Whether the line “Beam me up, Scotty – there is no intelligent life here!” was actually uttered in any old Star Trek episode, I don’t know. Former Congressman James Traficant contributed to its ubiquity by using the phrase “in colorful one-minute speeches” on the floor of the House (before he was expelled for ethics violations in 2002) in railing against outrageous over-reaching government programs and taxes. After reading Sebastian Mallaby’s “Trouble With Choices” (12/20 – Washington Post), I’m heading for the nearest teleporter location.
The thrust (pun intended) of Mallaby’s article regarding the “personal account ownership” portion of the Social Security reform debate is: Americans really don’t want or need the “stress” of ownership, the choices and responsibility that come with it.
“Is an ‘ownership society’ preferable to a ‘big government’ one?”
He goes onto provide some sterling examples of conveniently supportive opinions and “studies” which always manage to absolutely support whatever elitist notion is being advanced. And, of course, these objections are consistently based on Feelings rather than Freedom.
“But the first reason to wonder whether ‘ownership’ is always good is that it can be stressful.”
“If it’s up to you to choose how to invest your pension account, agonizing over health stocks vs. Asian bonds may not be such a privilege.”
."..a certain measure of choice can be liberating but…too much is a treadmill – sometimes even triggering depression." (“The Paradox of Choice” psychologist Barry Schwartz, Swarthmore College.)
Are ya back to thinking the Social Security Ponzi scheme is actually a good thing?
Mallaby goes on to tell us that Rich People “actually pay to avoid choices”! Bet you didn’t know there are over 10,000 Wedding Planners in America today (and here I thought it was just a boring chick flick). No, this new growth is fueled by Rich People. “already maxed out” with making other life choices, desperately needing someone else to answer the burning question: roses or lilies? If you’re feeling entrepreneurial, you might hire yourself out as a Grocery Planner, charging bewildered shoppers to decide: “Paper or Plastic?” If you call yourself an Interior Decorator, thank the Rich People’s avoidance issues with Free Wallpaper Choice for making your career. Why be forced “to stare glassily at 200 kinds of curtain rail” when that burden is happily alleviated by career consultants getting rich off the rich? Mallaby’s Conclusion: “If the rich are deliberately avoiding choice, why are we so sure that the majority want more of it”? In other words, if THEY can’t stand the privilege, what makes you think you can?!
Typically, the lofty writer throws us some bones: Choice is good. Freedom is good. Just not too much of it. Because Choice is also risky and too much Freedom is stressful. (It has also been shown to cause dandruff in Canadian lab rats.) The subtle inference is that Rich People, while using their wealth to avoid choices, are the privileged few who can actually – albeit reluctantly-handle it. A dramatic increase in your personal financial independence, especially when it does not come from brilliant Government programs and largess, is bad, bad, bad. (If you don’t believe that, take a closer look at our “progressive” income tax code, bearing in mind that “progressive” means anything that stifles personal initiative and independence.) Since you are not among The Rich, actually becoming rich would be counter-productive. We should be thankful Mr. Mallaby’s beneficent government is actually protecting us from ourselves by providing “[T]he current system, featuring a government program that guarantees a pension equal to about a third of the average worker’s salary, plus a variety of tax-favored opportunities to save individually…" How thoughtful. Unconstitutional – but certainly thoughtful.
While not addressing the sorry if not terminal state of “Social Security” or its pathetic return on our extorted FICA “investment," neither does our hero offer any suggestions beyond the status quo. Consider: where is the government’s authority to tell you how much money you can set aside for your retirement? Can you find the authorization for the government to provide any “retirement” program – especially one funded by your fellow citizens? If I choose to invest my retirement dollars in tweezer-headed snolligaster bellies and lose it all on my 65th birthday, what business is that of government? Who owns your life and what you produce during your lifetime? You or your government?
(Note: This will definitely be on your Final.)
Mr. Mallaby concludes: ."..a reform that adds to the stresses of the modern world must hold out the compensating hope of more prosperity.” So even though economists of all political stripes are screaming “The End Is Near!” for Social Security, unless there is “hope of more prosperity” (see “guarantee” – New Elitist Dictionary), your freedom to chose where and how to provide for your retirement shall remain limited to the limited choices currently available. The last thing the government wants is for you to become so financially independent as to not be dependent on government.
Beam me up, Scotty, there is no intelligent life here in Washington – or at the Washington Post.
Want a couple last minute gift suggestions? Freedom in Chains/James Bovard, Free To Choose/Milton Friedman, Speaking of Liberty/Lew Rockwell.
Better than a teleporter.
December 25, 2004
