My Conservative Manifesto (MCM): Part 2: People

People: What is Their Deal

 “People are people, so why should it be you and me get along so awfully.”  This is a quote from a Depeche Mode song from the 80s.  But basically there are many reasons people don’t get along.  The reasons range from superficial (outward appearance), philosophy, xenophobic feelings (unknown), life experiences and many other things. Things like racism (a form of xenophobia) are actually natural reactions related to fear of an unknown entity.  This is the section where I tackle people and some things that I believe are inherently wrong with them (and the assumptions I view them as operating under).  

THE MOTIVATIONS OF PEOPLE

In economics, there has long been as assumption that people act to further their own rational self-interest.  That is not to be confused with greed.  Greed is an irrational emotion; rational self-interest is based on logic, the conditions of the markets, and personal benefit.  Basically people will always act in a way that will directly benefit them (even if it is not clearly evident).  This can be extended to family vis-à-vis children (some try to extend it to groups they support too).  This is really an evolutionary response to ensure their survival and the continuation of their genetic material. 

So to put this another way, I believe that people always act in the way they perceive will have the greatest personal (or familial) benefit.  Politically, liberals and conservatives differ here.  The conservative believes in individual freedom and that through exercising their freedom without external intervention they can better their lives. In other words, they have the responsibility for success or failure firmly on their shoulders.  Liberals on the other hand, tend to be a little more externally oriented.  Though I believe their reasons are personal and not altruistic (more on that a little later).  I have always thought that the liberal wanted a more level playing field (using government intervention) in order to give themselves a better chance at success (or a less chance of failure).  In other words, they are hedging their individual bets under the guise of fairness or equality.  Unfortunately, this more level playing field changes the chance of success for everybody (and reduces the possible benefit level).     

Now I guess I should put this more in a policy context… My example will be health care (or insurance).  Conservatives were essentially saying that the government should stay out because the current system could be tweaked without government intervention to better serve the public.  The conservative believes that it is mostly the responsibility of the person for their own insurance (or as a non-cash incentive part of their compensation).  The liberals were trumpeting the idea that everyone should be covered.  Why did the Republicans reply with hostility?  The simple answer is that a public health care insurance overhaul to increase coverage is not viewed as a benefit to them (it is viewed as hurting them in some way – whether it be resource loss or potential economic instability).  Many of conservatives look at things from an economic/cost angle anyway.  The liberals wanted more coverage.  But I do not think for one moment it was altruistic.  In many ways, the liberal is trying to hedge their bets.  What they are really saying is they want health care to be provided more widely just in case they somehow need it at a later date.  They are using the less fortunate to justify something they want for themselves, but don’t want to admit that is the reason.  Make no mistake; they believe there is some personal benefit in it for them. 

Altruism does not exist.  Every action is designed in some way to benefit the individual (even if it is an illogically programmed sense of guilt at their own successes).  Sacrifices are largely illusions or temporary “setbacks” designed for future benefit.  There will always a lower class, but feeling a sense of obligation towards them is kind of a strange concept.  I guess that part of it is a belief that if they were in the same situation someone would do the same thing for them (a flawed expectation).   Supporters of social programs, for the most part are lying about their true intentions.  It is not about how it will benefit society, it is about trying to get a benefit for themselves by using the justification it will help those less well off financially.  It is the whole “what’s in it for me” view (why support something that doesn’t benefit you).  This kind of view point along with something like a disaffected minority group who thinks the system is biased against them makes liberals strangely malleable.  It is essentially the leaders of a party telling them you can get them something for nothing or convincing them they have a sense of entitlement. 

A sense of entitlement is a very dangerous thing politically.  Of course this is coming from a conservative who doesn’t believe people are entitled to anything (this will pop up a few more times).  Once you convince people that they are owed something you are in the danger zone.  You will have to pay off until the end of time (unless you can drastically change the views).  Liberals have played on this concept, but why wouldn’t they?  If you have a group that depends on you, you own them (and control their votes).  Younger people (especially since they seem to feel more entitled to whatever they want) and minority groups are very easy targets for the unscrupulous politician.  You should be most wary of the entitlement movements when the economy is in a lull.  Short term solutions tend to have a way of becoming long term problems. 

Jealousy is another dangerous problem.  There are liberals out there who plan their policies based off of jealousy.  Some groups and people through superior effort and a little luck will gain economically.  This is just a roundabout way of saying become wealthy.  Less successful people or group will look at that group and wonder why they are not that successful.  Some groups will take a look at what caused the others to be successful and learn from it, others will grow more skeptical.  The skeptical groups may start saying things like “they must have cheated”, “they acted unethically” or some other excuse why these groups were successful in the first place.  This kind of thinking, in a democracy context, can lead to bad things.  What are these bad things you may ask…? They are things like: Progressive taxes, biased legislation and changing the business environment to penalize success.

THE GIVE ME GENERATION AND THE LIBERAL MINDSET

What do I mean the give me generation?  Basically I am talking about how I perceive the so called “generation y”.  I could rewrite this to talk about the last 20 years.  This is essentially the younger “millennial” generation born after 1978.  Of course there are more people that this could apply to. 

Basically, the “give me” generation has been spoon-fed to believe that they have a right to almost everything.  Health care – that is a right.  Success – it’s in the constitution. They feel that they are more intelligent than their predecessors are misguided.  They might have a better handle on technology and how to use social networking.  Many of them seem almost as delusional to me as the 60s hippies.  Many of them grew up going to the liberal school system (indoctrination central) and playing games where everybody got a trophy.  Basically, they seem to feel entitled to everything they want (as they have been coddled).  They seem to have no problem with government stretching into things like health care (mostly selfish reasons).  In many ways they are not prepared for the truly horrible world that awaits them and try to bend everything to their will.

How does an unwarranted sense of entitlement lead into the liberal mindset?  The generation feels more entitled to programs that they don’t see the cost of yet (they want to be subsidized by the taxpayer for personal benefits).  This is insanely short-sided.  Of course some of this should change as they start making substantially more money (and seeing their money vanishing into the abyss).  A group that feels entitled to undeserved benefits and a system that likes to use spending programs as a way to control votes, this will not end well.  This group plays right into the liberal hands (of course I am generalizing a little).  I get the feeling that this group doesn’t care (or even acknowledge the consequences of their actions).  Society has been programmed with the idea that there is a quick fix for everything and that nothing is really your fault, it is that pesky system that is broken – not you.   

THE EQUALITY LIE AND DIVERSITY MYTH

There is a misguided belief in the US (especially) that pretends everyone is somehow equal.  Maybe people should be equal in the eyes of the law (one of the reasons i’m against hate crime laws), but extending it much further than that is irresponsible.  People are strange animal, but they do not inherently have the same value to society.  People have their own strengths and weaknesses, competencies and failures.  Not everyone can do everything, and they should not try. 

Take economic value, should a CEO be paid more than a burger flipper?  Yes, there is no doubt they should (I will touch on more this in another section).  Economic equality is a failed concept from the beginning.  People who better utilize resources deserve to profit from their foresight and risk taking.  Trying to level the playing field just disadvantages everyone.  People have unique strengths, weaknesses and competencies.  Some people are better suited for certain roles than others. 

Diversity was sold to the US mainly because the country was newer and needed additional workers.  However, diversity is not really a net benefit.  Look at the Scandinavian countries; they have little diversity, but a happier population.   Diversity leads directly to conflict.  The main problem, of course, being the lack of assimilation into a common culture.  In the earlier days of the US people of different backgrounds, faiths, etc were willing to chase after the concept of success known as the American dream.  The dream largely consisted of being comfortable economically and having a happy family life.  As time went on, the groups further fractured and sort of self-segregated (especially racial groups).   Diversity actually shrank allowing groups more opportunity to become disenfranchised and blame their failures on another group (whatever group had the most control).  Eventually you get into the cycle of poverty, crime and moral decay.  It is not racism for the most part, but economic stagnation and a sense of personal responsibility that have lead to most of the problems – whether it is the trailer park, the ghetto or the barrio.  Diversity only really works well with common goals.  You don’t want everyone to think the exact same way (complete group think) though.  

I am not necessarily talking about civil rights here.  As I have stated previously, prejudice is stupid and counterproductive in an economic sense (though there is one area).  Are men and women equal?  No, they are how they are biologically for evolutionary reasons (like a little thing called the continuation of the species).  Can they do many of the tasks men do?  Of course they can, but their biology can make some jobs things they do not do.  Females should be paid less because there is a greater risk with them (pregnancy and child rearing), though how much depends on what they do and their competency.  Training and replacing workers is expensive (so I hear).  There is also a risk with sexual harassment and distracting the male worker.  As hard as you want to pretend, men will always want to explore the fairer sex (it is in their innate nature).  Females don’t get offended when you wear a tight or low cut outfit and men check out your body (it is how men are programmed to function).  Some outfits females wear are screaming out “look at my breasts” or butt.  Some people can control their primal urges better than others.

I have a problem with civil rights laws.  My problem is that it is not necessary to codify specific rights based on membership in certain demographic categories.  There is an economic incentive to hire minorities (whatever that is anymore).  Government intervention is not needed.  Part of this is that there will tend to be an incentive for congress, in particular, to pass prejudicial programs or bills that essentially discriminate in the name of equality.  Hate crime laws are a prime example of this stupidity.  Hate crimes punish someone for attacking a minority for being a minority (but I fail to see how that has any relevance unless it establishes premeditation).  That essentially gives a higher value to the life and security of a person in a minority group than the majority enjoys (and there is no hate crime penalties for minorities attacking members of the “majority”).  Some of these programs are things like disparate analysis and affirmative action.  Should employers treat all workers roughly the same?  Yes.  However there will always be innate biases (that is a part of human nature you can’t change no matter how hard you try).  

I thought government crossed the line when they required private businesses and organizations to comply with their rules.  It should be the private business’ right to determine their customer and employment policies without government intervention.  Not every business caters to everyone.  I still get offended when I hear some black woman sues somebody like Abercrombie and Fitch for not having enough minorities in their catalog (when they are not the target demographic). Minorities are not entitled to anything because they are minorities. 

Another wrinkle on civil rights laws… The homosexual community is a good example of this.  The phenomenon I am talking about is plastering their message all over everything and going out of their way to make the majority nervous (even plowing through their agenda in the courts).  I am not sure if homosexuality is a born condition (kind of like a birth defect, especially from the evolutionary perspective) or a choice.  The female sexuality allegations are deeply confusing.  Basically, I don’t care what you do in the comfort of your homes.  However, when you go out in public and start attacking religious institutions such as marriage you have gone a little too far.  How is this a protected group?  Some members are oblivious, but you can never be sure about a person’s sexuality unless they tell you (much like a fake psychic detective).  Don’t ask, don’t tell should be the policy in the workplace.  I will probably mention gay marriage later.        

IT DOESN’T TAKE A VILLAGE

There has been a pushing of the idea that it takes a village to raise children since before Hillary Clinton’s book.  The government hasn’t taken it to its ultimate conclusion yet though (take the kids away from the parents and indoctrinate them in government run facilities until they are 18 or 21).  I will touch on some of this later, but the schools have no right to instruct students on what values they should have (if any).   The family is the group responsible for raising children. 

The concept that you need a village and everyone in it to train a kid is patently false.  Supposedly this relates to an African proverb.  In the more primitive context, that may be more accurate.  Though, for an industrialized society it misses the mark.  The village hunters have to train the kids to go out and hunt to guarantee their own survival.  This is just a way of attempting to deflect the responsibility that parents have for raising their kids, by trying to turn it over to the government (to create obedient drones).  Now for a bad segue.  It doesn’t take a village, it takes a family.