, the high costs of universal preventative care are unquestionable. Now, you can argue that it's money well spent - that preventative care is worth the high cost - but you can't (honestly) argue the cost. Most americans are happy with their health-care, so they aren't buying the argument that the President's overhaul is worth the massive pricetag. So what do you do when people aren't buying what you're selling? You lower the price. What if you can't lower the price? If you're a businessman, you close your doors. If you're a politician, you lie about the price.

So when President Obama says "[Preventative care] saves lives. It also saves money," what are we to conclude? He and his economic advisors are nothing if not intelligent; they fully understand the enormous costs of these programs - they're just betting on the fact that the average American citizen does not. Based on the recent outcry at townhall meetings across the country, the gamble isn't paying off.

A Real Health-Care Alternative

Whole Foods CEO John Mackey offers an alternative to the President's plan - one that operates efficiently (and thus cheaply) and that his employees love.

The President keeps saying that opponents of his plan just want to keep the status quo, and implies that their motives are primarily selfish. Is that true? The plan Mackey presents above would be radical change, and most conservatives (and liberals - given its overwhelming popularity with his employees) would support it wholeheartedly.

Isn't it possible for people to want a system to change, and simply oppose President Obama's particular brand of change? And wouldn't the debate be more constructive if the President were quicker to consider alternatives on their merits rather than to smear and marginalize those with whom he disagrees?

Anyway, I won't take the time here to explore each of Mackey's proposals, but I highly recommend reading the full article. Do you think Mackey's suggestions would be beneficial? And, more importantly, are they practical?

In addition to his specific recommendations, Mackey also makes some very down-to-earth observations about the right to health-care generally. Here are some highlights:

Many promoters of health-care reform believe that people have an intrinsic ethical right to health care—to equal access to doctors, medicines and hospitals. While all of us empathize with those who are sick, how can we say that all people have more of an intrinsic right to health care than they have to food or shelter?

Health care is a service that we all need, but just like food and shelter it is best provided through voluntary and mutually beneficial market exchanges. A careful reading of both the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution will not reveal any intrinsic right to health care, food or shelter. That's because there isn't any. This "right" has never existed in America
...
At Whole Foods we allow our team members to vote on what benefits they most want the company to fund. Our Canadian and British employees express their benefit preferences very clearly — they want supplemental health-care dollars that they can control and spend themselves without permission from their governments. Why would they want such additional health-care benefit dollars if they already have an "intrinsic right to health care"? The answer is clear — no such right truly exists in either Canada or the U.K. — or in any other country.

Rather than increase government spending and control, we need to address the root causes of poor health. This begins with the realization that every American adult is responsible for his or her own health.

The fact that the last sentence above is no longer self-evident shows just how far adrift our nation has gone.

Thomas Sowell

Great quotes today from Dr. Sowell...

[B]laming economic crises on "greed" is like blaming plane crashes on gravity. Certainly planes wouldn't crash if it wasn't for gravity. But when thousands of planes fly millions of miles every day without crashing, explaining [that] a particular plane crashed because of gravity gets you nowhere. Neither does talking about "greed," which is constant like gravity.
...
[I]f it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, that doesn't matter if it coos like a dove at Senate confirmation hearings.
...
How long will it be before the public gets tired of the little know-it-all sermonettes by Barack Obama-- especially since nothing that he is doing is actually working?
...
The Pope is more likely to have read Karl Marx than an environmentalist is to have read even a single book that criticized environmentalism.

Environ-Mental

Finally someone had the courage to say it: The planet would be better off without all these darn...people!

This is creepily reminiscent of the notorious statement by biologist David Graber:

Human happiness, and certainly human fecundity, are not as important as a wild and healthy planet....[The ecosystem has] intrinsic value, more value to me than another human body or a billion of them....Until such time as Homo Sapiens should decide to rejoin nature, some of us can only hope for the right virus to come along. (Los Angeles Times, October 29, 1989, p. 9)

So I'm confused. Environmentalists are determined to reduce global temperatures, right? Why? If the global temperature were to rise 200 degrees tomorrow would the planet cease to exist? Would it burn to a crisp, crumble into pieces, and drift off into space? Nope. It would still be right here - granted, a much different place - but still making it's way around the sun every year, much like every other planet in our neighborhood. The only real difference would be that no one would know, because we'd all have gone the way of the Dodo. Life would survive - bacteria, invertabrates, etc. - just not human life.

I submit (and I know this is a controversial idea) that the Earth is in need of protection because humans live here. Environmentalism, at it's core, is about protecting life. If not, why aren't environmentalists on a crusade to reduce global temperatures on Mercury or Mars or Jupiter? Why does Earth deserve all this special attention? Because it's just so pretty?

So if it's acknowledged that protecting the environment is really about protecting life, then isn't the conclusion that humanity should be whittled down for the good of the environment idiotically backward? Well, only if you subscribe to the antiquated notion that humans are "special" in some way.

If, on the other hand, you have accepted the radically egalitarian view that humans are no better than the innocent cockroach that is made to suffer for our cruelty and excess, then it makes perfect sense. We should give up our lives (voluntarily, for now) to protect theirs. If we refuse (according to Dr. Graber) then it would be better if we were wiped out entirely. For people with this degraded view of humanity, reasoned debate is useless.

While we can take comfort in the fact that people holding this view will slowly whittle themselves away, I think it would also be helpful to limit any mischief they may cause in the mean time. So, I suggest a little exercise to calm the consciences of these radical environmentalists.

Consider this: In the infinite vastness of space there is certain to exist a place very much like Earth. Liquid oceans, abundant plant-life, a complex ecosystem. But on this planet, for whatever reason, rational beings have never evolved. The place exists, but we just haven't found it yet. We're not there to see it, or interact with it or - inevitably - destroy it. So even if the Earth is ruined by SUVs, plastic water bottles and those third world masses with the gall to demand (gasp!) food and shelter, other worlds will live on, unsoiled by our putrid humanity.

Doesn't that knowledge - that somewhere in the universe humans don't exist - give you a warm, fuzzy feeling inside? If so, every night as your (vile, human) head hits the pillow, take comfort in the certainty of a place devoid of the "people" you so despise. And when you wake up the next morning (to the ecosystem's chagrin), please spare the rest of us your craziness.

The Bizarre Economics of "Cash for Clunkers"

In this article, Jonah Goldberg describes how an economic program as nonsensical as "Cash for Clunkers" gets traction in the Obama administration.

Here's an abridged version:

[19th-century French economist Frédéric Bastiat's essay "That Which is Seen, and That Which is Not Seen”] is most famous for the “parable of the broken window,” in which a young boy shatters a shopkeeper’s window and, after some initial outrage, the villagers conclude that the rascal helped the local economy. Why?

Because if no one broke windows, window makers would be out of business, and if window makers were out of business, they wouldn’t buy any more bread or shoes, hurting the bakers and cobblers. So the six francs the shopkeeper must spend for a new window is really a boon to the community.

The problem with this argument can be gleaned from the title of Bastiat’s essay. By counting the money the shopkeeper spends to replace a perfectly good window (that which is seen), we ignore the money he might have spent on something else (that which is unseen). The shopkeeper might have instead dropped six francs on new shoes, a book, or a bonus for his assistant. Those who celebrate the broken window as a generator of growth take “no account of that which is not seen."
...
As you’ve no doubt heard, the “cash for clunkers” program gives buyers up to $4,500 of taxpayer money toward the purchase of a new car if they trade in their old cars for vehicles with better gas mileage. The old cars, still roadworthy, are then destroyed just like the shopkeeper’s window.
...
The program’s $1 billion funding evaporated in days rather than months as consumers...lined up for free cash. Washington is now agog with its successful effort to give out free money.

That Washington is shocked by the news that Americans like getting free money shows how thick the Beltway bubble really is.

Like the drunk who only looks for his car keys where the light is good, Washington can only see the economic activity it has created, not the activity it has destroyed.

For starters, who says the smartest thing for people with working cars is to buy new ones? Personal debt is supposed to be a problem, so why not look at this as bribing consumers into taking out car loans they don’t need? Even with the $4,500 subsidy, not all of these customers are going to be paying cash for their new cars. So they’ll be swapping serviceable-but-paid-for cars for nicer cars that are owned by banks.

Besides, maybe some people would be smarter to buy a savings bond or max out their kid’s college fund or — here’s a crazy thought — buy health insurance.
...
Under the government’s program, tax dollars are being diverted to people with cheap cars so they can buy expensive ones. That’s just really inefficient wealth distribution, not wealth creation. But government can see it, and that’s all that counts.

Latest from Thomas Sowell

Utopia Versus Freedom. Dr. Sowell has a talent for getting to the heart of an issue.