I suppose the debate is simply how to allocate resources. How will gas, coal, oil, lumber, savings, medical services, cars....how will anything be allocated. And, of course, who will do it. If it is assumed that desires and resources have some limits, some restraints, that even the most pro-growth advocate would affirm then some management of those desires and resources must, eventually, occur. The debate then is really not how to make all things available to all people, it is how to make the limited products and services available to which selected people.
In short, how do we assign the shortages.
Now things get ugly. If we are not assigning products and services but their shortages instead, the problems of organization and governance take on a harsher and more honest appearance. The most noble of souls will admit that some of our resources and services have limits already. Most parents would prefer a live-in pediatrician, around the clock pediatric care. Most drivers would prefer a high performance car although the minority of drivers will ever even be in one. And the theoretical shortages--petroleum, potable water--loom.
There are countless foundation theories here to direct us: The poor are always with us, capitalism has a production bias and provides more goods and services, the greatest good for the greatest number, only those who work eat, from each according to his ability to each according to his needs, the birds of the air and the lilies of the field do not want. But none of these theories, save the last, prepare us for what is actually implied here: If allocation is the responsibility of someone other than the producer then there must be a significant element of coercion to take his service or product and there must be the recognition that some will get nothing. If we are going to manage the distribution of health care and there are limits, who will be deprived of the care and when? Who will be deprived of a Porsche and when? If we are anxious about limited petroleum, should anyone own a Porsche?
These are reasonable questions, especially in a culture that purports to esteem freedom above all other qualities. What is not reasonable is to approach this problem of allocation as if products and services were being expanding and not restricted. And what is not reasonable is to ignore the motives and abilities of those volunteering to make these inherently damaging decisions for us.
Tuesday, March 23, 2010
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment