“Alice in Wonderland” was written by a professor who also wrote a book on symbolic logic. So it is not surprising that Alice encountered not only strange behavior in Wonderland, but also strange and illogical reasoning — of a sort too often found in the real world, and which a logician would be very much aware of.

If Alice could visit the world of liberal rhetoric and assumptions today, she might find similarly illogical and bizarre thinking. But people suffering in the current economy might not find it nearly as entertaining as “Alice in Wonderland.”

Perhaps the most remarkable feature of the world envisioned by today’s liberals is that it is a world where other people just passively accept whatever “change” liberals impose. In the world of Liberal Land, you can just take for granted all the benefits of the existing society, and then simply tack on your new, wonderful ideas that will make things better.

For example, if the economy is going along well and you happen to take a notion that there ought to be more home ownership, especially among the poor and minorities, then you simply have the government decree that lenders have to lend to more low-income people and minorities who want mortgages, ending finicky mortgage standards about down payments, income and credit histories.

That sounds like a fine idea in the world of Liberal Land. Unfortunately, in the ugly world of reality, it turned out to be a financial disaster, from which the economy has still not yet recovered. Nor have the poor and minorities.

Apparently you cannot just tack on your pet notions to whatever already exists, without repercussions spreading throughout the whole economy. That’s what happens in the ugly world of reality, as distinguished from the beautiful world of Liberal Land.

The strange and bizarre characters found in “Alice in Wonderland” have counterparts in the political vision of Liberal Land today. Among the most interesting of these characters are those elites who are convinced that they are so much smarter than the rest of us that they feel both a right and a duty to take all sorts of decisions out of our incompetent hands — for our own good.

In San Francisco, which is Liberal Land personified, there have been attempts to ban the circumcision of newborn baby boys.

Fortunately, that was nipped in the bud. But it shows how widely the self-anointed saviors of Liberal Land feel entitled to take decisions out of the hands of mere ordinary citizens.

Secretary of the Treasury Timothy Geithner says, “We’re facing a very consequential debate about some fundamental choices as a country.” People talk that way in Liberal Land. Moreover, such statements pass muster with those who simply take in the words, decide whether they sound nice to them, and then move on.

But, if you take words seriously, the more fundamental question is whether individuals are to remain free to make their own choices, as distinguished from having collectivized choices, “as a country” — which is to say, having choices made by government officials and imposed on the rest of us.

The history of the 20th century is a painful lesson on what happens when collective choices replace individual choices. Even leaving aside the chilling history of totalitarianism in the 20th century, the history of economic central planning shows it to have been such a widely recognized disaster that even communist and socialist governments were abandoning it as the century ended.

Making choices “as a country” cannot be avoided in some cases, such as elections or referenda. But that is very different from saying that decisions in general should be made “as a country” — which boils down to having people like Timothy Geithner taking more and more decisions out of our own hands and imposing their will on the rest of us. That way lies madness exceeding anything done by the Mad Hatter in “Alice in Wonderland.”

That way lie unfunded mandates, nanny state interventions in people’s lives, such as banning circumcision — and the ultimate nanny state monstrosity, ObamaCare.

The world of reality has its problems, so it is understandable that some people want to escape to a different world, where you can talk lofty talk and forget about ugly realities like costs and repercussions. The world of reality is not nearly as lovely as the world of Liberal Land. No wonder so many people want to go there.

To find out more about Thomas Sowell and read features by other Creators Syndicate columnists and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate Web page at www.creators.com. Thomas Sowell is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution, Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305. His website is www.tsowell.com.

COPYRIGHT 2011 CREATORS.COM

Article source: Creators.com

 

As we go throughout life, it can sometimes seem mysterious to think how we arrived at our current place.  Each person’s life represents the aggregate total of all their decisions and the influence of chance.  For many of us, it can be tempting to blame ‘fate’ or the actions of other people for the fact that their life has not turned out the way that they had previously imagined it would.  For many people, this has resulted in a slowly burning internal anger against their circumstances.  The enduring problem created by this phenomenon is that it constructs a mental barrier that prevents people from taking the actions that are necessary to improve their circumstances.

The first and most important insight that must precede any sustainable improvement in our life situation is the realization that we are fully responsible for the course of our life, and our decisions are the means by which we navigate the river of chance.  It is most certainly true that we cannot control chance.  There will always be events and circumstances in our life and the world at large that are out of our control.  The secret to influencing your future lies in understanding that there is no point in worrying about things that we cannot control and focusing all of our attention on the decisions and events that we can influence.

One example of how this situation creeps up on people is where you have a person that is living paycheck-to-paycheck and encounters an unexpected automotive repair, medical bill, or some other necessary expense.  With no financial reserves, this person may find themselves forced to go into debt, or possibly default on their financial obligations if they are already in debt.  From this person’s perspective, they have been assaulted by fate and ruined by chance.  However, the situation that placed them at the mercy of chance was completely the result of their decisions.  By modifying their lifestyle, these people could have built-up a savings reserve so that unexpected expenses could be met without destroying their budget.  By consistently living below their means, they could have ensured that their debt limits were not maxed out so that true needs could be met at the critical moment.  By understanding that the future is necessarily uncertain, and planning accordingly, many of the disruptions that cause disasters for other people could have been effectively avoided.

The critical insight here is that our ability to shape our future is dependent on our willingness to embrace a long-term perspective.  By thinking further out than our current wants and needs, we begin to see the benefit of making short-term sacrifices for the purpose of long-term gains.  Thus, by improving our decisions, we make the outcome of our future less dependent on luck.  In this way, making intelligent choices reduces our exposure to chance.  It requires us to discipline our feelings and emotions so that they do not dictate our actions.  It requires us to make conscious decisions that support optimal long-term results.

In the end, our circumstances are determined by both choices and chances.  However, the impact of chances is directly related to the choices that we have made in the past and continue to make into the future.  Each of us must ask whether the choices we are making today prepare us for a more prosperous future.  Each of us must ask whether the decisions and choices we make are the result of our feelings and emotions or if they are conscious and deliberate.  Most of us have a clear vision of what we would like our future to look like, and most of us also know the kind of things that are necessary to attain that vision.  What remains is to develop the discipline so that our decisions turn that vision into reality.

 

One of the criticisms frequently leveled against private industry by the political class is that it is a “winner takes all” environment.  The output of competitive markets is often blamed for the disparity between the “haves” and “have not’s” of society.  However, there is another critically important “winner takes all” effect that needs to be understood.

Consider the fact that in most political elections, the winning side typically garners somewhere between 50% and 55% of the votes.  Because of this, they subsequently claim to represent “the will of the people” due to their success in claiming a narrow majority of the votes cast.  However, almost every election leaves a significant portion of the population unrepresented by the winner . . . regardless of who that winner happens to be or which political party they represent.

The effect created by this phenomenon is an extreme “winner takes all” situation where the winning side of elections can use the power of government to force their will on the side who loses.  This is demonstrated very blatantly by authoritarian regimes where the winning party (frequently running in a rigged election) enforces its policy on the populace without opposition.

In contrast to this situation, consider the interplay of a free market where each consumer can make their own choices.  If a particular person desires to purchase a green vs. blue tie, there are a multitude of profit seeking business entities who are more than happy to satisfy your preference.  If you are concerned about animal cruelty, you have the choice to purchase your food from farms that go out of their way to treat their animals well.  The characteristic of free markets that many people find unappealing is the fact that many other people make choices that they do not personally agree with.  In these cases, they often seek to force their will on the populace through the political process.

On balance, do we really think that our interests are better served by a government that structurally ignores over 40% of the electorate?  Is it really better to use the power of government to enforce the will of a narrow majority onto the whole population?  Or is the populace better served by a free market where competition for revenues and profits creates choices for consumers?  The specter of inequality is frequently cited as the driving motive for government action, but pause to consider all of the other things can be done with the authority of government?  Thomas Jefferson was believed to have expressed the sentiment (later iterated by Gerald Ford) that a government big enough to give you all you want is also big enough to take away all you have.  It is most certainly true that we should be careful what we wish for, because it may not be quite what we were hoping for if we get it.