Lorrie Goldstein doesn't like the idea of government (Kathleen Wynne's in particular) saving public dollars for the public's future. He categorically thinks this is a bad idea; the only people that should and are capable of saving for an individual's future is the individual themselves.
It's interesting to note that, while much text in Goldstein's article was dedicated to explaining why the Liberal Government in Ontario is unqualified to manage public dollars (with multiple demonstrative examples given), only one line was dedicated to defending his position, anecdotally suggestion that there is no pension crisis.
There's a reason for this, one Mr. Goldstein is no doubt unconcsciously aware of - we human beings are a reactive species, more apt to defend ourselves by attacking our opponents than by rationalizing our own positions. "Weather the storm" tends to be our must comfortable defensive position.
On some points though, I do agree with him:
- government as an entity is not omniscient nor immune to the pursuit of self-interest.
- people will generally put their own self-interest first and it does produce consequences of which they aren't consciously aware.
My favourite example is the leaf-blower, but shoveling snow onto the road where it blocks cars, only clearing enough of your windshield to see out of (leaving limited perspective) and littering are others. These are all attempts to simplify your labour or offload responsibility that end up causing public hastles. It's a tragedy of the commons - it's why we have organized government in the first place.
Here's where I disagree with Goldstein:
- the people who have money aren't necessarily better at structurally wise investments, either.
I couldn't even begin to tell you how many times I've heard fiscal managers dismiss the savings and societal benefits to preventative measures, even demonstrated ones. Where's the logic in this? There isn't any, if you're looking big picture. By looking at short-term ROI, the Invisible Hand of the left and the Invisible Hand of the right are dropping the societal ball.
Of course, I'd also question Goldstein's use of the term "earned"; I know more than one successful, wealthy individual who prides themselves on the fact they've made their millions with their ability to bluster, con or corner rather than add value or plan.
- people on the whole aren't very good at playing the long game, especially when it's seen to inconvenience their short-term gain.
Smoking is like this. Ignoring a minor health concern until it blows up into something frightening is another. Lord knows we don't want to hear about it though.
We've all seen campaigns against Nanny State interventions around things like junk food and pop in schools or smoking in cars with children. Yet here we are with a growing healthcare burden due to preventable, lifestyle-effected illnesses like Diabetes Type II.
Is saving for that rainy day any different? Saving what, and how? Hoarding and wall-building are all about resource preservation at the expense of collaboration with neighbours. Walls that cannot be maintained are nonetheless built, creating friction and conflict.
Conflict is universally wasteful, expensive and collectively detrimental. Yet there's a lot of it out there, is there not? One side tends to think they know better than the others and are thereby justified in their actions, resulting in collateral damage that is in no one's best interest.
How much money gets spent annually on weapons, war and propaganda vs. how much gets spent on education, communication, empowerment?
Exactly. It's even worse, because so many industries are reliant on social illness to stay afloat - arms manufactures, yes, but so too are countless service providers of the not-for-profit, private and public variety.
The truth is that human beings on the whole are terrible at the big-picture stuff; even when they think they are (especially when they think they are) the odds of them driving themselves and others over unseen cliffs tends to be even greater.
So what do we do? Give up, go back to smoking and have that extra cookie after lunch and dinner?
No - we look beyond our own interests, beyond ourselves. How might we address a problem? What are we willing to contribute to a common solution?
At the neurochemical level, we actually improve our individual health through proactive acts of sociology. When those acts are viewed collectively, we all end up having better long-term outcomes as well.
It's not for government to tell us what to do, then, nor is it in our best interests to put our selfish interests first.
Altruism is selfishness that plans ahead; empathy is a tool for individual sustainability.
There's a reason why the Golden Rule is universal, after all - we just need to look beyond ourselves to see it.
No comments:
Post a Comment