I'm reading a book that is proving to be among the most powerful I've ever read. It's called The Uses of Pessimism . The author is Roger Scruton. Now, here's some irony for you: It was recommended to me by a regular LITD visitor of unmistakably leftward bent, a guy who has engendered many a contentious comment thread with me and others on subjects ranging from Israel to the environment to the insurance industry.
I wonder if he really took in this book's thrust. It's so antithetical to this person's worldview that I can't be certain at all that he read it either completely or attentively.
Scruton's point is that there has existed a worldview entertained by a certain portion of humankind throughout history that is based on the notion that the slog attendant to human endeavor, the difference between human beings in terms of their levels of ambition, energy and, yes, ability, and the jolting nature of human experience - the suddenness with which life's events occur - can all be smoothed out with some kind of shortcoming-proof program. This program will remove all the elbow grease and meticulous planning necessary to turn something some individual has conceived of into a viable - indeed, robust and growing - source of real benefit to real people. This program will also ensure, forever and without fail, that nothing unfair ever occurs in the course of instituting any human enterprise.
In the course of citing examples such as the French revolution, the Nazi regime in Germany, and the post-colonial unfoldings in the Third World, he identifies some patterns that are chillingly recognizable in our own current national climate. The notion that creating office buildings and plants and hiring people and making and marketing a product somehow took some kind of collective wealth away from someone else, can be seen in all such case histories, as well as in the rhetoric of the utopian class of our own time. So can the need to target certain demographics - for instance, Jews in the case of Nazi Germany - as the main usurpers of a society's capital, and the need to corral them into isolated environments and strip them of their humanity.
It's all based on the extreme optimist's view that his vision is so pure and noble that any challenge to it is an intolerable threat.
I see this particularly when I get into snits on, say, Facebook with militant environmentalists. To merely voice disagreement with me not only will not do; in their view, it is utterly useless. Dissent must be characterized as ridiculous, even dangerous, and certainly not to be given an airing.
As I say, it's a powerful read. There are several points I'm coming across that I'd relish taking up with the guy who turned me onto it. If there's some other way of interpreting what Scruton is getting at, it requires a level of parsing my reading so far hasn't taken me to.
I left library work but the library never left me. I recommended the book to you in the hopes you could find a way to embrace your pessimism. Yhe bottom line is you can only begin to attempt to improve or control yourself.
ReplyDeleteAs for my decided leftist bent, well, I am what I am. Certainly I am for a universal single payer health plan like our seniors and our veterans enjoy in our free land, quite well, thank you, and billions of others do worldwide. Why have casinos with their house which is unconcerned wit getting sick people well running the health insurance show? Who do you think still pays for the risks they shun? Its only insurance. Social insurance. Been around my entire lifetime. Paid into it since first job at age 18.
If you will check back you will find thzt on the environment I have limited comment on the bird brained attempts to control it, am on the fence about whether it is anthropomorphic, but have seen the positive results of Americas 40 plus years of paying attention to matters such as clean air and water and conservation of natural resources. Ain't never been to China yet, but I hear she is the mess we could be still.
On Israel and war, which is about all she causes these days, Obama is my president, not Netanyahu. To learn about war from one who had been there, just read Ike.
But the MEC has no interest in the security of the country of which he is a president and you are a citizen. Does that help you sleep better at night?
ReplyDeleteHe's also be just fine with jihadists swallowing the US's only true midleast ally - Israel - whole.
If insurance companies never paid sick people's claims, they would have a high dissatisfaction rate among consumers. Alas, they have a high satisfaction rate.
ReplyDeleteI've been hearing those national security fears all my politically cognizent years and there's been over a half century of them, especially when a Dem's in office. I gget scared when the likes of a puppet prexy like Bush lets hawks run the country. As for ins co approval ratings, makes me feel good for answering my phone on the first ring, returning my calls and generally being proactive and responsive. We try to provide excellent service. But that's not the point. Cherry picking risks. Is the point. Capitalism and ins don't mix well. That's why it is heavily regulated. Must be either excruciatingly boring or over your head or both.
ReplyDeleteThere is no reason a single payer cannot give excellent service. Your military does. Doesn't it? At least under so called conservative leadership. It shocks and it awes! Friggin aawesome dude! What a lead for all public bodies to follow!
Counterpoint to Uses of Pessimism entitled Abundance reviewed this wk in NYTBR. See also an op ed piece about the HI mandate by conservative Ross Douthout detailing how special interests led to this FUBARRed bill. Also a comprehensive article about how the prospect that it will be ruled unconstitutional is affecting the plans of involved entities. Someday soon your Rush will be crowing that Obama failed maybe. Heard him the other day crowing that the ranks of the uninsured are much fewer than believed and imbecilicly claiming there is always the ER for the great ininsured.
ReplyDeleteAfter reading? Go take a shower? Keep on carpin'....
Talk about missing the main point of the whole discussion. The burden of proof is on lefties to show that government has any role in seeing to anyone's health care. You will find no such assertion in our founding documents or in the arguments of liberty's defenders.
ReplyDeleteThe argument that health care is somehow categorically different from other human activities and inventions for which those offering such activities charge a fee cannot be substantiated.
We will continue to push for single payer. Anything short of that is a sell out. Then its a tax and cannot be declared unconstitutional. Like OASI and Medicare. You lost those wars and will lose this. After I am safely protectedvby already hsettled law in 2.5 yrs. Ill take your accumulated premium if you wanna opt out.
ReplyDeleteAnd we will continue to push for health care being regarded like the private-sector product that it is. Where we need to go is to get third parties - certainly government, but even insurance companies - out of the middle of the patient - care provider relationship. If you want some kind of health care - a routine check-up, a triple bypass, an allergy med prescription, a Christian Science treatment - the way it should work is that you go to whoever is in the business of doing what it is you want, availing yourself of their service, and then cutting them a check. Basically. Clearly, insurance is needed for the biggest-ticket items. And there are lots of companies in the business of writing policies.
ReplyDeleteBut this notion that it is somehow a proper function of government to be involved in any of this is the antithesis of human freedom and individual responsibility.
My parents and grandparents never mentioned feeling less free when it came time for single payer health care and old age ins. Of course theyvnever desired a doobie. They were more free. Relieved of the burden of vfear for losing all to med bills. You know the free mkt doesn't want the old risks. And it is not therefore even true insurance in the so called free market. This debate is far from over.
ReplyDeleteThat's for damn sure. But it's no longer merely a debate. The Freedom-Haters have turned it into a war.
ReplyDelete