Are we taking a road to passiveness and the easy route? Will a true leader let that happen? Will we empower ourselves to create prosperity?
ENTITLED MEANS…
Entitled means to get the title to (own)
something. It is a right to benefits specified especially by law or contract. Do we have a right to benefits with no exchange
and no payment for it?
Yes,
we are entitled to get our social security benefits because we buy them based
on a contract with the U.S. government.
The same with Medicare. But if
we don’t pay in enough to be able to get what we will get out of the other end,
does it make sense that we should be entitled to something we haven’t purchased
the right of the benefits to, where we haven’t paid in?
WHAT
WORKS AND WHAT DOESN’T WORK
In
socialism (which I am not saying we have) or communism, the social contract is
that people have the right to have their needs taken care of – and that people
must contribute based on their abilities.
The
only problem is that humans have been proven to need incentives. So socialism and communism go broke (but that
is often put off through the mechanism of force, which requires an autocratic
state and lots of harm). They have been
proven not to work, despite their appeal..
When
people march to “get their share of the money” because it is “unfair” to have
the rich have so much, they are not seeking to earn the money but to
redistribute it. The irony is that, if they
win, people will no longer have the incentive to create wealth. And that results in less wealth. And less wealth results in not being able to
afford to give so much to the poor.
The
solution lies, instead, in increasing the size of the pie rather than trying to
slice it differently. Those people
marching for a “fair share” are actually marching out of the desire to live
well (enough). And they will live well
by contributing and being paid for delivering value, which means they are
earning the entitlement to certain benefits, not expecting something for
nothing.
Before anyone protests capitalism, they should learn about it: Capitalism - How It Works.
Before anyone protests capitalism, they should learn about it: Capitalism - How It Works.
GOING DOWN THE MIDDLE WAY THAT WORKS
Of
course, any good system can have its excesses.
And, of course, we need to protect from any great harm that is directly
caused there. But how to do that is a
matter of opinion – hopefully, informed opinion. So, capitalism needs to be “controlled” from
going to extremes that will harm society.
We need to determine where things can be excessive and then prioritize
and then control only that which has a true payoff.
Hopefully,
we would avoid the ignorance that is illustrated by Dick Durbin’s sponsorship
of a bill that included limiting what banks can charge businesses when a debit
card is used – essentially limiting their rights to run their business. He apparently fails to see that markets
work. If a charge were too high, then
competitors would come in at lower rates in order to get the profits. Instead, one result is that Bank Of America
is shifting to charge $5 for a month’s worth of use to the debit card holder if
the card is used in a particular month (there is no extra charge for the number
of times used, however, and no charge if it is only used at the atm).
The
great uproar about it being “unfair” is the typical protest/complaint of the
unthinking, believing that they know what is “right”. But the market will take care of this
situation – if B of A is charging too much, one simply shifts one’s account to
another business. Unless there is a monopoly,
which we have laws to protect against, the market (the people) is the judge,
where people decide to purchase something if it is worth the price and where
competitors come in and offer a lower price to get the business if there is
still profit in it, and the price is driven down to closer to the costs – it takes
care of itself.
Overprotecting
results in restricting. Overtaxing
results in more businesses doing their business elsewhere, so that there are
fewer jobs for Americans. Good business
judgment must be used in order to strike the proper balance.
The
question is not “what’s fair?” but “what will work that will provide the
greatest overall benefits for those involved?”
No one knows what “fair” is.
Generally, we know that those who cry “unfair” more than in a few
limited situations are those who don’t take responsibility for creating their
own circumstances, for earning their own benefits.
There
are no “entitlements” except those that are purchased in one way or
another (except for those are actually unable). Being entitled where one does
not exchange anything for it is strictly not a right, not a given, and perhaps
a preposterous absurdity.
A
SOCIETAL CHOICE
However,
people can choose to be charitable
and to give to another. And, in many
ways, certain benefits that are chosen to give are only possible through the
mechanism of government. But surely it
is not our right to take from others involuntarily. There is a word for that – theft, robbery,
stealing, unjust enrichment.
The
majority of us in the US, as far as I can determine, are committed to the
values of:
- Protecting our
citizens who are not able to provide for themselves from inadequate food
and shelter and health care.
- Assuring that the able citizens are educated adequately
to be able to contribute to society and to earn adequate food and shelter
for themselves for their lifetimes.
This is not only for the benefit of the individual but for the
collective whole, which benefits from the greater prosperity of the nation
– which, in turn, creates a greater ability to protect its citizens.
- Protecting property rights and protecting the citizens
from harm, whether criminal, through nature, or any cause.
- Assuring that the economic structure and freedoms are
such that we produce a high level of prosperity without producing excesses
that cause harm.
- Providing direction and education on values and character and how to operate in life so that citizens are aware enough to operate in their own interests and more able to contribute to others. (This is a value that may not be seen at this point, but one that, if implementation around it is done, will more than pay for itself.)
(Implicit in a "responsibility, prosperity" society is our paying for what we get, to the extent of our abilities. This would conceivably be handled via a Citizen Loan Account.)
WHAT
DOESN’T WORK FOR THE GREATER GOOD
The
pity right now is that there are those in politics who are making others wrong
in order to get more votes and to stay in office – who prioritize that instead
of benefitting the country – who are lacking integrity and who are not
congruent with what they say.
Those
who speak of and implement cooperation and compromise are working toward the greater
good. Those who call others “the enemy”
are creating divisiveness and warfare. Those
who speak of the “fat cats” are evilizing the rich and/or those in business,
creating greater divisiveness and warfare – after all, isn’t that the mechanism
that has been used to create wars with other nations, where the people of the
other nation are made into “devils”, losing their humanity in the sight of
those who wish war.
Those
who are not adequately educated in economics and what works in life should not
be our representatives even if they are “on our side” in terms of beliefs, for
they are more prone to bad decisions without adequate knowledge, reasoning, and
facts. (See Educating Our Representatives.) Those who are dysfunctional, who rely on hate
and “making others wrong” and distorting the facts to win votes, they are not
who we want in office.
Leadership
is judged by its results.
To the extent
a leader blames “those other people” or his/her predecessors, he is not taking
responsibility for bettering things – he is spending time in excuse making, in
worthless/harmful politics. To the
extent he condones the uninformed behaviors of others, he is not leading toward
the highest good for all. To the extent he
attempts to make “others” wrong, he is not leading – he is creating more
divisiveness and at the same time recruiting the side he is on to feel they are
more right in making the others wrong – and the focus is not on what will
benefit for the greater good. To the
extent he distorts the facts on purpose to make others wrong, he is being
harmful or at the very least dysfunctional.
A
small, but illustrative, example is where there was a soldier who was relieved
that there was no longer a ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’ policy. Perhaps two people in an audience of
thousands booed, briefly, but stopped quickly, possibly for lack of
support. Perhaps they were against gay
rights or perhaps they thought it impractical to have a policy based on “whatever”. Some top leaders of the opposition attempted
to lower other people’s opinions of the debaters on stage and their political
party as being without moral character because they did not object to such
behavior. (Note that the conclusion is not based on sound reasoning and uses
generalization, while also relying on incorrect, blown up ‘facts’, greatly
exaggerated – I believe this is something that is unacceptable for any leader,
as a leader must be rational and fact-based and knowledgeable in order to lead
our country productively and ethically.)
Ironically,
the leader of our country, a few weeks ago, followed the speech of a union
leader who used foul accusations and labels and created others as enemies, yet our
designated leader made no comment about what the union leader had proclaimed, with
our leader not calling it unacceptable in politics. To accuse others, and yet be guilty of the
very same behavior, is inauthenticity at its least and lack of mature positive
behavior and thinking at its best.
A
leader must have integrity and authenticity to lead. He must follow the values he espouses. He must, to quote a current saying, be “the
adult in the room.” He is not a true
leader if he claims to be the adult yet behaves in contrary, divisive ways as
means to achieve political ends.
And,
to return to the lead in to this piece, if a portion of his citizens are
marching for entitlements, to make others wrong, etc. and etc., it is a leader’s
job to intervene and to educate and to lead to productive attitudes. It is malevolent to use those marches for his
own political purposes.
A
leader is responsible for results. And
if the results are not good, he does not make excuses or blame others. He, instead, asks what went wrong and now
what can we do to get better results – and then he goes about it. Yes, it is true that he might lose the
election that he might have won by manipulating the people and using
misinformation, but at least he will have done what is honorable – and not sold
his soul to the devil, no matter how righteous he may feel, no matter how noble
his goals.
Who
shall we choose who is a true leader, in terms of actual capability and
integrity rather than “appeal” or “empty promises” (even if the latter is sincerely
made but made without a realistic assessment of the ability to deliver)?
I
would hope our existing leader would ‘see the light’ and work toward the
greater good instead of being stuck on ideology or limited to his own
understanding of economics and how things work – which, of course, can only be
done through accessing lots of brains and lots of knowledge, in true
cooperation. Yes, I voted for this man
for his potential to shake things up in the right direction and to lead with
integrity.
He
has, based on results, not done that.
Yes,
there are conflicts, such as having to please his “base”, but he must, as soon
as possible, get in gear to produce results asap instead of being governed by
and diverted by his politics. And he
must do that in cooperation and compromise - for “being right”, as any adult
knows, is not the ultimate workable stance.
Yours
toward using reason, facts, and knowledge to achieve better results,
The
Rational Non-Politician
P.
S. Although there are many anti-productive behaviors on both sides of the aisle,
I think it is worthwhile mentioning one big error that has been used against
the person’s party. That is where
McConnell stated that his chief objective was to get Obama out of office. He failed to make his true point, which was
that the attitude of Obama was counterproductive for the nation and then to
state ‘why’ and how it was. He made the
classic mistake in emotional intelligence which was to ‘condemn the sinner,
rather than the sin.” The statement he
made is no better than Obama’s calling the Republican “the enemies”. Both were divisive and harmful.
No comments:
Post a Comment