Clips from our trip to the DC Obamacare Protest just before the insurance bill went through. Notice the types of people in the video that aren’t supposed to exist according to a few of the more lame news agencies out there (like non-white protesters and medicare recipients who oppose medicare).
Since the dawn of man, people have hated each other over their differences. In today’s enlightened age, a time of advanced science and of instant communication and of tickle-me Elmo, you might think things would be different, but the story is the same.
The problem, I think, is that most people just don’t understand their differences. They develop mindsets and misconceptions that cause them to view the differences between people in the wrong way, which leads to contention, derision, even downright hatred. In my time, I’ve found that there are a handful of common mistakes that we all make that cause us to misunderstand our differences and that a large portion of bad feelings come from a misunderstanding of what choice is.
Let’s look at some real world examples of why people hate each other and why they shouldn’t. I’m not going to get into the specifics or morality of these issues, I’m only going to attempt to dispel some misconceptions about the way the issues are viewed by showing how a lack of choice at their core means that, whichever side of the issue we’re on, we’re there by chance alone.
For people who hate each other based on their skin color: It’s clear that nobody has the privilege of choosing their race or who their parents are. You could just as easily have been born as any of the races around the world, which means that having a certain skin color cannot in itself be considered an achievement or a failure. This is true of gender, hair color, eye color, natural body type, any of our differences that are decided by our genetics. If you hate a certain race, chances are good that what you really hate is the behavior that you attribute to that race, which is a cultural issue and not a racial issue at all. If you hate someone because of their culture, remember that no person chooses their upbringing any more than they choose their skin color, and while culture is a function of behavior, they don’t necessarily get to choose that, either. Which brings me to the next group:
For people who hate each other based on their beliefs: It’s a common misconception that you choose what you believe. Careful self-examination will show that this is simply not the case. Our beliefs are an amalgam of opinions about the nature of the world around us that are cobbled together out of our own past experiences and all of the information that we’ve ever gathered that we are still able to recall. Whenever we gather a new piece of information, however it is gathered, our brains naturally analyze it against the information that already exists (from past experiences) for the purpose of classification. This is totally natural and never done, altered, or not done on purpose.
It’s like the old adage that one should not judge a book by its cover – in reality, you can’t help but judge a book by its cover. The adage aught to be “never settle on your initial judgement alone”, because this is what happens in reality. No matter what, any and all additional information will be judged against the information that already exists and will be added to the record. In this way, your beliefs are like a soup that you make by asking every person and event in your life to bring whatever ingredient they will. It makes sense, I promise, just hear me out; you add anything to a soup, and it will change the content of the soup, but it may or may not change the flavor. Some flavors have been added so often that they overpower everything else. Some new flavors come all at once while any existing flavor will have an impact on how strongly the new ingredients will effect the overall flavor of the soup.
It is this process by which our beliefs are formed, and none of it happens by choice. You have some degree of control over where your input comes from, and the way you behave is always your choice, but when it comes to belief, well… you either believe something or you don’t.
For people who hate each other based on sexual preference: It is important to note that nobody chooses what does or does not stimulate them sexually. This is another one where some serious introspection is required. Think back to the period of your life where your sexual tendencies began – at what point did you seriously buckle down to the hard choice of which set of sexual organs you would be physically aroused by? Don’t think too hard – the answer is that you never made such a choice. Your body, from your brain to your genitalia, reacts physically to a certain type of sexual stimuli whether you want it to or not. Bear that in mind next time you think about someone whose sexual preference is different from your own.
When it comes down to it, we all have something to gain by showing empathy for people that we disagree with. Much of our behavior is governed by things over which we have little or no control. I would be morally remiss if I didn’t acknowledge a simple fact at this point, which is that all people deserve the respect of being held responsible for their own behavior, regardless of the reasoning behind it. This is of the utmost importance. Just remember that as you consider the people in this world that are different from you, very little of that difference was left up to them, and you could just as easily be in their shoes as your own.
So Adorable
As a free-marketeer, I repeatedly encounter people who have some serious beef with unregulated industries. Invariably, their contention stems from an incident or incidents that really got their goat – dirty business practices like monopolizing markets and outsourcing labor to Chinese kids. Typically, the issue is simply misunderstood and often the role that the market regulators has played has eluded these people.
This video draws a clear picture of how the regulators can bring about unintended behavior in any market. Plus, the video is just plain cute.
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QzZ0nz7XVFo[/youtube]
I’m not big on government (surprise!), but I can admit that it has its place. To me, it’s a matter of the division of labor – I no more want to harvest all of my own food than I want to manage every aspect of, say, national defense. It seems like the standard opinion, however, is that the government is responsible for granting anyone and everyone (excluding illegal immigrants of course) the perfect happy life. People seem to think that if only there was enough governmental oversight, nobody would ever die or suffer injustice or, heaven forbid, make too much money.
I see the appeal – who wouldn’t wish for everyone to live a perfect life? – but there’s a very big problem with this way of thinking and it’s causing us to set up the causation of our own bleak future. I’m not referring to the unattainability of such a perfect dream; perfection is something to be strived for even if it cannot be truly achieved. I’m not referring to the futility of the expectation that we could somehow grant power only to those who would never abuse it; I’d only draw cries of “it could work if they were all Democrats/Republicans!”. No, I refer to a deeper conflict, one at the very core of the Mother Government way of thinking. I’m referring to the plain and simple truth that none of us would ever be able to agree on what the “perfect life” would be.
For some, it would mean never having to feel discomfort. For some, never having to experience prejudices. For others, it would mean that none of us would ever have to miss another Catholic mass – can I get an amen? All of them idealistic, all of them perfect in their own right, none of them perfect for everyone. So, I would ask the ideologues, which definition do we choose? On this long, hard road to forced perfection, which road map do we follow?
We all know the answer. Invariably, the ideologues reply “which definition do we use? Well… Mine.”
So the dilemma persists. Not that that in itself is bad – far from it. I believe it’s healthy to discuss the nature of the world and to compare notes on how we think it aught to be. Trouble is, you can go your whole life trying to convince people that you’re right and never come close to seeing a change in your world – and that’s totally depressing. Naturally it isn’t long before the ideologues stumble upon the answer: if we can’t get them to do it on their own, we’ll just have to make them do it. If they don’t want to believe in my church, we’ll just turn our tenets into law. If they don’t want to pay for all of us to have health care, we’ll bring the whole weight of the federal government down on them. If they don’t like our way of life, we’ll bomb their nation to cinders.
But these aren’t monsters we’re talking about – these are well-intentioned people, out to do right by the world. After all, it’s perfection we’re after, so how far is too far? Those poor deluded saps that don’t see the vision now will be thanking us when all is said and done; from their cell, their cage, their grave. All we need is enough control, at whatever the cost, and all will be right with the world.
That future is bleak. There’s no hope there, no change for the better, only conflict upon conflict upon conflict. But I’m not all sour grapes – I offer an alternative: what if we could create a place where people were safe to interact with each other as they chose, free to do as they pleased so long as they caused no definite harm to anyone else, and free from the danger that those ideologues who did not agree with them might someday leverage the power of law against them. There’s no sacrifice to be made – those who wanted to live a certain lifestyle could do it unimpeded. Those who wanted universal health care could band together and have it. Those who didn’t could be free to pay for themselves and, if they wanted, no one else. Those who preferred a certain cultural method could freely congregate and preach their message, but they could never assume authority over those of us who might disagree.
My point is, give up your need to force the people around you to live their lives how you want them to and just start being empathetic. Try to remember that, no matter how much they may disagree, other people are your equals and not your inferiors. If your perfection is really perfection, it’s worth convincing people to join you. If you can’t, no big deal.
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aEXFUbSbg1I[/youtube]
In this 2007 20/20 special, John Stossel explores the far-reaching and diverse problems with our and other medical systems from insurance to long lines. The full video comes in six 7-10 minute segments, but it’s definitely worth the time.
The best part is in the final segment where Stossel explores the reasonable, just, and genuinely viable free-market solutions that will utimately be the only way to ensure Americans the best possible treatment.
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JeROnVUADj0[/youtube]
Say what you will about Michael Moore (no really, go ahead and say it – use swear words if you like, I won’t be offended), his movies can definitely cause a stir. Lauded or loathed, his new film “Capitalism: A Love Story” will no doubt do the same. In fact, in the days leading up to and following it’s release, the film and it’s creator have already drawn some attention.
To be honest, I don’t like that. Not because of my personal feelings toward the guy, but because I always dislike seeing misinformation sweep across the populous, and there are far too many of us that seem to trust the things we see in the movies.
In the interest of trust, I encourage you to look into the following links and decide for yourself. In the interest of the greater good, I encourage you to download the bootleg rather than seeing it in the theater…
… Just kidding.
LINKS:
1. Some of the disinformation I was talking about.
3. A practical example of how Moore conflates Capitalism and Corporatism.
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gmuOW6qGbx4[/youtube]
As a liberty-minded free-marketeer, I tend to have a little more faith in my fellow man and our ability to get along with each other. Doubters often suggest that there is no good reason to trust people, that people are too selfish and evil to be left to their own devices. Which view is more accurate, and how could such a ruling be judged? In this Reason Foundation video, professor of Economics Paul J. Zak discusses the burgeoning discipline of ‘Neuroeconomics’, which integrates neuroscience and economics to better describe the behavior of those most important market actors – humans – as we interact with each other.
Interesting stuff. What do you think?
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=864kh6hJlyg[/youtube]
Aside from having more stock photography and a fancier veneer than you’d think the RNC could muster, this video actually comes with a little truth.
Where most people take issue with the idea of health care and health insurance reform is wherever it might limit their ability to choose for themselves. Proponents of the reform are well aware of this, and have done much to try to assuage these fears. “… let’s give you choices, let’s give you options,” says Barack Obama, “That’s been my proposal.”
In reality, though, what kind of options will we be left with? The video points out that, aside from other taxes, legislators have proposed a tax on anyone who deliberately chooses not to participate – the vast majority of those uninsured millions in the US.
The reform debate is a hugely important debate whose outcome will have some major far-reaching impacts on the future of our country, which is why I say, let’s not mince words and let’s not try to fool each other. Good or bad, whatever you believe, the proposed reform may make some options more accessible to some, but it will definitely limit your freedom to choose.
The Podcast
