Is
there anything more important than food, shelter
and healthcare
for the poor? (ie compassion)
By
Charles Novitsky, Director,
Brainuity
Strategic Consulting,
A
San Diego Think Tank ©
2014
“There is nothing more important,
than to guarantee to the poor, food, shelter, and healthcare!” This
was the statement made by a compassionate, smart, friend of mine,
Marty. A friend who doesn’t classify himself as a liberal, nor a
neoconservative, he is just a down to earth, average caring person.
I’m sure, many of us have read and heard similar statements
throughout the press, and various social encounters. His claim, was
that as a community, we must gather our shared resources, and
government power, to assure these basic needs and rights, to the
poor, and unfortunate in America. His logic was, if a society could
ever evolve highly enough to supply these basic needs, we will then
have reached mankind's destined goal, and achieve utopia.
My answer was short and sweet. I said,
“yes Marty, there is
something much more important than food, shelter, and healthcare
for the poor, and that's the freedom
to produce food, shelter, and healthcare—for the poor, and
in fact, for all of us.” He opened up a
deeper discussion than he realized.
From a society's perspective, without
the freedom to produce these basic needs of man, such as medicine and
food, they will not exist. For clarification, I’m not including
the food that one finds hanging from the trees, or swimming in the
oceans, for that will not feed the 7 billion people currently living
on planet earth. Natures supply of food would quickly be used up with
our large modern populations. But, no matter if you are liberal,
socialist, conservative, or statist, without freedom, even food will
not be possible. Additionally, all our other arts, desires and hopes
for humanity, would cease to be possible. Without freedom, we all
suffer—both rich and poor.
As proof of this theorem, submitted for
your approval, are these case histories where the pursuit of “food
for all” initiatives by society, was thought to be more important
than freedom itself. The end result, was neither food,
nor freedom. Eventually, the freedom to even grow food vanished.
Case 1: Zimbabwe 1980-present
Zimbabwe, formerly called Rhodesia, was
one of the wealthiest nations in Africa. Even more pertinent to our
topic of food, it was wealthy with food, being one of the most
successful food producers in Africa. It was even nicknamed, “Africa's
Breadbasket”.
The population enjoyed one of the highest employment rates in Africa,
and the additional rewards of prosperity, and freedom. The
educational system was considered one of the best in the continent.
In general everyone was well off. However, as with all things human,
nothing is ever perfect. But it was by far, for the vast majority of
Zimbabweans, the best system, for the most number of people, they
ever experienced in history.
But politicians declared there was
still some poverty, and income disparities, when compared to the rich
farmers who grew all the food. Even worse, although these farmers
hired millions of local workers, and shared the wealth in the form of
salaries, this was deemed “not fair enough”. Farmers, some
complained, had the audacity to sell their (farm grown) foods, instead of
giving it away to the poorer Zimbabweans. In pursuit of a more equal
society, and eliminating the discrepancy of a small segment of rich
and poor, the government went on a campaign to cure poverty, in the
late 1990's.
The process started off slowly and almost invisibly, with laws that
regulated who could own land, and who could grow the food.
“Regulation” is just a polite word, for control of “freedom”,
and thus these farming regulations were merely a politically correct
way, of taking away the freedom to grow food, ironically, in order to
make sure everyone had equal access to food.
But along with these lost freedoms,
many other good things were lost in the process. Unemployment soon
reached biblical proportions of 95%., the worlds highest. Hunger
became so rampant in Zimbabwe, that according to Time Magazine, by
2006, fully 45% of Zimbabweans were suffering.
Hunger became the norm for society, and the majority, where it once
was the exception. Even their stellar educational system shrank, and
suffered. Inflation soon reached 89,000,000,000,000,000,000,000
percent annually (that’s 89 sextillion with 21 zeros).
But this tale of Zimbabwe’s failure and decent into government
induced hunger, is not a new one, and should have been avoided by
anyone that knows economics and history, for it is the same story
that occurred previously.
Case 2: Russia 1917-1991 (and still
recuperating)
During the 1920's, the Russian citizens
empowered their government, through Lenin, to shape a new Utopia of
equality between the poor, and the rich. The politicians promised a
revolution to change things, so now everyone would have a fair share,
and everyone would pay their fair share. The new political leaders,
Lenin and Trotsky, would now make sure there was abundant food for
all. New laws and regulations, called “Decrees”
were passed against some types of property rights, such as factory
and farm ownership. Essentially, the people advocated trading some
rights and freedoms in return for government goodies. Blue collar,
Proletariat workers celebrated, for no longer would the greedy top
“one-percenters”, own too much land. Those rich Bourgeois, would
now be forced to share their factories output with its workers. Rich
Bourgeois farmers would be forced to give back the land wealth, and
pay their “fair share”. Taking away land or property is
still technically a tax, for taxation doesn’t have to be limited to
taking away someone's money.
The results however, were quite the
opposite dreamt of. Devastating hunger eventually afflicted the 66
million Russians. Up to 10 million died a slow tortuous death through
starvation by 1922, followed with a second wave of starvation by 1933
with another 10 million dead., and still another million starved to
death by 1947.
Of course a government made politically, and legally, powerful enough to create such
devastating hunger, also had the power to cause deaths by other
methods. By comparison, many more millions of people who were spared
the slow torture of hunger, were killed with fast, merciful, bullets
and bayonets. Death was a guarantee for anyone who disagreed with
Lenin or Trotsky, and the "new world order". But make no mistake, even
if some were lucky enough to avoid the grim reaper, NEARLY EVERYONE
SUFFERED.
But wait—There's more! Communist
China, in the pursuit of more equality and more food for all, starved
up to 46 million between 1928 and 1961.
There are some people, that dismiss these millions of “death by
starvation” as a thing of the past. Sadly, misguided attempts of
societies to solve hunger, by a government decree, are still taking
place today, in Venezuela, Argentina, and North Korea. According to
The Washington Post, and numerous other news sources, starvation is
so endemic in North Korea, that there are reports of people eating
each other, including their own children. In other words, the
suffering of hunger, and starvation is so painful, these people have
resorted to cannibalism.
But again, this only shows the obvious consequences of utopianists
trading freedom away, and giving those powers to politicians. There
are other evils and damages, that are a bit harder to measure, count
and observe. Such as the loss of possessions, human rights,
education, the arts, health, and indeed every form of human dignity
and happiness. So much so, that in the past, many East Germans were
willing to commit suicide, or risk the certain death of being shot in
the back, to regain freedom, by escaping over the “Berlin
Wall--Iron Curtain”. This “Iron Curtain” still exists today, to
mentally imprison North Koreans from escaping the powerful government
they created. Governments are like medicine, the minimum correct
dosage can be beneficial, but an overdose is poisonous.
One may ask, how come this pursuit of
utopia often backfires so consistently in history, such as past
Communist Russia, past Communist China, present day North Korea,
present day Venezuela, and Argentina. According to economist and
sociologist F.A. Hayek, the answer is clear—any government given
the powerful permissions to do good for society, is by de-facto,
simultaneously given the power to do equal bad, and evil. Allowing
politicians the power to mildly curb freedoms for a good reason or
cause, is the very same power that they may use to take away a
freedom for some evil reason. Even if the power is not used for a bad
purpose, it may be used for a crony or illogical purpose that makes
no sense, or one that trades prosperity, job, or property rights, for
(actual federal example) the regulatory protection of a frog, that has never even existed in the area.
Government power is THE common thread, it's not the "purity of intentions". This
is why America's founding fathers created an unheralded set of laws,
called The Constitution, to forever keep Washington government too
weak to cause damage and tyranny.
It appears this precautionary intent has been forgotten by present
day Americans, many of whom, have not re-read the constitution since
grade school. As proof of this lost understanding of the
Constitution, one need only ask 10 random acquaintances “How many
powers does the Constitution limit Washington DC to. The official
answer is located in article 1, section 8, on the first page of the
Constitution. Washington's politicians, inclusive of Congress, The
Supreme Court, and even The President, have ONLY EIGHTEEN POWERS*.
This is officially called the “enumerated powers list”.
The Constitution repeats this twice, again with the “Bill Of
Rights” forever forbidding the Federal government from concerning
themselves with anything else, not on this list of permitted powers.
Again, according to Hayek, the second
reason that trying to engineer a more compassionate society by
regulation ( e.g., by rules and laws) backfires on us, is the near
infinite possibilities, and complexities, of human society. He
asserts, that controlling complex systems like Mother Nature (ie The Ecosystem), and its
subset, "mankind’s economic human behaviors", are far too complex for
any one man, or even groups of men, to predict and properly control.
The results are nearly always catastrophic consequences, and
unintended side effects. Due to the limited length of this article,
readers seeking to know more about F.A. Hayek's teachings on complex
social systems, freedom, politics and economics, should seek out his
mind bending book “The Road To Serfdom”, available in most
libraries.
###END###
* When numerically tabulated, and some
additional scatter permissions are counted, the true approximate
total is closer to 35 powers, that the Federal government is
restricted to making laws upon, and technically to even discuss.
Bibliography & References
