The Story of Stuff - Rebuffed!
A video entitled “The Story of Stuff” (http://www.thestoryofstuff.com/) found its way to my computer and I sat back with a cup of coffee to watch.
I found this video production extremely compelling. Given my libertarian convictions, the fact that I watched the entire 20 minutes is evidence. And there are some truths contained. But there are also a lot of mistaken assumptions and naive beliefs about human nature. I send this email out as a caution:
1. Government control of resources and citizens is not the answer. This "noble experiment" has already been tried in the Soviet Union 1919-1989. Pollution and exploitation of both the land and people led to tens of millions of deaths through starvation, political executions, and war. Rather than protecting the "people's" resources, communism destroys and wastes them on a far greater scale than capitalism.
Resources are conserved when an individual owns them. This is the concept of private property, and explains why in the Western world (where we respect private property), life expectancy continues to lengthen. And in "exploited" Africa, where there is no respect for property rights, it declines.
Annie seems to conclude that we'd all be better off moving back to the agrarian economy of the USA around the turn of the century, using oxen to till the soil, and hand labor to mill grain, make/wash clothes, etc. Too bad she never lived back then to see what life was really like.
2. Annie talks about health care as if it were a "given"; that somehow government should provide this (free?). Without capitalism there would be no modern medicine, no penicillin, no polio vaccine, so life saving surgery. Only witch doctors.
3. Humans don't live forever, and we know it. So while we are here on earth, we seek to maximize our personal comfort and maximize our enjoyment of life. Annie (who probably drives an SUV, uses electricity to light and heat her house, and yaks on a cell phone a lot) believes someone (i.e. government agent) should be put in charge of determining how others must live their lives to be healthy and happy. No doubt she thinks she's qualified for this job.
A friend of mine once told me he had two rules for living life:
1) Don't tell me what to do.
2) Don't tell me what to do.
I'd don't know if it's just me and him, but really I think the root of happiness is all about personal freedom. To make your own choices, good or bad, and to enjoy the rewards and learn from the consequences either way.
The reason the happiness has been decreasing since 1950 (and I do believe this), is because the role of government is increasing. Do-gooders like Annie aren't the solution; they are the problem. Don't buy it. (Pol Pot's reign of terror in Cambodia provides a chilling history of how a new social order emptied cities in favor of agrarianism.)
If we truly need to "save" the planet , we need to come up with a innovative solution where the "stewardship" of our natural resources is placed in private hands, not government. I'll admit this is difficult to do with large bodies of air and water (because staking boundaries or building fences is problematic). But we must look to the free market and property rights for answers first.
The alternative is ceding your liberty to government, and to those who wish to use power to dictate how you live.
Respectfully,
George Dick
Co-Chairman
Libertarian Party of Kentucky
(VOTE FOR RON PAUL!)
I found this video production extremely compelling. Given my libertarian convictions, the fact that I watched the entire 20 minutes is evidence. And there are some truths contained. But there are also a lot of mistaken assumptions and naive beliefs about human nature. I send this email out as a caution:
1. Government control of resources and citizens is not the answer. This "noble experiment" has already been tried in the Soviet Union 1919-1989. Pollution and exploitation of both the land and people led to tens of millions of deaths through starvation, political executions, and war. Rather than protecting the "people's" resources, communism destroys and wastes them on a far greater scale than capitalism.
Resources are conserved when an individual owns them. This is the concept of private property, and explains why in the Western world (where we respect private property), life expectancy continues to lengthen. And in "exploited" Africa, where there is no respect for property rights, it declines.
Annie seems to conclude that we'd all be better off moving back to the agrarian economy of the USA around the turn of the century, using oxen to till the soil, and hand labor to mill grain, make/wash clothes, etc. Too bad she never lived back then to see what life was really like.
2. Annie talks about health care as if it were a "given"; that somehow government should provide this (free?). Without capitalism there would be no modern medicine, no penicillin, no polio vaccine, so life saving surgery. Only witch doctors.
3. Humans don't live forever, and we know it. So while we are here on earth, we seek to maximize our personal comfort and maximize our enjoyment of life. Annie (who probably drives an SUV, uses electricity to light and heat her house, and yaks on a cell phone a lot) believes someone (i.e. government agent) should be put in charge of determining how others must live their lives to be healthy and happy. No doubt she thinks she's qualified for this job.
A friend of mine once told me he had two rules for living life:
1) Don't tell me what to do.
2) Don't tell me what to do.
I'd don't know if it's just me and him, but really I think the root of happiness is all about personal freedom. To make your own choices, good or bad, and to enjoy the rewards and learn from the consequences either way.
The reason the happiness has been decreasing since 1950 (and I do believe this), is because the role of government is increasing. Do-gooders like Annie aren't the solution; they are the problem. Don't buy it. (Pol Pot's reign of terror in Cambodia provides a chilling history of how a new social order emptied cities in favor of agrarianism.)
If we truly need to "save" the planet , we need to come up with a innovative solution where the "stewardship" of our natural resources is placed in private hands, not government. I'll admit this is difficult to do with large bodies of air and water (because staking boundaries or building fences is problematic). But we must look to the free market and property rights for answers first.
The alternative is ceding your liberty to government, and to those who wish to use power to dictate how you live.
Respectfully,
George Dick
Co-Chairman
Libertarian Party of Kentucky
(VOTE FOR RON PAUL!)
posted by George Conrad Dick at 6:20 AM
0 comments
