Dear Friends,
It seems to me, the new progressive “role” of government, is to promote moral hazard in every action of the citizenry. Moral hazard is an insurance term, that means one will take less than the normal precautions, since the costs will be paid by someone else. This new progressive role of government has resulted in such things as, thousands of abortions a month, out of control opiate problem, fatherless children, a welfare state that threatens to bankrupt the richest nation in history, a resurgence of formerly eradicated diseases, skyrocketing medical costs, ever rising divorce rate, the Peter Pan syndrome among our boys, and many more I could list, but the list would take up all the space in this article. Let’s examine, does this new progressive role of government… alleviate suffering or make it worse?
The role of government has evolved many times in human history. The first “governments” protected the tribe, and were autocratic, many times despotic. The ancient Greeks instituted the popular vote, which changed the role of government to protect the people from the aristocracy. The Romans created the consular system to limit the predilection of the State to become oppressive, and the Enlightenment changed the role of government again, from protecting the elite and their prerogative, to protecting the individual from the depredations of the elite. Now the progressive faction has again changed the role of government, from protecting the individual from oppression, to protecting people from the negative consequences of their own bad behavior.
The Enlightenment gave us the ideas of individualism, Natural Law, freedom of speech, liberty with responsibility and discourse as the arbiter of truth. Those innovations led to the Industrial Revolution, the near eradication of once dreaded diseases, opened education to almost everyone, gave us the space age, the highest standard of living ever in the history of mankind, and has stood against the usurpation and oppression of such evil actors as Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Castro, etc… The socialist/Marxist/progressive faction, on the other hand, has brought us abortion, eugenics, the silencing of free speech, political correctness, the Holocaust, the welfare state, gulags, reeducation, and state surveillance of the people… among other innovations in the power and scope of the State.
Compassion is a two edged sword. Is it compassionate to give a heroin addict heroin for free? After all, people who are addicted to opiates, feel like their “bones are breaking” if they cannot get it, so wouldn’t compassion dictate we give them free heroin? Is that true compassion though? Is helping someone destroy themselves compassion… or something else? Is it compassionate to kill one person to make another’s life easier? Is it compassionate to forcibly sterilize another because the State feels their genes are substandard? Is it human hearted to destroy the nuclear family, trapping families for generations, in an unbreakable cycle of poverty? Can someone be called compassionate, who creates the conditions under which others live in fear of speaking the truth, because it is politically incorrect?
The new progressive role of government sets up nothing but pernicious incentives, which increase the suffering in the world. Abortion on demand incentivizes young people to engage in risky behavior, leading to the plague of sexually transmitted diseases, promoting transgenderism has resulted in an epidemic of suicides, the welfare state has undermined the socialization of boys, leading to the huge prison population we have today, and creating sanctuary cities for illegal aliens, increases violent crime, fraud and homelessness. In trying to mitigate the negative consequences of bad behavior, government in fact, increases the suffering in the world. So I ask, should we continue creating moral hazard, or change paths? It depends what you want… more, or less suffering.
Sincerely,
John Pepin
