Here be Dragons

I just started Michael Tanner’s Leviathan on the Right, which is a 2007 book out of the Cato Institute (google “Cato Institute” when you have the time). I’m irritated with President Bush—who was no conservative, let me tell you.

From the first page of LontR, here is a brief list of what he did in only the first 6 years of his two terms in office:

· Created the prescription drug program for senior citizens ($11.2 billion in coverage we don’t have the money for)

· Increased federal control over local schools

· Increased federal education spending by almost 61%

· Signed a campaign finance bill which further restricts free speech

· Allowed wiretapping and gave new and much broader power to federal law enforcement

· Federalized airport security

· Created the Dept of Homeland Security, which is pointless if the rest of the bloated federal law enforcement folks would do their job

· Spent $1.5 billion to promote marriage

· Suggested we spend $1.7 billion to come up with some sort of hydrogen-powered car

· Imposed tariffs and other restrictions on lumber and steel—thus weakening free trade.

· Expanded the previous administration’s national service program

· Increased farm subsidies

· Put in place new regs on the way corporations are run, and how they keep their books

And the kicker, which happened after this book was written: he abandoned free-market principles to save the free-market system" (his words) when the economy went south in 2008.

Tanner goes on in the following pages, laying out what has come to be know as “big-government conservatism.” Apparently there are conservatives out there who think the government has a responsibility to fix our problems.

In fact (now that I think about it), I know a lot of them. They’re folks who have a soft heart for hard-luck stories, and who want the government to step in and help. Tanner quotes David Brooks, who says these sorts of conservatives want government to encourage good habits in its citizens: “those core values include thrift, hard work, charity, patriotism, and especially traditional sexual and family mores. If a government program advances these goals it is a good program and [is] a proper role for government almost by definition.”

Wow.

We have a lot of work to do, don’t we?

Playing the Game

OHSAA. The Ohio High School Athletic Association.

Why is their rule book a half-inch thick? Why are their rules so arcane? Why do they care how long shinguards are on soccer players (isn't it the parents' job to care for their kids)? Why do they care if a senior is over 18 and therefore can't play his senior year? What's the big deal? Why can't school administrators and athletic directors sit down, vote on any issues that arise, and "police" themselves?

Why should OHSAA meddle in the business of individual schools and their student athletes?

You know why? Mother Government.

That is, we are convinced more bureacracy is better than less. More people on staff is better than less. More money spent=more kids positively affected by the experience of MG. Of course, I guess we don't consciously think of those things, but they guide our decisions, and affect our world view.

The Man needs to get out of the business of telling parents and kids how to play the game.

Free to Choose; Free to Fail

Margaret Thatcher said, "We want a society in which we are free to make choices, to make mistakes, to be generous and compassionate. That is what we mean by a moral society—not a society in which the State is responsible for everything, and no one is responsible for the State."

Free to make choices. Free to fail. Free to be generous and compassionate—and to decide how our generosity and compassion are applied. Free to be responsible for ourselves, and free to hold the government accountable.

“Free to make choices” means we decide whether to buy raw milk for our family. We decide how we spend our money. We decide how to invest for our retirement. We decide how we will educate our children. We decide—not a government who doesn’t know us, and know our personal circumstances.

“Free to fail” means the government doesn’t prop up poorly-run businesses. It means teachers don’t “teach to the test.” It means not every kid in Little League gets a ribbon. It means the individual, not the government, has to find a way to cover the mortgage payment when he gets behind.

“Free to be generous” means we can best decide how to help those in need. It means no estate tax, which doubly taxes income and doesn’t allow us to pass on an inheritance to our children. It means the government shouldn’t entice us to give to charities to earn tax breaks—true and meaningful sacrifice means that giving hurts me financially.

“Free to be responsible for ourselves” means all of the above. It means we are the ones who pilot the ship—not those who don’t understand our circumstances. It means we’re the parents—not the government.

“Free to hold the government accountable” means we must demand the government (at all levels) live within its means. It means we must hold government accountable for how it spends our money. It means we must view the government not as a faceless entity somewhere far away, but as an entity made up of people like you and me, who have a responsibility to you and me, because they represent us when they make decisions on our behalf.

Freedom and responsibility. These are critical, and the vast majority of politicians want to withhold our freedom and won’t allow us to be responsible for ourselves. Let’s make sure we are given the right to succeed—and the right to fail. I think we deserve that—don’t you?