Senator Charles Schumer (D-NY), he of the "no more dangerous place to be than between Chuck and a TV camera" notoriety, has chosen his next kerfuffle. Apparently, a certain sports energy drink called Prime has become popular among the underage, and it's a Problem with a capital "P."
There's an appropriate role for politicians and bureaucrats - the bully pulpit. To stand up and simply state: "your kids shouldn't be drinking this stuff - it's formulated for adult-size bodies, not kids". The same goes for Monster and Bang and a half dozen others. But the bully pulpit isn't enough for kleptocrats - with the power of the feral government at their back.
Another excellent column. I loathe and despise Schumer. For many years, he ran around yelling that private firearms should be banned because the Second Amendment was a collective right that only applied to the National Guard (or, maybe the Reserves, too.)
That's a statement of faith masquerading as a solution. The private sector isn't going to invest in activities such as Social Security and Medicare and Medicaid which don't provide a return comparable to more traditional ways of employing capital. There are serious issues with government welfare programs but the need remains.
Your first sentence is the classic presumption - as in "if the government doesn't do it, it won't get done." It's also, across the decades, self-fulfilling. Government displaces private efforts, and in the process creates far greater inefficiency, far more waste, countless perverse and counterproductive incentives, and institutional dependence.
Just because you can't imagine it working doesn't mean it won't work better than what we have now. SS and Medicare are on crash courses, and have been for decades. The nation is racking up insane debt, with more to come. The government's system incentivizes people to stay on welfare, not to get off it.
It would take decades to unravel the giant web of safety programs and allow private charity to replace it, but that process can't even start if people stand on their own "statement of faith" that it won't work and that government must do it.
Private efforts have never been sufficient to meet the need. That's the fatal flaw in your argument. I am old enough to have known people who lived prior to social security. Your prospects were none too good once you were too old or unable to work unless you were fortunate. Bettmann has a great book on how terrible the good old days were that's worth a read.
I look at the vast wealth of our society, that has managed to grow despite the government doing everything in its power to stifle, steal, and destroy it, and I look at the shockingly wasteful, incompetent, corrupted, and counterproductive job the government has done, and find it obvious that the private sector would do better.
Americans have always been incredibly charitable, even those who don't have the proverbial pot to piss in, and if people had less money taken from them and the excuse that 'the government' would take care of others was removed, I'm as confident as you are skeptical that the outcome would be better than today's.
What of today's system, by the way? It's going to crash at some point, and then what? Rampant inflation, wealth destruction, and *everyone* in poverty? How's that going to shake out?
There's an appropriate role for politicians and bureaucrats - the bully pulpit. To stand up and simply state: "your kids shouldn't be drinking this stuff - it's formulated for adult-size bodies, not kids". The same goes for Monster and Bang and a half dozen others. But the bully pulpit isn't enough for kleptocrats - with the power of the feral government at their back.
Another excellent column. I loathe and despise Schumer. For many years, he ran around yelling that private firearms should be banned because the Second Amendment was a collective right that only applied to the National Guard (or, maybe the Reserves, too.)
He really has no shame.
What's the alternative to the social safety net?
The private sector.
That's a statement of faith masquerading as a solution. The private sector isn't going to invest in activities such as Social Security and Medicare and Medicaid which don't provide a return comparable to more traditional ways of employing capital. There are serious issues with government welfare programs but the need remains.
Your first sentence is the classic presumption - as in "if the government doesn't do it, it won't get done." It's also, across the decades, self-fulfilling. Government displaces private efforts, and in the process creates far greater inefficiency, far more waste, countless perverse and counterproductive incentives, and institutional dependence.
Just because you can't imagine it working doesn't mean it won't work better than what we have now. SS and Medicare are on crash courses, and have been for decades. The nation is racking up insane debt, with more to come. The government's system incentivizes people to stay on welfare, not to get off it.
It would take decades to unravel the giant web of safety programs and allow private charity to replace it, but that process can't even start if people stand on their own "statement of faith" that it won't work and that government must do it.
Private efforts have never been sufficient to meet the need. That's the fatal flaw in your argument. I am old enough to have known people who lived prior to social security. Your prospects were none too good once you were too old or unable to work unless you were fortunate. Bettmann has a great book on how terrible the good old days were that's worth a read.
"Fatal flaw?"
Rather bold statement, that.
I look at the vast wealth of our society, that has managed to grow despite the government doing everything in its power to stifle, steal, and destroy it, and I look at the shockingly wasteful, incompetent, corrupted, and counterproductive job the government has done, and find it obvious that the private sector would do better.
Americans have always been incredibly charitable, even those who don't have the proverbial pot to piss in, and if people had less money taken from them and the excuse that 'the government' would take care of others was removed, I'm as confident as you are skeptical that the outcome would be better than today's.
What of today's system, by the way? It's going to crash at some point, and then what? Rampant inflation, wealth destruction, and *everyone* in poverty? How's that going to shake out?