Posted on 12/07/2003 7:12:45 AM PST by Mean Daddy
During the gasoline shortage that began in 1979, motorists were often waiting in long lines of cars at filling stations -- sometimes for hours -- in hopes of reaching the pump before the gas ran out. The ways that Ted Kennedy and Ronald Reagan proposed to deal with this situation speaks volumes about the difference between the left and the right.
Senator Kennedy said: "We must adopt a system of gasoline rationing without delay," in "a way that demands a fair sacrifice from all Americans."
Ronald Reagan said that we must get rid of price controls on petroleum, so that there won't be a shortage in the first place. One of his first acts after becoming president was to end federal price controls. Lines at filling stations disappeared.
Despite angry outcries from liberals that gas prices would skyrocket as Big Oil "gouged" the public, in reality prices came down within months and continued falling for years. More taxes were piled onto gasoline by the government but the real cost of the gas itself hit a new low by 1993.
"Fairness" is one of the great mantras of the left. Since everyone has his own definition of fairness, that word is a blank check for the expansion of government power. What "fairness" means in practice is that third parties -- busybodies -- can prevent mutual accommodations by others.
Busybodies not only prevent farmers from selling their land to people who would build housing on it, they prevent people on waiting lists for organ transplants from paying someone to donate a kidney or a liver that can be the difference between life and death.
Like Ted Kennedy, the organ donation bureaucracy is preoccupied with imposing their notions of fairness on people who are on waiting lists. And, like Senator Kennedy, they have no interest in freeing people to reduce or eliminate the shortage, which could make fairness in rationing a moot issue.
Such thinking -- or lack of thinking -- is not new. Back in the 18th century, Adam Smith wrote of politicians who devote "a most unnecessary attention" to things that would work themselves out better in a free market.
What is conventionally called "the free market" is in reality free people making their own mutual accommodations with other free people. It is one of the many tactical mistakes of conservatives to use an impersonal phrase to describe very personal choices and actions by people when they are not hamstrung by third parties.
When the issue is posed as "the free market" versus "compassion for the poor," which do you think is likely to win out?
Our bloated and ever-growing welfare state -- from which the poor get a very small share, by the way -- answers that question.
The fatal attraction of government is that it allows busybodies to impose decisions on others without paying any price themselves. That enables them to act as if there were no price, even when there are ruinous prices -- paid by others.
Millions of people's lives are made worse in innumerable ways, in order that a relative handful of busybodies can feel important and superior. Artificially high land prices in those places where busybodies reign politically, based on land use restrictions, make housing costs a crushing burden on people of average incomes.
Some of the busybodies imagine that they are preventing "over-crowding" or "traffic congestion." But what they are really doing is moving the crowding somewhere else, since people have to live somewhere, regardless.
As for traffic congestion, that is made needlessly worse because of long-distance commuting by those people whose incomes will not permit them to live in the artificially more expensive communities where they work. It is not uncommon in liberal California communities for many commuters to spend 3 or 4 hours a day in their cars, fighting traffic -- all for the greater glory of those with the mantra of "open space."
Because of the innumerable problems caused by busybodies who devote "a most unnecessary attention" to things that would be better without them, the rest of us should devote some very necessary attention to these busybodies and their sloppy arguments.
Actually, the busybodies pay as the success of one busybody encourages others resulting in decreased liberty for all. The thing about busybodies is they are willing to sacrifice their own (as well, of course, as others') liberty to achieve that perverse "high" associated with controlling others that appeals to some who seek power.
He was wrong!. All the experts said that prices would rise. I have never heard any one of them say"We were wrong."
They all do that. Part of being a controlling twit is amnesia-on-demand.
That, and the "let them eat cake" thing. If they don't like asinine rules and self-defeating planning programs, they can go live somewhere else.
I was talking about the traffic thing. I mis-spoke, so to speak, when I wrote none. What I was talking about was his nonsense about traffic being an issue of regulations rather than the fact 1/8th of the country lives in CA.
Do you work at missing the point? or does it come naturally?
First of all, a corvette is not a basic necessity, as housing is.
Price of homes in certain areas have increased 30-fold, and all of the increases are due to laws that have provided no added value to real planning, or real quality of life.
Even Corvettes have not increased in price 30X.
As for traffic, you are evidently not familiar with Governor moonbeam, and his genius approach to traffic: don't maintain or build roads and Voila! no traffic problems!
My husband and I left recently, and we're incredibly better off.
Nobody's mentioned how they stopped work on widening the 101 fwy through the San Fernando Valley, all because a few people didn't want it. John and Ken threw fits over that for a while.
I don't understand. What is the benefit you are receiving? Who is providing the benefit? What motivates the provider of the benefit?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.