Common Sense: Part II

(See my previous post for the comments I'm responding to)

Ahhh ... Erin ... much like the person whose original post started this discussion, you too have the nasty habit of ignoring or avoiding the lion's share of what I write and simply pressing on with telling me what you think ... regardless of whether or not it's related. For instance, I notice you continue to insist that words mean whatever you think they do, and although you approach it in a different manner, you're still insisting that formal education is somehow negative. Plus, you have a real knack for invoking logical fallacies. I notice this time the ad homenim fallacy is particularly prevalent, so let's start there.

While it's totally irrelevant to how science works, or what the scientific evidence says, or the existence of a magical sky-god of some sort, my life is neither sad nor empty. I'm also not at all angry that someone disagrees with me. I'm used to being disagreed with. In fact, I encourage my students to disagree with me ... especially if they can sustain and back up their positions with logic, reason and valid, objective evidence. Nonetheless, in a country where roughly 90% of the population believes in a magic sky-god, has minimal understanding of science, and votes either Demopublican or Republicrat - I'm usually solidly in the minority. Yet I continue to indulge in discussions like this one. I actually kind of enjoy them. It's one of my many satisfying hobbies.

Now, continuing on the ad hominem theme, accusing me of being an "elitist" doesn't change that a.) the majority of the population is intellectually average or worse (the Bell Curve) b.) the majority of the population makes very poor decisions on the whole (look at levels of household debt, irresponsible breeding practices, electing Clinton, Bush & Obama, pop music, network television, etc.) and c.) appears to put more thought into the car they drive or the clothes they wear than they put into their theological or political perspectives. Truth is not a democratically arrived at thing, and neither is logic or science. It doesn't matter what people think: evidence is the what makes or breaks a position.

And speaking of evidence, I'd love to see something other than hyperbole to support your claim that "alternative" medicine has a solid basis in science. A fair bit of stolen taxpayer loot is funneled into the National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine every year, and yet when push comes to shove, it always turns out the same: if a natural thing can be proven, under controlled, replicable scientific conditions, to be effective in treating a given ailment or condition, it becomes medicine. If it can't, it's just magical thinking. In fact, this is where your profound ignorance of science and the scientific method becomes readily apparent: no reputable scientist would object to any new herb / leaf / root / practice if it could be proven to work according to the scientific method. Pharmaceutical companies would like it too -- because they could produce it and sell it (and if you really want a surprise, look at how many big pharmaceutical companies also manufacture a lot of the herbs, supplements and other products that the "alternative" folks hawk). Just to repeat myself again, science isn't a belief ... it's a methodology. But when something that is demonstrably nonsense (i.e. homeopathy) and has been repeatedly proven to be nonsense continues to be trotted out as "alternative" medicine, don't be shocked if it's called nonsense. But if you can produce actual studies (or links to actual studies) of some kind of magic thinking that you consider to be "scientific", I'd happily look them over.

Another thing that you obviously fail to grasp about science is that anecdotes do not make science (they don't stand up in court either). Knowing a person or two who have had a particular experience establishes at most one thing: the person you know has had a particular experience. That's all an anecdote proves ... if it hasn't been colored or filtered through a particular perspective. Statistical relevance requires more than a few carefully chosen examples. Otherwise, you're just cherry-picking to prove your point. For instance, as a libertarian, I absolutely support the right of the individual to choose whatever treatment they wish to undergo, from whomever they wish to receive it from. If you wish to trust a physician who believes in both "alternative" medicine and a magic sky-god ... be my guest. But that hardly proves the validity of a person's credentials or the extent of their abilities. That could only be established by doing research into the status of their medical license, the results they've had, the complaints filed against them, etc. While belief allows one to simply decide what is or is not true on the spur of the moment, a reasoned approach takes time and effort.

And speaking of taking time and effort, I fully understand (as someone who does a lot of writing), that in the draft phase of any writing project, one simply tries to get ideas onto the screen before they evaporate. This happens to me all the time as well. But one of the many signs of both education and attentiveness to detail is putting in the extra effort to actually use the spell-checker, as well as to re-read and edit what you've written. It not only makes it easier for your readers to follow your argument, but it lends credibility to your position if only because it makes you sound like a literate person instead of someone who just sat down at the computer and rambled. Perhaps this too is elitist of me ... but then again ... it is a part of the formal education I've received: the same one for which you have so much disdain.

Finally, I must chuckle at your need to make political threats against me regarding what the heroic conservative movement is going to accomplish in 2012 and how it's going to fix my wagon. As with so much of your thinking, you obviously really don't have a clue what a libertarian is, or that the libertarian position simply does not lend itself to being pegged on the traditional right-left spectrum. Should you be interested, a simple illustration can be found here. But in a nutshell, libertarians value both personal and economic liberty, and hence oppose the welfare-warfare state as it currently exists. Moreover, if in days like these, when our currency is being debased, our liberties are being eroded, and our economy is poised to crash and burn ... your biggest concern is overturning Roe vs. Wade, well ... it explains much to me about why you believe in magical sky-gods, magical "alternative" medicine charlatans, and the wisdom of the common people.

Common Sense: I Don't Know Too Much ... But I'm Sure I Know Enough

As many readers of this blog (all three of you) well know, I can't resist engaging in the verbal thrust-and-parry of a good argument from time to time. I admit it's usually an exercise in working through things in my own head ... I don't really delude myself that I'm having the impact on society of a Richard Dawkins or Christopher Hitchens ... but it's fun and occasionally it results in my clarifying something in my own thinking.

A few days ago, I decided to post a few critical thoughts on someone's Facebook page about a quote attributed to Mother Theresa. This resulted in no actual meaningful dialogue with the poster ... unless one would consider angry scolding "dialogue". But a friend of the poster (hereafter FOP) did respond in at least a civil and pleasant manner, and as a result I endeavored to lay out a brief summary of why I have serious doubts about the existence of any kind of magic sky-god, a soul, or an afterlife (while this post isn't exactly the same thing I wrote, it conveys the same general idea). Yesterday I received a response from FOP, and it inspired me to post a far more detailed response here than would be practical on Facebook. But I will be posting the link to this blog entry, just in case FOP would like to continue the discussion. Also, instead of having to type (sic) repeatedly, I'll just mention that all comments from FOP are in italics and reproduced exactly as FOP typed them. This discussion begins by FOP elaborating on how "too much college" makes people ... well ... less likely to know things:

"... it is the kind of education one recieves that is important. i prefer the real world kind and i also prefer the commonsense kind. when i say "too much college" i'm taking about people who have too much formal education and not nearly enough street smarts. i'd pick street smarts anytime between the two."

Now this is a common lament. It's so common in fact, that I've heard it from Democrats, Republicans, Libertarians, Communists, Socialists, religionists, new agers, homeopaths, anti-vaccine activists, non-dairy raw foodists, etc. etc. etc. Essentially, "common sense" is a magical phrase that appears to actually mean "whatever I want to be true". As far as I can tell, it's a combination of two common logical fallacies: the appeal to authority, and the appeal to popularity. The underlying premise is often that the world (and universe) are inherently simple, or at least can be made inherently simple, by forcing everything into a black & white, good & evil paradigm.

"Street smarts" is another phrase that seems to mean whatever the speaker wants it to. For instance, when I think of "street smarts", I think of thugs, con men, common thieves, drug dealers and their addicts, etc. In other words, to me it means people who live on the streets in a bleak and stark fight for daily survival. But I suppose "street smarts" could also mean a slick businessman, a savvy door-to-door salesman, or an ethically challenged used car salesman.

However, I think it's pretty obvious that FOP is using these two terms simply to draw the contrast between the common folk and those who have had too much "formal education". This has always amused me, because it's essentially asserting that people with less formal education are somehow smarter because they're ... well ... uneducated. Yet one only needs to understand a Bell Curve to realize that the majority of people are at best of middling intelligence, and a fair portion of them are below average. So if "common sense" and "street smarts" are valuable because they are rooted in the opinions, perceptions and experiences of the majority, it would probably be best to avoid them.

For instance, I'd wager that FOP wouldn't want a surgeon who relied on street smarts and common sense, or -- for that matter -- a mechanic, a pharmacist, a bridge engineer or a computer programmer. I'd bet FOP would like a highly educated, formally trained expert -- especially if FOP's life, job, or economic future depended upon it. It's just for the big questions ... like the magic sky god, that common sense are reliable I suppose.

Moving right along ....

"...most of what you learn in college, as in any formal schooling, is what you are being force fed by a person that wil add his slant to it.

While this is a favorite claim of conservative talk radio hosts, it's only partially true. Yes, there are cases where leftist professors attempt to turn their classes into socialist indoctrination centers ... especially in the Humanities (and, for the record, I am employed as an instructor by a major American university ... and I'm a libertarian ... and I've seen it and experienced it). But it's a gross overgeneralization and oversimplification. I suppose in this case FOP is using it because I had argued that science provides evidence-based answers to the big questions while religion is just a bunch of made-up stories. Hence, the only way to defeat science (without bothering to actually learn it and understand it) is to reduce it to the same level as religion: simply a matter of opinion. This is a common tactic used by creationists as well.

"... as you said, you don't believe any of the scientific stuff because you don't have true evidence.

My actual comment regarding science and belief was: "Now -- I don't BELIEVE any of this. Belief is the acceptance of something without evidence. I provisionally accept it for the time being because the preponderance of evidence supports it." In other words, I was attempting to refute the religionist claim that everything is simply a matter of belief, and underscore that science requires evidence. Apparently FOP is not only challenged when it comes to spelling and punctuation, but also doesn't read very carefully .......

"... i think that believing in the science of how the world began, is much more of a myth and fairy tale than anything the God theory prvides. i'm sorry that you don't have any proof for your theory. it must be hard living in a world that is so accidental.

Now this is classic creationism. FOP ignores my overt rejection of belief as the basis of scientific inquiry, pushes the requirement for evidence aside, and then totally misrepresents evolutionary theory by invoking "accident" as the driver of the evolutionary engine. This is truly a classic strawman fallacy: First set up a wholly oversimplified, false, and absurd view of evolution, then proceed to attack it while ignoring all of the actual arguments and evidence.

Now it just becomes fun:

"... i, on the other hand, do have much proof that their is a higher power. because of my commonsense, i can look at a 70 foot tree, that grew from a very tiny seed and can conclude that this was no accident. even if it had been an accident, would it happen over and over again? i think not!"

Indeed it isn't an accident. The seed of the tree contains the necessary DNA and genetic code to grow into a tree. It happens all the time ... over and over again. While this is splendid proof of how DNA and reproduction function, it offers no evidence of a magic man in the sky.

"... then i can look at my grandbaby and conclude that this is one of the greatest of miracles of all. but, then again, because of my pesky commonsense, i have to ask myself, could this of happen by chance? then comes the answer, "how could this be chance, when there are millions of grandmas beore me that have had one of these pefect humans in their lives and wondered the same thing?""

A common definition of "miracle" is as follows: "a surprising and welcome event that is not explicable by natural or scientific laws and is therefore considered to be the work of a divine agency." Millions of babies are born every day. Many of them are not perfect ... some are retarded, some have birth defects, some have congenital disorders. It's just how life works. There's nothing special or miraculous about it. If birth is a miracle, so is urination. Moreover, no evolutionary biologist would ever claim that all this happend by chance. But, again, to know this one would have to actually take the time to read what evolutionary biologists really assert and put forth the effort to understand it. Religionists are not only poor logicians, they're also often intellectually very lazy.

"... how about all the plants that have just the right vitamins and nutrients that we humans need to survive, could that be by chance also?

Ummm ... no ... but I think it should now be clear that it's not all about "chance". Plus, lots of plants are poisonous to us. Certain species die as environmental conditions change. Some plants are quite pleasant, but eating too many of them is unhealthy. And, of course, there are the ever evolving and improving sciences of botany and animal husbandry which improve the quality of food produced and increase the quantity. There'd be a whole hell of a lot fewer of us if we had to depend upon the mythical sky god to provide enough wild food.

"... i could go on for days about all the miracles that sit before you but you would not change your mind because you have been "educated" to believe in science when admittedy, you have no proof!"

As I've said repeatedly, I don't "believe" in science, nor have I been educated to "believe" in science. One of the key differences between science and religion is the way they process evidence. Science gathers evidence, forms hypotheses, tests hypotheses, and ultimately draws conclusions that are technically provisional (i.e. new evidence could augment, update or disprove them) but for all practical purposes are "true". Religion begins with conclusions, and then does anything necessary to justify and rationalize those conclusions. New evidence is simply not allowed, because the underlying conclusions cannot be challenged. I honestly doubt that even if FOP did bother to learn biology, or evolutionary theory, or enough astronomy and physics to understand how the universe really works it would make any difference: the underlying conclusions are sacrosanct, evidence is irrelevant, and "common sense" trumps reason and logic.

But I don't want to convey the impression that I'm posting this just to argue with FOP, because I'm not. I'm posting it because I hear this kind of argument on a weekly basis from all sorts of FOPs out there. This deification of "common sense" and folk wisdom and corresponding rejection of science and education is found in so many different places: creationism, the anti-vaccination movement, so-called "alternative" medicine, conspiracy theories ... the list goes on and on. And underlying it all is ignorance and profound resentment of education, science and the scientific method.

This is probably why we get the government that we do: the sheeple want good education, but not too much, and certainly not enough to challenge their silly beliefs, irrational superstitions, and precious status quo.

Wisconsin Union Wars: The Social Contract

Found this happy little gem on my newsfeed today, and just couldn't resist taking to the keyboard for a little fun.

Today's topic is The Social Contract -- a favorite leftist rhetorical device used to justify wealth confiscation and redistribution. This is taken from a real exchange between real socialists, discussing an article (in the Huffington Post, naturally) called "New York Millionaires Offer to Pay Extra Taxes to Offset Budget Cuts":

Socialist A: Sounds like responsible citizenship and patriotism.

Socialist B: One of them says this: "This is what is decent and sensible as part of the social contract". The notion of the social contract is what seems to be missing from US society these days... And PS I have long wanted a bumpersticker that says "Please raise my taxes." I mean, I'm not a millionaire but I can afford to pay taxes and I believe those taxes should go towards social programs. Why is that so hard to understand???

Well, for one thing, because it's nonsense.

The first thing that's hard to understand is how two people can so totally misunderstand what a real contract is, and what the rules are that govern a legal contract. For instance, for a contract to be legally binding (and I just clipped this from Wikipedia to keep it simple):

1. a party must have capacity to contract


2. the purpose of the contract must be lawful


3. the form of the contract must be legal


4. the parties must intend to create a legal relationship


5. and the parties must consent

Hence, anyone under the legal age of consent can't be bound by this "social contract", because they don't have the capacity to contract in the first place. The same goes for those who are legally incompetent to agree to a contract. And as far as everyone else is concerned, in order to be bound by the "social contract" they would actually have to consent to it. That means it would have to be drawn up as a legal document, and each and every individual who would be legally bound by it would have to voluntarily consent to it. Last time I checked, no one was bothering to do this.

And that's precisely because, as far as the socialists are concerned, the very fact that a person draws breath obliges them to abide by an unwritten, unsigned, non-existant "social contract" that is nothing more than a blank check to seize and redistribute wealth. It's also not a contract in any legally acceptable sense.

Now if you're rich, and you feel guilty about it, and you want to give more of your money to your favorite causes, be my guest. As long as there's no coercion involved, do whatever you want with your money or property. If you believe in social programs, donate to them. Volunteer. Organize fundraisers. That's called voluntary charity, and that's a great thing that I wholeheartedly support. It does more good than throwing public temper tantrums when you lose elections, and it'll probably make you feel better when you're done.

But that's not what most socialists want to do. It's too time intensive, and it cuts into their vital moralizing and problem-solving time ... especially when they've got cushy public service or education-related jobs. Instead, they'd rather use the guns of government (or at least the implied threat of the guns of government) to force everyone, regardless of what they believe in, to cough up more of their hard-earned money for their pet projects.

Which leads me to one final point. I can't resist pointing out that Socialist B obviously hasn't thought much about how government really works. Paying more taxes in no way insures that more money goes to social programs. Paying more taxes just means giving various levels of government more money to spend on something. When you send in the check, there's no mechanism to distribute your contribution according to your wishes. That only works in the private sector (and only if you bother to make such stipulations). So if, dear Socialist B, you really want your taxes raised, good luck making sure that extra cash goes to the welfare recipient you so cherish and not the next Tomahawk missile that gets fired at Libya.

Personally, I'd rather just keep my money.

Wisconsin Union Wars: Return of the Hippies

When the hippies gave up the faith of their fathers, they didn't give up faith per se, just the faith of their fathers. Their fathers' Judeo-Christian, button-down, suburban conformity may have been rejected, but the credulity and acceptance of unsubstantiated claims never wavered ... they just chose to believe in a bunch of new unsubstantiated claims that were different than the ones they'd been brought up with. At no point did they say "We were lied to, so we're going to apply a rigidly objective, scientifically-based methodology to test claims and ascertain what is actually true". Hell, that would have taken actual time and effort. Instead, they just took a stand that was 180% opposite to what they were brought up to believe.
In some ways this was easy, because much of what they were brought up to believe was indeed factually wrong. Plus, rejecting middle-class, suburban, religion-based claims was often pleasant. Smoking pot didn't make you a criminal, masturbation didn't make you go blind, monogamy was not required to have a good relationship and a fulfilling life, dressing casually didn't make it impossible to do a good day's work, and dropping out of the rat race didn't mean you couldn't earn a living.
But this spirit of rebellion also led to throwing the proverbial baby (in this case, reality) out with the bathwater. This has become abundantly clear to me in the past several weeks as I've watched the unfolding of events in Wisconsin. In particular, five things have really gotten under my skin, including (but not limited to) watching the socialist ... ahem ... progressive protesters:

1. reliving their 1960's salad days in the "movement"


2. bonding with young socialists who weren't even alive during the "movement" but are equally as confused as their leftist forefathers


3. parroting 1930's-vintage Marxist class warfare and pro-union rhetoric


4. displaying astounding economic ignorance


5. when all else fails falling back upon the "tu quoque" logical fallacy

For years I've been developing the hypothesis that what the 60's were really about was a wholesale rejection of reality, and a corresponding inability to recognize hypocrisy. Lo and behold the Madison protesters confirm this. Consider, if you will, this little gem of reasoning I found on Facebook recently:

"In their rush to make Wisconsin a one-party state, they don't care if they kill democracy in the process. All's fair when they've decided it's a moral war, and they need to win by whatever means."

Now, I've been out of Wisconsin for a while, but I think if anyone bothers to check, the current governor, assembly and state senate were, in fact, elected democratically. There was no coupe de etat. They just got more votes than the other side (despite, I'm quite sure, considerable union contributions to their opponents). Sounds like democracy is pretty much alive and well to me. I don't see them proposing or passing laws to keep themselves in power for life (unlike leftist hearthrob Hugo Chavez). But -- they did win, and as none other than lovable old Barak Obama pointed out to the Republicrats in 2009, if you win the election and you've got the votes to do what you want, you get to pass your agenda.
While I have no doubt that my socialist ... ahem ... progressive friends in Wisconsin were grinning from ear to ear when Obama told the Republicrats that they could take a flying leap in '09, they don't seem to like their own governor doing the exact same thing in 2011. All of a sudden, they want to redefine "democracy" to mean that the winning party is supposed to essentially defer to the losing party. And they'll march, picket, and set up a virtual underground railroad to spirit Demopublican senators out of the state to stop government from functioning. They seem to see this as a noble resistance to tyranny. I have another explanation: just as they did in the 60's, spoiled, dependent, petulant, hypocritical children are acting like ... well ... spoiled, dependent, petulant, hypocritical children.
Despite all of their singing, chanting, drum beating and other flower-power inspired gum beating, the bottom line is that they simply will not take "no" for an answer. If they don't win at the ballot box, they'll take to the streets and pitch a giant temper tantrum. If they're not happy, nobody is allowed to be happy. They can't even wait for the next election cycle, where -- if the policies this governor enacts are really so terrible -- they should be able to re-assume power and go back to voting themselves rich. Nope, the socialist ... ahem ... progressive vision entitles them to rule, even if they lose (which is curiously reminiscent of the god's-own-lobotomy culture warriors of the christian right).
Plus -- and this is where the hypocrisy really kicks in -- they're whining endlessly about how the Republicrats are trying to stack the deck against them, when in fact it's the attempt to unstack the deck in favor of the Demopublicans that has everyone so cheesed off in the first place.
Think about it: when the Republicrats take contributions from their corporate buddies or defense contractors, get elected, and then dole out expropriated taxpayer loot in the form of government contracts, the socialists ... ahem ... progressives get their Che Guevara monogrammed boxers in a bunch and angrily send granola flying across the room in a fit of indignant outrage. But, when public employee unions contribute equally large amounts of money to the very same Demopublican politicians with whom they then negotiate their employment and benefits, this is somehow supposed to be non-collusive and "democratic". And this troubles me, because I agree with the Demopublicans when they criticize the Republicrats for doing this. I just wish they'd apply the same standards to themselves.
But it's not just the petulance and hypocrisy of the Madison socialists ... ahem ... progressives that shines through. There's also their romanticized view of unions, their vintage 1930's class warfare mentality, and their almost fundamentalist belief in Keynesian economics that really sets them apart. But I'll leave those for the next installment.

But It's "Free" .....

One of my favorite acronyms from the land of free market economics is TINSTAAFL: "There is no such thing as a free lunch". The underlying principle is pretty simple to grasp. Regardless of whether you or someone else actually paid for it, all things – time, goods, services, etc. have value, and some poor bastard gets stuck with the bill. I've been reflecting upon this mightily over the past few weeks, as I've been visiting one of Europe's premiere free lunch welfare states: Germany.

It's almost ironic that a large section of the American electorate in one form or another looks at European social democracy as something we really need to import into the US. Even our esteemed Community Organizer in Chief is often heard advocating the same kind of wealth-spreading, equalizing government intervention in life that is the norm in Europe. Personally, I'd suggest that this is one case where being careful what you wish for is good advice, because cradle to grave security comes at a high price, and it's not just a price measured in dollars and cents. There is a profound moral and ethical cost to the proverbial free lunch.

One thing you immediately notice when you follow European politics is that there's this vicious circle that is slowly spinning out of control. On the one hand, there are always an almost limitless number of people with outstretched hands insisting that they have a right to money from the government. On the other hand, the governments themselves are slowly coming to realize that the money they're paying out is outstripping the money coming in at an alarming rate. In fact, as Europeans watch Greece, Spain, Portugal, and Ireland spending themselves into oblivion, it's almost accelerated the rate at which everyone's trying to get something out of the system before the whole damned thing crashes and burns.

On top of this, economic initiative is a generally unknown thing. In Germany, I can think of no form of economic activity that isn't licensed, regulated and thoroughly bureaucratized (even hookers have their own trade guild and pay into the social welfare system). Moreover, "regulated" means really, really regulated … down to the last minute detail … and then some. So if you've got some seed money and the desire to start a business, your best bet is to get a whole lot more seed money, at least one good lawyer, a doctor for sedatives, a therapist for the inevitable stress-related issues, and then start the treacherous climb up Mount Paperwork. That's the funny thing about a society where things are "free": if you're generating any money at all, you're a social resource to be mined and exploited as much as possible … at least unless you're rich and connected enough to get subsidized by the state one way or the other.

To be fair though, I did notice one form of initiative in Germany that was plentiful: trying to figure out how to play the system. I'd describe it as being something between a hobby and a passion depending upon the individual in question. It's so pervasive, that even people who are otherwise decent, motivated, inherently industrious types can be sucked into the endless cycle of trying to get someone else's resources reassigned to them. Moreover, the very process absolutely strips away any remaining human dignity you may have, because while the welfare state is often marketed by politicians and socialist weenies as the warm hands of the state catching you when you fall and helping you back up again, in practice you're simply reduced to the status of a case number and treated with all of the respect and tenderness of a cow in a stockyard.

This happens because bureaucrats suddenly wind up with almost dictatorial control over your life. Your every activity – economic or otherwise – must be duly reported and calculated. I've seen the forms … they don't forget anything. Some wormy little unionized government employee takes a book the size of War & Peace off the shelf, and that book determines everything. It's all "free" if you're "entitled" to it, but that doesn't mean they actually want you to get it. You have to convince them.

For instance, an old friend of mine is currently unemployed. Not his fault actually – he's worked for years and still wants to work -- but that last dip in the economy did him in. So now his life is governed by a wonderful German law known as Hartz-IV. As a long-term unemployed person, his apartment is paid for by the state, and he receives a monthly payment as well to live on. His better half is officially physically disabled (there's a license for this … and she has it naturally), which means that she too is "entitled" to certain things for "free". But, in order to save money and motivate the long-term unemployed to seek employment, the amount of "free" they get is being reduced.

Now, in practice, this makes sense: get people off the dole and back to work. However, when you've already hamstrung your economy by choking off the job-creating forces of the free market with an endless series of laws, regulations and taxes, this is easier said than done … especially when one is older. But there would still be an incentive to hit the pavement and look for work … unless, of course, you take the time to actually read the laws and figure out that you're entitled to more "free" than the bureaucrats think you are. Then, you can literally have a new full-time job doing nothing more than fighting bureaucrats, filling out forms, and making trips to various magistrates and pleading your case. And since the longer you're unemployed the more they come after your assets, the more incentive you have to take on the state in the quest to keep what you have and/or get more "free" rather than going out and trying to find work.

And so goes the vicious circle. The price you pay for the "free" you get is that you essentially become a ward of the state. Your privacy is gone, your freedom to make many choices for yourself is gone, and you have to justify your every need to someone whose job it is to say "no" as often as legally possible. Everyone who works (including the bureaucrats) view you as a parasitic deadbeat, and while they're not wrong, they're certainly doing their best in any number of ways to put as many roadblocks as possible in your way as you try to once again become financially independent.

All of which brings us back to TINSTAAFL. A Finnish friend of mine once told me that the difference between private charity and the welfare state is that the welfare state preserves your dignity because you don't have to say "thank you" and you don't have to feel like you owe anyone anything. But, in fact, regardless of whether it's private charity or public seizure of earned wealth followed by government redistribution, the end result is the same: nothing's free, and if you're the one footing the bill you're going to inevitably begin to resent those who are consuming the unearned. Moreover, all of that "brotherhood" that social democracy is supposed to unleash is nowhere to be found. Even the folks on the dole are happy to explain to you why they're entitled to what they get (and then some), but why [insert favorite scapegoat] most certainly is getting way too much.

Personally, I find it kinda creepy. For all the moral high ground the welfare statists and other assorted socialist weasels like to claim for themselves, the welfare state really brings out the ugly side of human nature. From the politicians to the workers, from the bureaucrats to the people receiving some kind of handout, everyone's fighting like the third monkey on Noah's gangplank for a piece of the pie. No one ever seems to happen upon the notion of baking another pie, however.

As allegedly brutal as a true free market may be, at least a poor person can become wealthier and there's a lot of economic upward mobility if you're willing to get off your ass and work. Europe is like a stagnant caste system. Unless you become a pop star or top athlete, chances are where you start is pretty much where you're gonna end up. It's a dehumanizing, incentive-killing, jealousy-promoting mentality where carefully watching what everyone else has and resenting anyone who has more than you is the norm. It's also the logical end result of the assumption that a free lunch is really "free".