A Few Dollars More

It is said that Andrew Carnegie was once asked how much money he needed to be satisfied. He simply replied “just one dollar more.” His insatiable spirit seems to be inherited by Minnesota’s current legislature, for whom a $2 billion budget surplus just isn’t enough to spend. For those who see no end to the amount of good they can do with other people’s money, there is no such thing as over taxing, regardless of the consequences of these taxes. If people lose jobs because businesses move to lower tax states, it is of course the evil corporation’s fault for looking out for the interests of their stockholders. Of course, the assumption made by many is that the money spent (those who most enjoy spending other people’s money like to call it investing it) is going to provide a benefit to society as a whole, and there is no doubt that this is true to a limited extent.
The key word in that last sentence was the word limited. Most people, even many Republicans and conservatives don’t realize that increasing funding to programs (like schools, which in this state apparently can’t ever have enough funding) does not increase effectiveness. This can be said for the medical system and every other area in which the government has a role in funding. These organizations quite literally are designed to be insatiable. Like cats in a Stephen King movie, once someone or some organization tastes the blood of government funding, it will stalk it for the rest of its life. Instead of existing to educate students, modern schools are designed to maximize funding. Why else would they need to spend millions of dollars on hiring superintendents? Of course, the point here is that effectiveness does not increase with funding levels. The law of diminishing returns is certainly in effect in any social program. The more money invested, the less efficient the program is.
The truth is that when we allow the government to do things for us, we lose control over how those things are done. It is insanity to accept government control of an industry and then complain of inefficiency or ineffectiveness. The only things government does, it does with gross inefficiency and the least possible effectiveness. Look at the tax code, or any legislation, for that matter. The redundancy and wordiness of these documents clearly attest that government can’t even write an efficient or effective sentence. Check out the website www.taxapalooza.com or watch the video on my profile to see just how two faced Minnesota Democrats are on the issue of taxes: when election time is nearing, they would never raise taxes, but as soon as they get elected they keep coming up with new ones to inflict on the Minnesota tax payer.

The Myth of Safety

There is something insidious in today’s better-safe-than-sorry culture. There is a great degree of cowardice at its core, and it reflects the modern emphasis on safety and health above everything, including personal liberty and choice. Such is the case with secondhand smoke and trans-fats. The hysteria which was only relegated to health nuts who are more concerned with physical health than anything else has been heaped upon the public and codified into law. In the absence of true scientific proof and sound judgment, bureaucrats have usurped common sense and individual “choice.” This is, of course, the price we pay when we allow government free reign and embrace legislation in lieu of personal responsibility.

These are the conclusions I drew after reading the book Junk Science Judo: Self Defense against Health Scares and Scams. I titled this blog the myth of safety because there is no certainty about safety and health, and yet many allow their personal decisions to be guided by hearsay and speculation, all with the same slightly naïve and simplistic notion “if you have the choice, why not?” or “better safe than sorry.” Of course, there are real consequences that result because of this casual acceptance and lack of critical thinking. Personal choice is lost and consumers pay more for the same goods. Of course, there are companies that do profit off of these de facto choices we make, and if you don’t believe they are lobbying for these law changes, perhaps it is people like you who are the tools of industry.

So, next time you decide to buy the organic broccoli for $1.50 more, next time you choose chicken over beef, next time you see a study heralded in the news that touts some new threat, stop and think, “who is profiting off of these choices I make, and am I making this decision out of fear?” A study can be made to say almost anything, but until it is confirmed by independent studies, it is nothing to make policy on, and it isn’t anything to base any decisions on. Those who advocate the better safe than sorry approach advocate for ignorance, and those who base their decisions on this philosophy choose to remain ignorant. Granted, I understand no one has the time to investigate all of these studies, and I have no doubt made decisions out of ignorance in the past and will do so in the future. But it is important to understand that you are ignorant of all the facts and not to accept every study touted in the media as certain science. No one likes a know-it-all…unless of course they show up on TV as an “expert.” Of course, these “experts” who do these studies are innocuous looking scientists who have only the pursuit of scientific truth as their goal. Maybe, or maybe not. While it is not impossible, I can understand that this might seem like an unrealistic ideal for most people to understand what science is true and what is suspect. There are resources out there, including the book that I have mentioned, Junk Science Judo. Look at sources out there with a questioning eye: does their research support other’s findings? Does it coincide with my understanding of the world? Does it favor certain groups? A degree of skepticism is not only warranted, it is required if you wish to avoid falling into a paranoid stupor. The truth is, Everything is bad for you! Don’t be afraid to live your life, or you will never get the chance.