A Story About an Ant- Two Versions, Two Morals - Be Careful How You Vote in November

OLD VERSION

The ant works hard in the withering heat all summer long, building his house and laying up supplies for the winter.

The grasshopper thinks the ant is a fool and laughs and dances and
plays the summer away. Come winter, the ant is warm and well fed.

The grasshopper has no food or shelter, so he dies out in the cold.

MORAL OF THE STORY: Be responsible for yourself!

-------------------------------------------

MODERN VERSION

The ant works hard in the withering heat all summer long, building
his house and laying up supplies for the winter.

The grasshopper thinks th e ant is a fool and laughs and dances and
plays the summer away.

Come winter, the shivering grasshopper calls a press conference and
demands to know why the ant should be allowed to be warm and well fed
while others are cold and starving.

CBS, NBC, PBS, CNN, and ABC show up to provide pictures of the
shivering grasshopper next to a video of the ant in his comfortable
home with a table filled with food. America is stunned by the sharp
contrast.

How can this be, that in a country of such wealth, this poor
grasshopper is allowed to suffer so?

Kermit the Frog appears on Oprah with the grasshopper, and everybody
cries when they sing, 'It's Not Easy Being Green.'

Jesse Jackson stages a demonstration in front of the ant's house where
the news stations film the group singing, 'We shall overcome.' Jesse
then has the group kneel down to pray to God for the grasshopper's sake.

Nancy Pelosi & John Kerry exclaim in an interview with Larry King that
the ant has gotten rich off the back of the grasshopper, and both call
for an immediate tax hike on the ant to make him pay his fair share.

Finally, the EEOC drafts the Economic Equity & Anti-Grasshopper
Act retroactive to the beginning of the summer.

The ant is fined for failing to hire a proportionate number of green
bugs and, having nothing left to pay his retroactive taxes, his home
is confiscated by the government.

Obama gets his old law firm to represent the grasshopper in a
defamation suit against the ant, and the case is tried before a panel
of federal judges that Bill Clinton appointed from a list of
single-parent welfare recipients.

The ant loses the case.

The story ends as we see the grass hopper finishing up the last bits of
the ant's food while the government house he is in, which just happens
to be the ant's old house, crumbles around him because he doesn't
maintain it.

The ant has disappeared in the snow.

The grasshopper is found dead in a drug related incident and the house,
now abandoned, is taken over by a gang of spiders who terrorize the
once peaceful neighborhood.

MORAL OF THE STORY: Be careful how you vote in 2008

 

Nice story.You believe the government is being unfair to those who work hard and take responsibility for their lives.

Whom do you support? Not McCain I'm sure. And its certainly not Obama, I infer, from the story.

So, you voting for third party?

 

I believe this country missed a HUGE opportunity with Ron Paul. I don't think the people of this country are ready to actually live by a set of really solid laws and maybe save a little money, after all Ron Paul wanted to CUT taxes, not give us a break.

Understand that I don't put my faith in a man, man will ALWAYS let you down. I never was much of a Bush fan either.

It's very appropriate that this crooked, self-centered generation would align themselves with an individual like Obama. The guy is worse than a flip-flopper. He voted both ways on a number of issues. Indecisiveness is not what we need in office.

80% of Obama supporters are D-Riders (dick riders), groupies, the band-wagon type, 10% of them support him because they are scared they might look like they are racist, and the other 10% are just voting for him because he is black, they feel like because he is black and we have never had a black president that it's a sign of change in the right direction.

Bottom line; This generation does not want to be held accountable for anything, everyone wants what they want, how they want it, now. No one is ready to sit up straight, talk respectfully to their mother and fathers and get their a$$es home before the streetlights come on.

 

Here is a real life story where the WELFARE system worked.

Cathy Lanier is the Chief of Police in Washington DC, heading a 4,000 person force in a city with much crime and violent crime, and a city which has suffered from these problems for decades. She was promoted to Chief of Police by the relatively new mayor after 16 years on the police force, rapidly rising through the ranks from rookie cop on the beat into ever more positions of authority before being appointed Chief of Police.

At age 15 or 16 she was on Welfare. She was a single mother of a child, then separated or divorced from her husband. She had grown up poor and at age 13 or so changed from a good student to one who quit attending school and became troubled. She married an older guy, got pregnant, had a child, and then left this guy when the marriage became intolerable.

On her own, and living again with her struggling mother for support and help in raising her child she went on Welfare.

It provided the underpinning, a social welfare "net" to help those who are neediest.

She ultimately went back to school and graduated from high school. She worked at various jobs, and at age 23 joined the police force. While in the force she raised her son and received an undergraduate degree from Johns Hopkins. While in the force, she faced sexual harrassment, filed a claim, saw it dropped by the force, and later won a judgement on the claim in civil court.

She kept working and producing. She was promoted many times in her career, gradually taking on more responsability. She stayed clean.

She ultimately and recently became the Chief of Police.

When it works Welfare becomes a safety net for those in most desperate straights. On its own its neither good or bad. The individuals who fall into its system must ultimately use it as a support to move back into productive society. Its an aid that a strong and benevolent society can provide to help those in bad straits.

If they have the moxie, drive and determination they can do wonders within society and society benefits from their contributions.

 

Interesting story... But maybe, 9 out of 10 times, this hand-out system can make people complacent. For example, look at UK, a prime example of socialism. Various City Councils give free homes to the homeless. What do these people do? They rent a part of that home, and live off the rent and unemployment cheques they get from the city council, month after month.

 

Gauharjk, I think Earl's point is key, here:

Can it fall afoul? Sure, and I have a personal example of the very thing you speak, a friend of my wife's living on the dole in the north of England, soaking the system. We all have these stories.

On the other hand, I also see what can happen when the citizens of nations make commitments to themselves, to give the tools to exploit, to the fullest of their native abilities, their native gifts. When education, health and other blessings of advanced civilization are seen as a national priority, the country can thrive - even find itself climbing out of the nadir of war or mass poverty to prosperity, and a great quality of life for its people.

Hell, I'll say it - some here know it - but as a runaway kid in my early teens, and high-school dropout, were it not for some truly life-sustaining programs that I could turn to, many years ago, I'd probably just be dead - not an honors grad/grad student from Berkeley, and whatever else I've accomplished in my time. I am aware of the value of a society's commitment to each of its citizens - and of the cost of tossing them out as so much refuse.

 

@Northpointaiki,

I certainly agree that the system could be a boon to people. There are many people who cannot get a headstart in life due to lack of resources & financial support. And society should come forward to support such individuals. Providing a safety net is a great concept.

But the government should not force people to adopt its safety net. Insurance should not be mandatory. People should be free to choose...

 

Gauharjk, I'm not following the logic.

A safety net is employed when you're truly down and out. In my case, a runaway kid at 14, living on the side of freeways. In the case of a family abandoned by the father, a single mom trying to raise kids on nothing.

Where would "choosing insurance" come into play, and, having "chosen," where would the ability to pay for that insurance come, for millions, who are truly on the last leg before going under?

In other words, how would:

Play out in your scenario?

 

In the story which is McCain and which is Obama?

 

It is necessary to have some kind of safety net in modern societies... I agree...

Should government be allowed to provide this safety net at the expense of other people's taxes? Or should this work be left to NGOs like Oxfam and Non-Profit Social organisations like Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, and other such organizations?

Austrian Economics believes governments only adds bureaucratic red-tape to such issues, and increase their power. That makes the government monstrous, lethargic and inflexible.

And there is another issue of government collecting high taxes to use it inefficiently.

I completely agree with the need of a security net to fall back on, in case everything goes wrong, so that people can recover. It is needed, but in some other form.

 

Guaharjk, there is nothing stopping any individual, group of individuals, or organization from doing these things.

It doesn't happen - despite a healthy voluntarism, and a great philanthropic tradition, we still have millions dumped aside, literally. I would say, as a result, one either doesn't believe in the need for such safety nets, or one believes in the need, and, in lieu of them being provided by non-profits or the like, one believes it is a public need, under the public weal.

Many call socialism a panacea that doesn't exist in reality. With respect to your views, Gauharjk, I'd nevertheless say the same for much of the notions I've seen on this forum regarding "Austrian Economics," though much of it also falls under the penumbra of anarcho-capitalism. Whether the above issue, or the issue of "commons," such as the air we breathe (as discussed in another thread), not everything can possibly come down to the notion of the market curing all. Here, the market leaves many behind, plain and simple. In the thread about "warming," the market does not take care of the air we all need and breathe - and the answer that "air is infinite; once it becomes so polluted that clean air becomes a finite quantity, it will have a salable price" is utter nonsense by any reasonable standard, in my opinion ("I'll take two gulps of clean air, please - how much do I owe?" - oh, you can't really slice "air" like you can a pie? And the polluted air to be "left behind" screws everything along the chain of nature beside it, affecting everything under the sun? News to me!).

Much as society improved on a raw state of nature, presumably, I'd say, a society that sets some threshold of quality of opportunity for each of its members improves on one that says what I have seen elsewhere on this forum: "as to tomorrow, screw it - I've no responsibility for making the world better than when I came in."

 

Northpointaiki, what you say is very true. I agree that you are correct. We have to make the world better that what was given down to us. Voluntarism has not been really successful. For example, industries would not stop the use of asbestos if it wasn't unlawful to do so. I have a documentary "The Corporation" - http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0379225/

After reading Atlas Shrugged, I had the idea that there is no such thing as "common good". Socialism means taking from those who produce and five it to those who don't. I am really confused. Society has to come together to work for the common good, if there is such a thing... Societies are evolving, and so such a social structure could succeed.

 

I think we're on the same page, Gauharjk. It comes down to a difficult choice, I'd say, and what kind of world we want, for ourselves, and for our kids - and I'd also say it's a dance between extremes, making it all the more difficult to manage.

Your asbestos example is a good one. I mentioned, somewhere on this forum, what I personally witnessed in the coastal ecology of my home, growing up diving the Channel Islands off Southern California. I'm glad as hell someone had the forethought to regulate the fisheries there before it was too late, or else there'd simply be nothing left - whether to sell, to enjoy, or to provide for other species, depending on the "commercial" species for their sustenance.

 

I too read Atlas Shrugged, the other big book by her, and some of her other writings. I've worked in extremely competitive markets, and enjoy them. I've seen how markets seem to grow and create wealth and then overexpand and create economic problems. I've been poor and rich, and recieved and given help in charitable situations.

The example of Kathy Lanier above (the police chief) is not one where the social network is responsible for her current position and career growth. She is responsible for the career growth and current position. The social network that helped her in a time of need provided the assistance at an early stage and was an element in allowing her skills to bloom.

Similarly social networks that help people in times of need have been operating during the China earthquake, the storm in Burma, Hurricane Katrina, the tsunami that hit Southeast Asia, the fires in Western USA during summers, etc. etc. etc. (of interest i read, that an estimate of deaths in Burma (Myanmor) approximated 140,000 as the government restricted information about the coming storm and restricted aid. Of course nobody knows the extent in its entirety as access to this information is severely limited. That volume of deaths though speaks to a scenario in which a "social network" is prohibited.)

Governments are often often inefficient. Ha ha. Work in a bunch of competitive successful businesses. You will see lots of inefficiency, even in the most successful ones. Work in one that is struggling and seems to be inhibiting your own growth and you'll see 100 times more problems.

Competition drives efficiency but in no way eliminates it.

I personally have evolved to where I believe in a balance of elements that contribute to society, including private, government, charitable, NGO, educational, and a world of contributing sectors. How they play out and evolve within changing environments is always the trick and it always takes work to continue to adjust to changing circumstances.

 

I was asked what I thought about the discussion in this thread.

First, I am trying to avoid getting into heated or drawn out conversations. They bring out the worst in me, and I feel partially to blame for also bringing out the worst in others. So that said, I will try to address topics, and not posters, and I will do whatever I can to avoid responding back. I did spend a good hour thinking about this conversation, and these are topics I care and think about daily, so what I have to say will not (in my mind) require revision.

Second, I am opinionated, but I am not completely set in my views. What I do ask, is that if people are going to challenge my views, they defeat them on rationality, not emotionalism. It's my pledge that if someone can prove I have reasoned incorrectly, I am willing to change my point of view, and even adopt that persons if it is more sound. But emotional or "that's the way it is" arguments don't pass muster with me.

1. I'll skip the comment about a Commons. It's simply not rational to have a commons, it is impossible to maintain such. That's not to fit my ideology, that is the only consistent and reasoned way to approach property. I think the example I provided in the other thread with regards to pricing is perfectly reflected in how another so-called commons "water" is handled.

2. A lot of the discourse in this conversation is personal. So I don't want to attack anyone personally. If you have received any assistance in a safety net sense, and it has bettered your life, then that is great. Really.

3. Technically, a safety net, like so many things, are a case of what is seen and what is not seen. We see the benefit, we see the power of helping someone up, but we don't see the negative, which is the loss of wealth from the person who has provided the assistance. That is because the state is a sanitizing mechanism, that divorces charity from the recipient. The fund are collected collectively, and then dispersed broadly, which means that you don't know exactly where you money has gone, or to whom. Your $5 may have gone to foreign aid, or veterans benefits. It may have bought Bill Clinton a cigar, or paid for Ron Paul to buy a new desk. It may have helped feed the foodless, house the homeless. What we tend to do, is figure out what % of what we give, goes to each of the myriad of on the book projects. So we may pay $100, that maybe $10 to military, $2 towards a new fleet of subs, $20 to education, $45 to overhead and bureaucracy, etc.

What however is never measured, because it cannot be, is what the opportunity cost was to the person who had to pay in was. We know that Person X gets so much for food, shelter and education, which we consider an investment. But what about Person Y who paid for it? Could they have better used the money? Maybe they need the money for their own health care, and the care of their family. Maybe they could have done the same for Person X but saved 45% in overhead costs paying for bureaucracy and directly subsidized Person X instead. This would have been cheaper and more efficient.

So these are the sorts of things I am talking about, when I talk about what is seen and unseen. If we're honestly going to look at this, weigh it's merits and deficits, we have to consider both sides. Not just the potential good, but the potential cost.

3. Which brings me to efficiency. When the state runs the safety net, it is a monopoly. We know that competition creates efficiency, roughly translated as more variety in goods/services, with more differentiation in pricing (more high end and more low end choices). However, the state frequently offers only one service, at one cost or a limited palette.

So if I am a middle class worker, and I am trying to support a family, and cannot afford health care, then perhaps the portion of the safety net cost that I pay comes at too great of a cost to my own situation. In other words, I am made poorer (when I can least afford it) to subsidize someone else. This is a case of the unseen.

Hans Hoppe points out that economists always want competition, they know it is in the best interest of the consumer to have choices. After all, the word monopoly is an evil, dirty word.

But when it comes to government, and the provision of security, of law, of education, of medicine, everyone seems to think that monopoly is the answer. This is counter-intuitive to the fact that we want competition, and loathe the idea of monopoly, because they are always seen as abusive or potentially tyrannical to consumers.

And like most of the things I try to hold as truths, evidence exists in the fact that every industry the government heavily regulates or monopolizes, costs soar and quality drops. Whether it is a prolonged Afghan or Iraq war, poorer grades and test scores, or negligent facilities (and thus, care) at Walter Reed, when the government has no one to compete with, and literally unlimited short-term resources, efficiency is lacking.

4. Now some people may use efficiency or market like bad words, but they are not. These are the mechanisms that allow us to increase our standard of living. Efficiency allows you to help yourself AND your neighbor. It allows a middle class to grow. Inefficiency crushes the middle class and widens the disparity between haves and have not.

5. At this point, I want to point out that I am for safety nets, as long as they are provided voluntarily. Private charities have to compete for donations, and charities that do not fulfill their function or waste, lose funding and support. In this regard, they become efficient, and the consumer can choose to support the homeless, the disabled etc based upon their own perception of charitable need. There is no way some politburo in a far away capital can ascertain the specific needs of a small community that might be the 700th largest town in the country. Central planning, is literally the act of divorcing reality from decision making. Local decision making is faster, more responsive and more efficient, each time, every time.

6. The last thing I wanted to mention was money. Many people do not understand, that money is not wealth. Money is a means of exchange. It facilitates the exchange of wealth, it is not wealth itself.

In order to have a state sponsored safety net, a fiat currency is required, and in the world today, every fiat currency is provided for by a central bank. Central banking and fiat money go hand in hand. Fiat money is anything the state says is money. If the state wanted to, they could make monkey shit currency (by law, or fiat), and we would all have to do transactions and pay taxes in monkey shit. It's completely arbitrary.

This differs from what Ron Paul talks about. Paul talks about "sound money". He means money that has intrinsic value, so it is not only a means of exchange, it is also a good that could be exchanged in barter.

Imagine that the government changed from dollars to monkey shit. Do you think anyone besides collectors would trade you groceries for the now unuseful dollars? Probably not. If you had some gold, even though it is no longer legal tender, you could probably find someone willing to trade you goods and services for it, because gold is recognized as being scarce and an object of value itself.

An aside, some say Paul is for a gold standard. Technically, they are wrong. Paul recognizes that gold has been money (as determined by the market, not government) for most of our recorded history, but advocates free market money, in that if the market feels silver, platinum, diamonds or monkey shit are better, and worth trading for, then that is what people will use. His test is, let's put the paper dollar up against every commodity out there, and see if paper can survive without legal tender laws (or, fiat).

Back on track, a fiat currency is required by the state to facilitate the welfare system (and the warfare system) because man simply does not work more than he has to. Or rather, he wants to stop working when it is no longer profitable. People don't like working if they aren't getting anything out of it, there is no incentive.

So a fiat currency is used, because there are limits to how much a person will work, and only receive a portion of his earnings, with the rest going to taxes. It might be 20%. It might be 50%. We can be pretty sure, no one will want to work much at 80% tax. But the size of the safety net required, doesn't always conform to the amount of taxes that can be collected. So a fiat currency, one that can be counterfeited, is required to inflate the monetary supply and allow for deficit spending. If the government can't debt spend, then it might not be able to fund the troops or pay for education. It certainly will have a hard time funding the troops, while paying for education, medicine, retirement, and the legal/enforcement system.

Now, if I counterfeit money, it's illegal. Most people might think because I am interfering with the government monopoly on providing money. But it's really because if you have to work and sweat for $20, and I can just print it, you are getting screwed on the deal. We're both buying the same things, but I am cheating to get them and maybe even buying the last loaf of bread and bag of apples, so when you go to the store with your hard earned money, the shelves are empty.

But when the government counterfeits (prints too much excess money) it's legal, because they alone have the power to say, "these fresh bills are real money by law". Strange, how what we can't do as individuals (bomb people, kidnap people, murder people, steal from people, counterfeit) the government can do. Quite the double standard isn't it?

It's probably better if I finish up with an example.

I work and make $100. $30 goes to a myriad of taxes.

Of the $30, the government(s) take $5 for wages and expenses, and put $25 into the safety net. But the safety net doubles in need because jobs flee to asia and more people are out of work. How can the government, who has promised to provide a safety net to everyone, supply what it cannot fund?

It prints another $25 dollars to keep the system going.

So of my initial $100, there are now $125 dollars floating around. This is inflation. My $100 now buys less, because that extra $25 is chasing the same goods and services I was going to buy.

But take this one step further. Because the number of goods and services has not necessarily increased, the $50 going to the safety net now only buys $45 worth of goods. So the safety net loses quality, or the government will have to print even more money to get it's purchasing power back.

If you understand the law of diminishing returns, they you will understand how inflating the money supply, eventually leads to a worthless currency, when the amount of currency so drastically exceeds the actual productive capacity of the people using it. It's a vicious cycle. This is why when the USSR fell, the ruble was worthless and people threw them in fields. The USSR didn't collapse to ideology, or to warfare. They simply went bankrupt, because they inflated their way into poverty.

Which is ultimately the tragedy and irony of a state safety net. As the state inflates to keep it going, it lowers everyone's standard of living, which means it needs a bigger net, which means it lowers the standard of living.

These are things I know, they have historical precedent, they are rational and logically sound. I appreciate that some people may disagree or not like what I have to say, but I ask people to please challenge the ideas on their own merit, not on my personal quality or any preconceptions about ideology.

If my opinions cannot withstand rational, logical scrutiny, then I need to change them. I can only hope others will apply to the same standard to their ideas.

 

Guerilla, I appreciate the sentiments expressed above. We both know we don't mix well, and that will not change, so we are both the wiser to avoid direct exchanges. What transpired over the last several months wasn't fun for me, either, so I warrant I'll do what I can to keep my jets cool as I'm able. As to whether I was speaking personally, I'd have to say no - but like you, and on specific issues, take contention with the substance and implications of your philosophy, as you take with mine.

So, I speak to it, as I cannot accept the notion that the market is the sole, best force to deal with every issue - whether the notion of "commons," or this thread's topic.

To the issue of "commons," I don't consider it irrational to presume the notion of a commons, so I do include it in a point of reason among my thoughts (to dismiss the notion that air is a good we all share in common, and is therefore a public resource as "irrational" is. by my definition, a tautology. If defined as irrational, any discussion of its merits cannot be rational). To the issue, specifically, the air example referenced. It makes no logical sense to me to say we can allow a presumption of the "infinite" nature of air, and it is therefore propertyless - until such time that pollution makes clean air a commodity worth buying, when the normal rules of the marketplace apply. My problems are, among others:

1. Air is not readily or optimally "divisible" into a clean portion, and a fouled portion, such that we can siphon off the "clean" portion as a product to be purchased (by whom? Who "owns" the clean air?) and sold accordingly;

2. Sad fact is, man's not smart. We presume clean air is a thing unto itself, and can't manage thinking into next week, much less next century. We do this all the time - we think a salmon is a salmon, forgetting it craps in waters used by other plant and animal species, feeds on other species, and is fed upon by other species. Man's stupidity means tomorrow's world, unregulated, is a shithole compared to what a regulated world, now, is. (My own example - the Channel Islands - the "unfettered marketplace" nearly wiped out the ecosystem there. Through effective laws, and the good efforts of many scientists (publically funded, by the way), the species have been sustained in a way they could not be without these things in place). I know - I was part of the project to propagate, steward, and repopulate the endangered species off Anacapa and Santa Rosa Islands. A remarkable project.

3. It comes down to a philosophical choice, it seems to me. If we believe we have no responsibility to tomorrow, we treat the earth as ours to exploit to the fullest limit of our personal desires. If we believe we must be stewards for the enjoyment of others coming after us, in the absence of an enlightened species that will suddenly stop the spoliation it has followed thus far, we must be told to stop. We require reasonable laws to enforce the stewardship.

There are other things at play for me, but I guess these come first to mind. I believe solely relying on voluntarism and goodwill, on matters of world importance to us now, and generations to follow, is as much a groundless panacea as the essential socialist premise of "demand what you need, provide what you are able."

I share Guerilla's desire to avoid the destructive patterns of the past. To that end, I'd invite the contributions of others, beyond either one of us, in discussing these things.

 

Thanks.

I'm sorry for my part in this. Yes, we should avoid any trouble.

I can appreciate that is your perspective, however I have tried to illustrate, and there are people better than me at such, that regardless of what you or I feel is right, there is what is tangibly possible in the world we live in.

No matter how much money the government prints, it cannot manufacture wealth at a printing press. At all it can do is dilute and redistribute it. At one point, the dilution leads to economic failure.

When someone comes up with a working model of socialism, I am all ears. I am ready to get behind the welfare state as soon as it is sustainable, reliable and honest. Which I don't think are 3 outrageous demands to make for any system you or I might propose.

Unfortunately, every form of socialism we have devised requires fiat money, and fiat money always ends in debasement, poverty, and violence. Always.

Take care. I'm out of this thread.