AM, as he is often wont to do, used the columnist's argument as a case for smaller government and less regulation. Given that in Canada we have universal healthcare, the argument often goes that protecting the health of the nation's citizens is a matter of government interest since it will effect the shared cost of caring for an unhealthy populace. AM, and the NP columnist, instead argue that our love of fatty foods and our rejection of government bodies' attempts to legislate same is actually an argument against universal healthcare.
It is an interesting idea, and one that I thought got to the root of why I so often find myself arguing with things AM posts, despite the fact that we both generally agree in our shared enthusiasm for belittling the stupid. What I realized was that I tend to think that the government ought to attempt to help its citizens as much as possible and I realized that my point of view presupposes that people are essentially stupid. That is, to me, in a world where people are stupid enough to attempt to eat KFC Double-Downs for dinner every night, maybe someone should step up and say, hey, idiot, your heart is going to explode.
I'll respond to this in a little more detail, but I think Johnson basically gets my point right. He differs with me on how we, as a society, should respond to human stupidity. Is the right answer more 'bottom up' or more 'top down'?
It's a very relevant question, well captured in Keynes v. Hayek round 2. To quote Hayek: "I don't want to do nothing, there's plenty to do, the question I ponder is who plans for whom. Do I plan for myself, or leave it to you? I want plans by the many, not by the few."
So I write a response to you on my blog, which links back your blog, and in turn you write a response on your blog which links back to my blog...
ReplyDeleteAnd you say you disdain the trappings of modern government? I beg to differ. Look at us! We've embraced the ultimate government response by arguing a complex issue with an endless, looping, bureaucratic circle jerk!
Ha. This Johnson guy is funny.
ReplyDeleteBesides which, isn't "plan by the many" the government, where there are many people working over policies? (ideally anyways ...)
Whereas, regarding personal choice, you are the "few" in your life. The "many" is everyone in your life, from friends/family to jerk off's in Parliament who make decisions on your behalf, using your voice or vote.
I don't make any claim of sense upon reading my last post ....
ReplyDeleteNo plans by the many = individuals making their own decisions about their lives. The result is many plans. Plans by the few is government setting the direction. Lets say the question is 'what type of things to produce'. Plans by the few would be a central plan concieved and implemented by the state; plans by the many would be individuals buying and selling things based on their own individual needs. A whole bunch of people making their own plans as opposed to a corporate entity backed with a monopoly on force implementing one plan for all of society.
ReplyDeleteAll very musical, indeed, and quite entertaining. Sadly for us little people, the truth of the matter is that we will be in a far better situation if we allow the elite class to tell us what to do and when to do it. Stablity reigns in this circumstance. Top down power means peace for the majority of people. Start at the bottom and work up, giving everyone a say - war is a certainty. And non-cooperation. Angela Pike.
ReplyDeleteAngela: I can't agree. I think people know, slightly better than elites, what is best. Anyway, it's a high jump contest between pygmes, but I side with the many.
ReplyDelete