This post has been running around in my head for almost a year. It’s time I finally sent it out into the world. Warning, it’s going to be long.
All liberal policies and ideas are based upon the above phrase.
Wouldn’t it be nice if…
- everyone could have access to free healthcare?
- everyone could afford to buy a home?
- everyone could earn a living wage, no matter what the job?
- the unemployed could still pay their bills?
- everyone could retire comfortably?
- only the richest among us had to pay taxes?
- we got rid of all our nuclear arms and set an example for the rest of the world?
- we set an example for the world to follow in tolerance and understanding?
- there were no wars?
- employers and universities accepted minorities in proportion to their proportion of the general population?
- workers have job security in times of economic strife?
- the government could help starving artists?
- the government could help with educational programming?
- the government could make public access to news freely available?
- we stopped burning fossil fuels that are destroying the planet?
- we stopped using nuclear power based on risky fission?
- we rebuilt cities and towns destroyed by mother nature?
- we eliminated crime by eliminating guns?
- no one ever had to worry about buying unsafe or useless products?
- no one ever had to worry about being taken advantage of by banks, credit card companies or other large corporations?
- there was no poverty?
- everyone who wants one can get a job?
- everyone around the world could experience the same freedoms we have here?
- we had the same government benefits that other countries have?
I could come up with a much longer list given time, but you get the idea.
Yes, all of these things would be nice. They’d be wonderful, in fact. Who wouldn’t sign up for a society like this, given a chance? But liberals never recognize the problems associated with these goals. And there are plenty.
First, some of them are impossible. We’re never going to eliminate poverty, crime, or war. Second, some of them are contradictory. The world’s energy needs are increasing every day. If we stop burning fossil fuels, we’ll need more nuclear fission. If we stop using nuclear fission, we’ll need to burn more fossil fuels. But thirdly, and most importantly, even attempting to achieve any of these goals has consequences, and the consequences cannot be ignored, despite the best efforts of liberals to do so.
You want free healthcare? Fine. But that means that there’s going to be rationing, or less research into new practices, or there will be doctor & hospital shortages, or longer wait times, or higher incidences of malpractice, or lower employment due to forcing corporations to cover the cost. Most likely all of the above.
You want everyone to be able to get a home? That means you have to force banks to give loans to people that are high credit risks. Or don’t have much in the way of down payment. So, when there’s an economic downturn, and these people lose their jobs, they lose their homes. This causes home value deflation, and now the ones that didn’t have down payments are underwater on their mortgages, and are stuck there, unable to move to a better economic situation.
You want everyone to be able to earn a living wage? Fine. Raise the minimum wage. Of course, that means that companies won’t be able to afford to hire as many people, which will result in lower employment.
You want unemployment insurance and retirement insurance? Fine. But that money has to come from somewhere. Forget about the next line, “only the richest among us have to pay taxes”. We were there once, back before WWI. When we didn’t have all this government spending. Include the above “free” healthcare, and everyone’s going to be paying taxes. Lots of them.
You want to dismantle all our nuclear arms and show tolerance and understanding to people fomenting wars all over the globe? Fine. But forget about them following our example. They won’t. In fact, a nice rich country like the United States without a nuclear arsenal would be too delicious a target to pass up. Hope you like Sharia law or speak Chinese. And you can forget about “no more wars”.
You want affirmative action? Fine. But it assumes that companies and universities will be forced to accept the less qualified. That means higher costs, lower productivity, and poorer results. Now I’m not saying that we need to keep minorities in the ghettos. No, in fact, what we need to do is the opposite, so they won’t be less qualified. Don’t make it so minorities don’t have to compete. Make it so that they can compete and win. That’s a win for everybody.
You want workers to be able to keep their jobs when economic times are bad? Fine. Either they’re working for the government or you just destroyed capitalism. Probably both. Side effects? Well, at least we won’t have to worry about class warfare between the rich and the poor anymore. We’ll all be poor. And just like most of the things above, somebody’s going to have to pay the bill for this. Ask Greece how this works out.
You want the National Endowment for the Arts, the Public Broadcasting System, and National Public Radio? Fine. But let me remind you of something. When you’re the one paying for something, you have control over it’s production. When the government is paying for art funding, the government gets to decide what constitutes art. When you have the government funding educational programming, the government gets input into what is shown. When the government pays for news, the government gets input into what stories are exposed and to the slant of editorials. We don’t call this art, education, and news. We call it propaganda, indoctrination, and censorship.
You want to get rid of fission and burning of fossil fuels? Fine. Where’s the energy going to come from? Solar, wind, geothermal, hydroelectric are incapable of supplying our needs. We would need solar arrays the size of small western states just to power even a small city. We’d need to cover the world with wind farms. Fusion is currently still a dream, and all your other programs have made it impossible to spend the money on researching new energy sources.
You want to rebuild cities and towns destroyed by mother nature? Fine. Actually, I’m in agreement on this one. Within reason. Having a large city that is in a major hurricane alleyway, is coastal, and is mostly below sea level is stupid. At some point we need to admit that it’s stupid to build there and stop trying to fight against the earth. It’s a losing proposition. So is having a large city on a major fault line. Tornados, thunderstorms, hail, forest fires are different. The first three generally do not cause the same kind of widespread damage as a hurricane or earthquake. The last is often preventable and not an act of God. Even when it is, it’s usually containable before it causes the kinds of damage we see from other catastrophic events.
You want to make guns illegal? Fine. You realize of course, that the cities in the U.S. with the highest crime rates also have the most strict gun control laws? The old cliché is true. When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns. We can’t stop people from being able to get heroin in the United States. You really think you’re going to keep guns away from them? Gun control doesn’t prevent crime. It may prevent accidents, but it’s surely not the best way to do so. And it does limit personal freedom, as do many of the items above. More on that in a moment.
You want to put watchdogs and oversight on every single company and every single product or service it sells? Fine. You realize that’s going to cost the government a lot of money, right? You also realize that it’s going to cost the companies a lot of money too, right? And stifle innovation. And reduce money available for hiring, therefore lowering employment. And who do you think is going to end up paying for all of this? That’s right, the ordinary citizen. Who’s already broke and out of work from all the other stuff above.
You want 100% employment? Fine. But first, realize that some of the things above make employment unnecessary. If the government is going to give me a free ride, why should I go to work? Still, we’ll assume for the moment that’s not the case. But the only way you get to 100% employment is if government takes over responsibility for hiring. In other words, government nationalizes everything. Well, kiss innovation goodbye then. And without innovation, there’s little to no economic growth. There’s no increase in standard of living. Everyone lives at the same level, and that’s the minimum level the government can afford to pay. You eliminate the disparity in incomes and the disparity in happiness. Everyone is poor and miserable.
You want everyone around the world to share the same freedoms and same terrific government benefits? Fine. Of course, generally those are perpendicular lines, so you’re probably going to have to choose between freedom and benefits. Furthermore, you’re going to have to give up sovereignty to do this. That doesn’t bother you? Think it won’t bother the Muslims? Well, it might not, if everyone succumbed to Muslim law. Even if you can get everyone on board, you’re left with a rather controlling world government. You’re going to lose freedoms, not gain them. The reason we have so many freedoms in the U.S. is because we have a decentralized government. And the moves away from that are why we’re losing freedom here. You’re the most free when government decisions are made closest to where you are. RomneyCare is an example of what I mean. The people of MA wanted it, and it was passed. The people next door in NH didn’t want it, and weren’t forced to take it. ObamaCare, being nationwide doesn’t allow you to escape to another state that doesn’t have it, and it burdens a huge number of people that don’t want it. Loss of freedom. This is what you’ll see with your world government. Beyond that, every item on the list above limits freedom. Typically that’s true of government benefits. To get something from the government, you have to give something up.
This is why polls on changing Medicare and the like are ridiculous. “86% of respondents oppose changing Medicare” (made up quote). Well, of course they do. The question didn’t show the consequences of not doing so. Libs need to have TANSTAAFL tattooed on both sides of both hands so they can see it all the time.
This is reality. All of the consequences listed above are true and undeniable. There may be and probably are worse ones that I haven’t even mentioned. Now, it’s true that not all of these hurdles are insurmountable. But they do exist. When you pretend they don’t, which is what liberals do, you invite disaster. You may argue that the consequences are worth it. I don’t think many will agree with you, though.