false security; real chains

Liberals are big on security.  It's in everything they seek.  All welfare -- the "social safety net" -- is security; a guarantee that you can't fall below a certain level.  Health insurance is security: being able to go through life not worrying about getting sick.

In terms of freedom, security is "freedom from risk."  Almost reasonable sounding: What you can accomplish should not be limited by your fear of what might happen.  Sounds liberating.

The fundamental problem is that what you ultimately do accomplish is ultimately limited by what actually does come to pass.  Good intentions, for example, cannot trump outcomes.  Similarly, true accomplishment comes only after we rationalize and mitigate risk -- not by eliminating it.  

Look at Social Security: millions of people receiving guaranteed income, supposedly insulated from the "risky" stock market.  But in reality, that system is nothing more than a direct transfer -- a guaranteed seizure of wealth -- from people living in the risky free market -- the real world -- to people who are afforded a guarantee; people who are living under an illusion.

Two things result from this.  First, the recipients live as if they are insulated from risk even though they are not.  I mean, ultimately, if the economy collapses, or when stock market goes through downturns, Social Security revenues take a direct hit.  You can't transfer wealth that doesn't exist.

And, secondly, the folks who are taking the risks do so with a decreasing prospect of gains.  The biggest guarantee they have is that they must pay the "insured."  Every other possible outcome is risk.  The only sure things really are death and taxes -- everything else is a roll of the dice.

True and absolute "freedom from risk" does not exist.  The closest we get is a guarantee that the risk will be completely assumed by someone else.  This is serious goose/golden egg territory here.

And a requirement of such an arrangement -- of such security -- is another, less obvious guarantee: that the person who assumes the risk -- the person to whom it is transferred, the one for whom gains are already highly compromised by his obligation to fulfill the guarantee -- the guarantee that he must not escape.

One man's security -- his "freedom from risk" -- is really just another man's servitude.

Security is not the elimination of risk; it is the denial of risk.

And the best part of this (or the worst, depending on how much you fear reality) is that the insured are no less imprisoned than their guarantors when you think about it.  Not because the system holds them in, but because they fear risk above all else.  People who cannot escape, imprisoned with people who are afraid to leave the cell.

Liberalism is wonderfully consistent in its inconsistencies; its irrationalities.

Comments

[JohnJ]

Alexis de Tocqueville: "For their happiness such a government willingly labors, but it chooses to be the sole agent and the only arbiter of that happiness; it provides for their security, foresees and supplies their necessities, facilitates their pleasures, manages their principal concerns, directs their industry, regulates the descent of property, and subdivides their inheritances: what remains, but to spare them all the care of thinking and all the trouble of living? "

[Hank Rearden]

I did a little calculation today, just out of curiosity. The CBO estimates that the new healthcare bill will cost about $1,000,000,000,000.00 (1 trillion) over the next 10 years. That’s roughly $100,000,000,000.00 (100 billion) per year. This is to insure roughly 50,000,000 (50 million) people who are presently uninsured. That translates to about $2,000.00 per person per year for the federal government to cover healthcare expenses. That's about 33% higher than what I and my coworkers pay to the private system to insure/cover someone, and the involved parties manage to turn a profit. On top of this, the bill will require all employers to offer healthcare benefits (by extension lowering the cost to the government) to their employees.

Now, I have no problem with the state trying to put together a program to help provide healthcare to those who don’t have it, but this plan reeks of inefficiency. Furthermore, when I think about it, we currently have WIC, Medicare, Medicaid, welfare, social security, etc. Knowing this, I asked, "Why doesn't our government work to improve existing programs instead of expending the time, money, and effort to 're-invent the wheel'?" Thus far, no logical answer comes to mind.

[William Hodge]

I was wondering if you ever carried insurance on anything. Do you understand the principal upon which it is based. It is usually a profitable enterprise,but not always. Yet it has become an integral part of modern society.
Society itself is a kind of giant insurance company. Successful capitalist often avoid paying the premiums because they don't see any risk to themselves. They seem to have no memory of history. To bad. Someday it will bite them in the Ass. It already did to to many of the rich and powerful in this present economic difficulties. Greed often has the effect of limiting the ability to reason.

[John Galt]

Well, I would say somebody doesn't understand the principles behind insurance, but I don't think it's me...

Insurance is about pooling risk; not about transferring it to someone else.

You seem to equate "successful capitalism" with "greed." What is "greed," anyway? It is sad that such ignorance flourishes among people who have computers and internet access.

[J Green]

John... He's right. Those greedy successful capitalists don't pay premiums - they're more likely to be the ones charging them. Damn those greedy capitalists who are capable of more efficient usage of your invested money than your own government, how dare they.