It is 2012, that quadrennial year of two great competitions, the international love fest that we call the Summer Olympic Games held this time in London and a slugfest for the American Presidency. Mix in an Iranian nuclear threat in the Hormuz Straits, Occupy Whatever/Whenever/Whoever emerging from winter hibernation, and the Astros’ last season in the National League, and you have a rich recipe for a memorable year. So in honor of my Asian friends who name their years after animals, both real and mythical, I declare 2012 the “Year of the Question”. I do not think that I am infringing on any copyright or trademark, but if I am I apologize in advance.
So, what is the question? I believe the question is “Which is more important, Freedom or Security”? Say what, you do not think that is the question of 2012. You are more interested in who wins the Presidency (important, but not most important). Or if gold will break through $2000 per ounce (should have gotten some of that about 10 years ago). Or will the Cubs win the World Series (I do not think there is anyone alive on this planet who personally remembers the Cubs winning the World Series, it was only 1908 and 6 years before Wrigley Field was built). No, I am sticking with my question, Freedom or Security.
At first brush, many people would say that both are important and that is true. Our Bill of Rights speaks of various Freedoms and one of our most beloved national institutions is Social Security. So a natural response would be yes, we can have both. But is that true? If you start with a scale of Security on the far left and Freedom on the far right you will see if you move either left or right, you have to give up some of one for the other. Consider this; a jail cell is a secure environment. But what do most people in jail want. They want to get out. Why? They want their freedom. But also consider complete freedom where you live only by your success or your failure. Since most people always fail at something, it may be tough to eat for a while and when you are successful, you would have to defend yourself each time someone wanted to take whatever you had.
To answer this question, each of you first has to ask another question, “How much risk am I willing to take?” See, risk is the sliding scale that connects Security and Freedom. If you are risk adverse you are going to slide to the left. You want a lot of protections in your life and you generally want these protections from the government. Those who feel vulnerable, especially the poor and elderly, also tend to slide left. There is nothing wrong with this worldview, but you cannot disparage those who do not share your worldview. Just because you may be content where you are in life, you cannot deny those who are not content. On the other side, if you are willing to live with more risk and the freedom to make your own choices, there is enormous upside. You can go wherever your abilities and dreams will take you. But you must also realize that you will probably fail at many things you do. And when you fail, if you are truly a person who demands freedom, you have to pick yourself up and get on with life. No excuses or bailouts. You must be accountable for all of your actions.
Unfortunately, since we live in a world with other people our risk comfort zone has to adjust to outside forces. Even the most freedom loving person recognizes that evil exists in the world and someone, something greater is needed to fight evil. In the extreme, all freedom loving people would band together for the mutual defense of their freedom. This is exactly how the colonies did it. They had no standing army. Each town had a militia and all of the adult males were in the militia. When the British army came, they only had themselves to call on. On the frontier, it was each man for himself. But, over time, they chose to have others, the military, the police, and the sheriff to handle this role. In exchange, they give up some freedom, read taxes, to pay for this function. But it was a trade that the free people were willing to make and it is the defense system that we have today.
And then there are the vulnerable. Extreme freedom is very Darwinian, the weak perish and the strong survive. Over time weak genes are eliminated and the species thrives. The only problem with this version of life is that the human, unlike the rest of the mammals on earth, has been given a spirit that is sensitive to all life and is moved to protect the weak and vulnerable. Free societies attacked this problem in the past through charities and religious organizations. People gave freely from their means and the great benevolent institutions of today, think of hospitals, bear the names of benefactors or religious institutions. But during the 20th Century, benevolence and religious beliefs began to wane and secular progressivism began to grow. Since secular progressivism did not end the vulnerability of the people, government had to begin funding where benevolence began to diminish. Since government is not an organic being, meaning it cannot create its own wealth; it must take from the people to support the charities it replaces. Now, if the trade off was exactly one for one, such as the defense argument above, this might be willing trade off. But where a person may willingly give to a local orphanage where the workers view their work as a ministry and most of the donations go to the children, the same person may object to the government orphanage that becomes more of an employment opportunity for the worker where most of the taxes goes to wages and benefits, not to the children. Then, because it is not local anymore and no one really knows who works at the orphanage, an oversight board needs to be created, usually staffed with high paid experts. As government orphanages are established across the country, there is a need for a coordinating board of even higher paid experts that makes sure that the Connecticut orphanages and the Alabama orphanages are managed in exactly the same way. The orphanages are now run by highly paid experts and the taxpayer has no control or say over how much money is spent on orphanages. What appears to be security for the orphan is a loss of freedom for the taxpayer. After some point in time no one asks if the orphan is better off in a costly government orphanage system or in a less expensive religious orphanage, it is just the way it is. As the government grows into other areas of life, it places an external push to the left away from freedom and toward security, regardless of the belief or desire of the citizen. As government does more, it needs more, which means it needs to tax more. More taxes, less freedom. As the government continues to increase what it provides, more risk adverse people sign up for the provisions. Soon the beneficiaries of all of the government spending will only vote for those who will continue the spending. To feed the spending, taxes need to go up again. The more, well, you see where this is going.
Today we sit in a deeply divided country. There are those who have traded many of their freedoms for government benefits. They may not like the choice of their food, but they have food stamps. They may not like the school their children attend, but the kids get a free lunch, and breakfast, and soon take home food for the weekend. They may not have a car, but they get subsidized bus service. They do not get to see the doctor they want and the wait is long, but they do not have to pay for the doctor they eventually do see. And the list goes on and on. Not a whole lot of freedom to chose, but they have the security of a government check and benefits. Then there are those who are being told to pay for the benefit of others; those who want to chose where to live and how to work and how much to risk for potential reward. They are willing work long hours, drive older cars or miss a few meals to invest in their dreams, but when they are successful, they want the freedom to do with their success as they chose, not as others tell them. In our national discourse, the first are called lazy and the latter are called greedy.
Ok, I posed the question, so which is better, Security or Freedom? In the end only you can answer the question. But I will say this. If you find yourself on the left and want a strong beneficiary government that takes the risk out of your life, be thankful for those who are successful. As I mentioned before, government cannot create wealth and your benefits only come from those that prosper. If you find yourself on the right and want the freedom to conduct your affairs as you desire, do not complain when you fail, because you will fail somewhere along the way. And it may be a devastating failure. Do not blame others. Be accountable for your own actions. Pick yourself up and go at it again. But do be generous in your success. As your generosity increases, the scorn of others diminishes.
I will close with a brief story of Pedroza, a man I met recently on a business trip. Pedroza is from a northern province of Ethiopia. After spending 3 years in prison for not supporting the dictator of his country, he was freed after a bribe to authorities from his uncle and began several years of travel through Sudan, South Africa, Uganda, Brazil, Venezuela, Columbia, Honduras, Guatemala, Mexico and finally gaining asylum in the US after being caught by the US border patrol in South Texas. His story may be for another article, but when he finished telling it to me; I asked him one last question. What is the best thing that you like about America? Without hesitation and with much enthusiasm he exclaimed, FREEDOM!
There will be a choice in 2012. You may worry about immigration or gay marriage or Afghanistan or the federal deficit or birth certificates or Mormons or how many times someone has been married, but when it comes time for you to make your decision, make sure you understand what is most important to you. If you land on the side of security, pray that those you hand your freedom to be honest and fair to all. If you land on the side of freedom, pray that you have the strength of character not to forget those in need.
The Year of the Question
By Dave Roberson
No comments:
Post a Comment