'You
Won’t Go Bankrupt. You’ll Always Produce’
by
Vin Suprynowicz
by Vin Suprynowicz
DIGG THIS
Last time,
we were analyzing the crucial rhetorical battle now joined over
whether government can be allowed to expand forever, as demanded
by those who tirelessly shriek that "You greedy rich people
refuse to pay enough! We’re not meeting the people’s demand for
services, their needs, their needs, their needs! We’re at the bottom,
at the very bottom of all the social service rankings, do you hear
me, like some Third World hellhole!"
The practical
argument that we can’t afford to see tax rates go up every year
– that this must eventually lead to tax rates approaching 100 percent,
with government controlling everything (except a black market whose
freedom of contract these harpies can be expected to attack with
startling vigor), are met with that famous response of Dr. Ferris
from the novel Atlas
Shrugged, when industrialist Hank Rearden asks: "How
do you expect me to produce after I go bankrupt?"
" 'You
won’t go bankrupt. You’ll always produce,’ said Dr. Ferris indifferently,
neither in praise nor in blame, merely in the tone of stating a
fact of nature, as he would have said to another man: You’ll always
be a bum. 'You can’t help it. It’s in your blood. Or, to be more
scientific: you’re conditioned that way.’ ...
"Then
Lawson said softly, half in reproach, half in scorn, 'Well, after
all, you businessmen have kept predicting disasters for years, you’ve
cried catastrophe at every progressive measure and told us that
we’ll perish – but we haven’t.’"
Point out that
we’re now spending more treasure on the "public schools"
than any civilization in history – in real as well as relative terms
– and that while 11-year-old schoolchildren a century ago could
read better than most of today’s college kids (I own some of their
century-old schoolbooks – you’d be amazed), while the bulk of today’s
"high school graduates" can’t tell "their" from
"there" or "loose" from "lose" and
tend to spell their four-syllable words so poorly you have to sound
them out loud – try to point out, in short, that pouring ever more
funds into the government schools has only made things worse, and
you will soon find yourself in a conversation out of "Alice
in Wonderland":
"Is that
all you can do is complain? Won’t you work with us to find way to
raise more money and make the schools better?"
"You’re
not listening. More money has made the schools worse. The answer
is to close them down, dynamite them; then let small groups of parents
start again, with just their own portion of all that money you’ve
been sweeping up in school taxes, setting up little cooperative
one-room schoolhouses and hiring their own schoolmarms. If after
11 years of failure by the government schools John Stossel could
improve 18-year-old Dorian Cain’s reading level by two grade levels
by sending him for just 72 hours to the Sylvan Learning Center,
where they start with, 'These are the 26 letters; each one has a
sound ...’ then having a Ph.D. in 'Pedagogy’ is clearly counterproductive."
"Sarcasm
and silly jokes can hardly be called constructive criticism."
"I’m not
being sarcastic and I have no interest in doing anything 'constructive’
to bail out your failed youth propaganda camps. The nation was more
literate before Dewey and Mann brought back the idea of compulsory
schooling by age cohort from Prussia in the 1840s and ’50s. It was
all done on purpose to create factory workers incapable of the analytical
skills necessary to ask troublesome questions. This is all explained
in the works of New York state (government-school) teacher of the
year John Taylor Gatto. Will you read his first little book, Dumbing
Us Down, if I give you a copy?"
"You’re
just being impossible! You have nothing constructive to propose,
at all! You clearly just hate teachers, you hate the children, you
hate education!"
Actually, I’m
a writer. I’ll be out of work when people can no longer read and
comprehend anything beyond microwave instructions, a process already
well underway. It’s the mandatory government youth camps that are
depriving me of readers, creating wave after wave of young people
schooled to hate learning so much that they vow "never to read
another book again once I get out of this damned place."
The founders
granted the government no power to meddle in schooling. That, along
with medicine, "social work" and so many others things
government now does so badly, are far better handled by families,
friends, fraternal societies, religious congregations and other
forms of private voluntarism.
"Families!"
the other side sneers. "Well, that would be very nice, but
families are falling apart! Single parents on drugs! Kids sitting
in their own feces! Private charities are too weak and underfunded.
No one joins those fraternal clubs any more!"
All too true.
And why?
If government
sucks up all the available funds, granting itself a monopoly over
all the functions once performed by these cheerful and voluntary
social associations, it leaves those outfits no space in which to
operate. Starved of purpose and opportunity as well as funds, they
wither and die.
Go to the former
Soviet Union, land of inveterate drunks and premature death where
– after 70 years of turning each other in to the secret police on
the most minor charge for fear of being branded co-conspirators
– people are afraid to trust each other, to take the risk of raising
private investment capital to fund any entrepreneurial vision, even
to start a new club or association or Weblog for fear it will be
branded "subversive."
What you see
is a society still crippled (16 years after Communism supposedly
"collapsed") by 70 years of "too much government."
Do we really
want Soviet-style medicine? Soviet-style architecture, consumer
products, farm policy, "environmental protection"? Who
are these weasels, teaching our children to hate Edison and Carnegie
and Samuel Colt and James J. Hill, the "greedy capitalists"
whose investments and innovations made us the envy of the planet,
the most prosperous and (formerly) freest nation in the world?
Now ask our
friends the self-styled "progressives," one more time:
"At which point will we have 'too much government’? When 65
percent of us work for the state? When they seize 70 percent of
my paycheck? Eighty percent?"
Why
is their only answer to shriek and call us names? What future do
they have in mind for us that needs masking behind all their euphemisms
and hysterical hate-speech?
June
23, 2007
Vin
Suprynowicz [send
him mail] is assistant editorial page editor of the daily Las
Vegas Review-Journal and author of The
Black Arrow.
Copyright
© 2007 Vin Suprynowicz
Vin
Suprynowicz Archives
|