For Educational Use Only

How to Explain Conservatism to Your Squishy Liberal Friends: Individualism 'R' Us by P. J. O'Rourke

Conservatism and the individual

The individual is the wellspring of conservatism. The purpose of conservative politics is to defend the liberty of the individual and-lest individualism run riot-insist upon individual responsibility.

The great religions (and conservatives are known for approving of God) teach salvation as an individual matter. There are no group discounts in the Ten Commandments, Christ was not a committee, and Allah does not welcome believers into Paradise saying, "You weren't much good yourself, but you were standing near some good people." That we are individuals-unique, disparate and willful-is something we understand instinctively from an early age. No child ever wrote to Santa: "Bring me-and a bunch of kids I've never met-a pony, and we'll share."

Virtue is famously lonely. Also vice, as anyone can testify who ever told his mother, "All the other guys were doing it." We experience pleasure separately; Ethan Hawke may go out on any number of wild dates, but I'm able to sleep through them. And, although we may be sorry for people who suffer, we only "feel their pain" when we're full of baloney and running for office.

The individual and the state

The first question of political science is-or should be: "What is good for everyone?" And, by "everyone" we must mean "all individuals."

The question can't be: "What is good for a single individual?" That's megalomania, which is, like a New Hampshire presidential primary, the art of politics, not political science.

And the question can't be: "What is good for some individuals?" Or even: "What is good for the majority of individuals?" That's partisan politics, which, at best, leads to Newt Gingrich or Pat Schroeder and, at worst, leads to Lebanon or Rwanda.

Finally, the question can't be: "What is good for individuals as a whole?" There's no such thing. Individuals are only available individually.

By observing the progress of mankind, we can see that the things that are good for everyone are the things that have increased the accountability of the individual, the respect for the individual and the power of the individual to master his own fate. Judaism gave us laws before which all men, no matter their rank, stood as equals. Christianity taught us that each person has intrinsic worth, Newt Gingrich and Pat Schroeder included. The rise of private enterprise and trade provided a means of achieving wealth and autonomy other than by killing people with broadswords. And the industrial revolution allowed millions of ordinary folks an opportunity to obtain decent houses, food and clothes (albeit with some unfortunate side effects, such as environmental damage and Albert Gore).

In order to build a political system that is good for everyone, that ensures a free society based upon the independence, prestige and self-rule of individuals, we have to ask what all these individuals want. And be told to shut up, because there's no way to know the myriad wants of diverse people. They may not know themselves. And who asked us to stick our nose in, anyway?

The Bill of Rights tries to protect our freedom not only from bad people and bad laws but also from the vast nets and gooey webs of rules and regulations that even the best governments produce. The Constitution attempts to leave as much of life as possible to common sense, or at least to local option. The Ninth Amendment states: "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." Continues the 10th Amendment, "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

It is these suit-yourself, you're-a-big-boy-now, it's-a-free-country powers that conservatism seeks to conserve.

But what about the old, the poor, the disabled, the helpless, the hopeless, the addled and the daft?

Conservatism is sometimes confused with Social Darwinism or other such me-first dogmas. Sometimes the confusion is deliberate. When those who are against conservative policies don't have sufficient opposition arguments, they call love of freedom "selfish. " Of course it is-in the sense that breathing is selfish. But because you want to breathe doesn't mean you want to suck the breath out of every person you encounter. Conservatives do not believe in the triumph of the large and powerful over the weak and useless. (Although most conservatives would make an exception to see a fistfight between Norman Schwartzkopf and George Stephanopoulos. If all people are free, George Stephanopoulos must be allowed to run loose, too, however annoying this may be.)

But some people cannot enjoy the benefits of freedom without assistance from their fellows. This may be a temporary condition-such as childhood or being me when I say I can drive home from a bar, just fine, thank you very much, at three a.m.-or, due to infirmity or affliction, the condition may be permanent. Because conservatives do not generally propose huge government programs to combat the effects of old age, illness, being a kid or drinking 10 martinis on an empty stomach, conservatives are said to be "mean-spirited."

In fact, charity is an axiom of conservatism. Charity is one of the great responsibilities of freedom. But, in order for us to be responsible-and therefore free-that responsibility must be personal.

Not all needful acts of charity can be accomplished by one person, of course. To the extent that responsibility should be shared and merged, in a free society it should be shared and merged on the same basis as political power, which means starting with the individual. Responsibility must proceed from the bottom up-never from the top down, with the individual as the squeezed cream filling of the giant Twinkie that is the state.

There is no virtue in compulsory government charity, and there is no virtue in advocating it. A politician who portrays himself as "caring" and "sensitive" because he wants to expand the government's charitable programs is merely saying that he's willing to try to do good with other people's money. Well, who isn't? And a voter who takes pride in supporting such programs is telling us that he'll do good with his own money-if a gun is held to his head.

When government quits being something we use only in an emergency and becomes the principal source of aid and assistance in our society, then the size, expense and power of government are greatly increased. The decision that politicians are wiser, kinder and more honest than we are and that they, not we, should control the dispensation of eleemosynary goods and services is, in itself, a diminishment of the individual and proof that we're jerks.

Government charity causes other problems. If responsibility is removed from friends, family and self, social ties are weakened. We don't have to look after our parents; they've got their Social Security check and are down in Atlantic City with it right now. Parents don't have to look after their kids; Head Start, a high school guidance counselor and AmeriCorps take care of that. Our kids don't have to look after themselves; if they become addicted to drugs, there's methadone, and if they get knocked up, there's always AFDC. The neighbors, meanwhile, aren't going to get involved; if they step outside, they'll be cut down by the 9mm crossfire from the drug wars between the gangs all the other neighbors belong to.

Making charity part of the political system confuses the mission of government. Charity is, by its nature, approximate and imprecise. Are you guiding the old lady across the street or are you just jerking her around? It's hard to know when enough charity has been given. Parents want to give children every material advantage but don't want a pack of spoiled brats. There are no exact rules of charity. But a government in a free society must obey exact rules or that government's power is arbitrary and freedom is lost. This is why government works best when it is given limited and well-defined tasks to perform.

The preamble to the Constitution states: "We, the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquillity, provide for the common defence, promote the general welfare..." It doesn't say "guarantee the general welfare." And it certainly doesn't say "give welfare benefits to all the people in the country who aren't doing so well even if the reason they aren't doing so well is because they're sitting on their butts in front of the TV."

A liberal would argue that those people are watching television because they lack opportunities, they're disadvantaged, uneducated, life is unfair-and a conservative might actually agree. The source of contention between conservatives and liberals, the point at which the real fight begins, is when liberals say, "Government has enormous power; let's use that power to make things good."

It's the wrong tool for the job. The liberal is trying to fix my wristwatch with a ball pein hammer.

Government: Robin Hood or just robbing hoods?

Government is an abstract entity. It doesn't produce anything. It isn't a business, a factory or a farm. Government can't create wealth; only individuals can. All government is able to do is move wealth around. In the name of fairness government can take wealth from those who produce it and give wealth to those who don't. But who's going to be the big Robin Hood? Who grabs all this stuff and hands it back out? (Remember: even in a freely elected system of government, sooner or later that person is going to be someone you loathe. If you're a Republican, think about Donna Shalala; if you're a Democrat, think about Ollie North.)

When government takes wealth from those who produce it, people become less inclined to produce more of it-or more inclined to hide it. Conversely, when government gives wealth to those who don't produce it, they too become less productive since they're already getting what they'd produce in return for not producing it.

If government is supposed to make things good, what kind of good is it supposed to make them? And how good is good enough? And who's going to decide? What person is so arrogant as to believe he knows what every other person in America deserves to get? (Well, actually, all of Washington, press and pundits included, is that arrogant. But never mind.)

We don't know what people want. By the same token, we don't know what people need. The government is going to wind up giving midnight basketball to people who don't have shoes to play in. Then there will be a block grant to provide shoes, which people will boil because what they really lack is something to eat. And that brings us to expanding the school lunch program. Pretty soon, it's not government, it's shopping. It's not Congress and the White House, it's Mall of America-and a bunch of politicians have your charge cards.

Individual liberty is lost when government stops asking "What is good for all individuals?" and starts asking "What is good?" To ask the latter question is to abandon a system in which all people are considered equal and to adopt a system in which all people are considered alike. Collective good replaces individual goodies. Government will make life fair. But since limited government is hardly suitable to a task of this magnitude, the role of government will need to be expanded enormously. Government will have to be involved in every aspect of our lives. Government will grow to a laughable size. Or it would be laughable except for our experience in this century.

Nazi Germany, Soviet Russia, Communist China and dozens of smaller places around the world did indeed create just such leviathan governmental engines of "good," and the dreadful history of the 20th century is in large part a history of the terrible results of these collectivist endeavors. Once respect for the individual is lost, then what do 100 million dead individuals matter-especially if their deaths are for the "collective good"?

Of course, a liberal would say that a sharing and caring government doesn't have to turn out this way. It could be something like Sweden. And there you have it-the downside: 100 million people killed; the upside: ABBA, Volvos and suicide.

Why collectivism doesn't work

Why can't life be more fair? Why can't Americans take better care of each other? Why can't we share the tremendous wealth of our nation? Surely if enough safeguards of liberty are written into law and we elect vigorous, committed leaders...

Have another hit on the bong.

Collectivism doesn't work because it's based on a faulty economic premise. There is no such thing as a person's "fair share" of wealth. The gross national product is not a pizza that must be carefully divided because if I get too many slices, you have to eat the box. The economy is expandable and, in any practical sense, limitless.

Under collectivism, powers of determination rest with the entire citizenry instead of with the specific citizens. Individual decision-making is replaced by the political process. Suddenly, the system that elected the prom queen at your high school is in charge of your whole life. Besides, individuals are smarter than groups, as anybody who is a member of a committee or of a large Irish family after six in the evening can tell you. The difference between individual intelligence and group intelligence is the difference between Harvard University and the Harvard University football team.

Think of all the considerations that go into each decision you make: Is it ethical? Is it good in the long run? Who benefits? Who is harmed? What will it cost? Does it go with the couch? Now imagine a large group-imagine a very large group, say, 250 million people-trying to agree on every decision made by every person in the country. The result would be stupid, silly and hugely wasteful-in short, the result would be government.

Individuals are not only smarter than groups, they are also-and this is one of the best things about them-weaker than groups. To return to Harvard for a moment, it's the difference between picking a fight with the football team and picking a fight with Michael Kinsley.

Collectivism makes for a very large and, hence, very powerful group. This power is centralized in the government. Any power is open to abuse.

Government power is not necessarily abused more often than personal power, but when the abuse does come, it's a lulu. At work, power over the whole supply cabinet is concentrated in the person of the office manager. In government, power over the entire military is concentrated in the person of the commander-in-chief. You steal felt tip pens. Hitler invades Poland.

Most government abuse of power is practiced openly, and much of it is heartily approved by The Washington Post editorial board and other such proponents of the good and the fair. But any time the government treats one person differently than another because of the group to which that person belongs-whether it's a group of rich, special-interest tax dodgers or a group of impoverished, minority job-seekers-individual equality is lessened and freedom is diminished. Any time the government gives away goods and services-even if it gives them away to all people equally-individual dependence is increased and freedom is diminished. Any time the government makes rules about people's behavior when that behavior does not occasion real and provable harm to others-telling you to buckle your seat belt or forbidding you to publish pornography on the Internet-respect for the individual is reduced and freedom is diminished.

-- Ken Decker (kcdecker@att.net), December 29, 2000

Answers

"By observing the progress of mankind, we can see that the things that are good for everyone are the things that have increased the accountability of the individual, the respect for the individual and the power of the individual to master his own fate"

The "things that are good for everyone" is a utilitarian phrase, a la John Stuart Mills. And there are many problems with utilitarianism. The classic example is a black man accused of rape in a white town-he did not commit the crime. In fact he was framed by the mayor's white son. But the town is up in arms, and something must be done. Could it not be argued that the greater good(a feeling of security if they are convinced this guy committed the rape) is served by putting the black man behind bars? It has been proven through history that certain people have been convicted of crimes they did not commit by prosecutors who knew they did not commit the crime, simply to appease the greater good that their security was now enhanced.

If conservatism is indeed the product of utilitarianism(And I am not sure about this, but O'Rourke seems to think so), this is a reason I have so much trouble with the view point. Policy should not always be about the "greater good". Who is to determine what this greater good is? Public polls?

I read through this essay, and I cannot help but not believe the argument that what I just read is not "social darwinism". Does anybody on this board truly believe that were we to elimante all social programs tonight, there would not be full scale rioting in the streets within weeks? Does anyone really think that private citizens would be generous enough to set up a safety net, and fund charities at even 10% of the current level? Who right here, right now, would be willing to make a statement that they absolutely refuse to receive unemployment should they be laid off in the future?

Are there any takers on refusing to receive workers compensation? If there is a problem with big government, why would the solution be to go to the other extreme? You would think there would be a middle position, but bleeding heart liberals take the one extreme and the conservative folks take the other.

I sadly do not have the faith in my fellow citizens to give of themselves as freely as would be necessary to avoid mass starvation and skyrocketing crime in the absence of social programs. O'Rourke can certainly play with words in the constitution such as "promote" vs. "guarantee", but you cannot feed a principle to a starving child in Harlem. Practically speaking, the elimination of government programs would destroy this country.

One cannot chide someone for looking for a conservative utopia, where government is severly limited-but it is a red herring to compare our country's safety net with countries like China and nazi Germany-it is disingenious.

-- FutureShock (gray@matter.think), December 29, 2000.

FS,

Well thought out reply,cool and reasonable.

Meanwhile,I must,even as a lone citizen standing by myself on the mountain-top say that I would forgo the gov goodies,if in return it would quit stealing from me,double taxing etc..

I do have faith in my fellow compatriots,though that might be nieve,I still believe us to be *the most benevolent* society ever to grace the earth,the most giving country to exist.I cannot help but to believe also,that without the burden placed upon us by the burearacracy we would be even more giving and benevolent.What in the world did we do before social security?unemployment?,etc..? We as a society filled that role through individual,church and private organizations,sure,there were those that fell through the cracks but that will always fall through the cracks even in an ever expasive socialized system.

-- capnfun (capnfun1@excite.com), December 29, 2000.

That should have read.Sorry.

"but there will always be those that fall through the cracks,even in an ever expasive socialized system."

-- capnfun (capnfun1@excite.com), December 29, 2000.

To expand just a bit on Capn's comments with a question:

Were people dying of starvation in this country during the Great Depression? My impression was that even in such dire economic times, and in the absence of goverment programs, people managed to get fed and sheltered - though I'm certainly willing to be educated on the topic.

Here's my little view of history - it used to be the role of the Church and various other charities to do "good works" in the community. Those recieving the help might have had to sit through a boring sermon to get it, but didn't mind overly. Those providing the time and money to help out generally felt pretty good about it, even if they were leaned on a little bit when the collection plate was passed...

Nowadays, the government has taken over the "good works" roles, people resent the government that takes their money *and* the people to whom they give it, and the Church is left with nothing to do but whine about morality and drive more and more people away.

-- RC (randyxpher@aol.com), December 29, 2000.

FS,

A discussion of utilitarianism is far more complex than O'Rourke's intentionally comedic essay. The obvious "problem" you describe in your example has been addressed by utilitarian philosophers.

Even if your white townsfolk are appeased by the unjust hanging of a man, what are the more global consequences? One can argue that allowing a "lynching" does considerable damage to a community and beyond. In addition, "rule" utilitarianism considers not only a particular act on a particular occasion, but right or wrong according to whether an action is in accordance with or in violation of a useful rule; and a rule is judged useful or not by the consequences of its general practice. I suggest that the general practice of lynching does more harm than good.

Another clarification is the notion that the value of life is more than a balance of pleasure over pain. Some philosophers in the Utilitarian tradition have recognized certain nonhedonistic values like love, knowledge and the experience of beauty. By this standard, the value of a human life outweighs the comfort of a larger community.

What I find ironic in your response is that O'Rourke shares your fear. The lynching in a small town you describe is accomplished using the police power of the State. Like most conservatives, O'Rourke distrusts the centralized power of government. He thinks individuals should decide what is best for themselves. Given history, I think his distrust of government is well placed.

As for eliminating all social programs... this is the type of hyperbole O'Rourke is lampooning. Do we really need all of the social programs currently funded by the federal gov't? I remember the hue and cry before the welform reform in 1996. The liberals cried that we were going to see families in the streets. What happened? The welfare rolls dropped by over 50% in some areas. Social services moved away from income maintenance and towards economic independence. Well-intentioned social programs helped create a culture of dependency and a generation of fatherless, inner city children.

I would gladly forgo social security, medicare, worker's compensation and unemployment insurance in exchange for the money that is taken out of my check every month. I trust my ability to earn (and save) money more than I trust the federal government's ability to manage it for me.

As for your faith in your fellow citizens... what? You think government should extort what people are not willing to give? This country existed before the rise of the welfare state and could easily function in its absence.

-- Ken Decker (kcdecker@att.net), December 29, 2000.

Decker, don't you feel even a little bit hypocritical when you slander those patriots who actually put their bodies and property on the line when they resist the "collectivist"?

-- KoFE (your@town.USA), December 29, 2000.

Ken-

This is an interesting statement you made:

"Well-intentioned social programs helped create a culture of dependency and a generation of fatherless, inner city children."

This conclusion does not seem to be supported anywhere in your response. It is not necessarily logical that because there are well- intentioned social programs, and because there are generations of fatherless, inner city children, that this is a result of those programs. I think you know what I am getting at here, as I gave an example of the logical problem the other day on the education thread. The problem there was that a) More money was given to education b) test scores went down c) test cores went down because more money was thrown at the schools. If you want to draw this conclusion, show me how the premise does not contain the conclusion.

You speak of welfare reform, and the warnings of the liberals. I can tell you that though the statistics look "good"(statistics only tell you what you want to see), there ARE starving families in the street my friend. My wife works with them-pro bono legal work in domestic violence and other areas. There is a quiet poor now, not getting the widespread press it did before, and nothing has really changed for the better as far as I can see in New York City. Maybe that is too bad for them-I really do not know-I am open to other solutions-maybe we are supposed to have our disproportionate share of the downtrodden- but the facts remain that for our economic prowess, we rank poorly in things like the health of our newborns(we rank below many countries in childhood mortality rates), and our crime rates are inordinately high compared to other countries.

I will be honest. I would rather the money be taken out of my check to distribute to the unfortunates, for if I had the extra money, I would be going away to my favorite B and B more often, and going out to dinner more regularly. I may be a bit more generous than I had been, but I do not think the average self-centered american is going to make a difference in the larger scheme of things.

The population of our country was much much smaller during the great depression-I do not know historically what the poverty rate was, but I have to guess that it was pretty severe as the backlash from it was the New Deal. We have become too large a country to rely on the churches to solve all of our social problems, absent a safety net. Maybe it was sufficient then, in the 30's, but I do not believe that model would work now; there are too many folk in need.

My overall take on this country of ours is that we have tried to create a wonderful ideal-we have striven for the heights of a free society, a republic that at its center truly does believe we want to help one another and give opportunity to everybody. But it is my personal believe that the higher you aim, the lower you fall-the quest for the greatest freedom can lead quite rapidly to the greatest slavery-look at the rise in big business at the turn of the century up until world war II. Profit motives drove coal mines, meatpacking plants, and other large industries to treat workers like dogs. Absent government regulation, many businesses would try to get away with as much as they can-not only denying workers a living wage, but dumping toxic waste on our lands and in our waters.

I believe we are a country full of narcissism-I believe we were well intentioned at the framing of the constitution, and I believe that things did not work out as intended, and government programs evolved out of the exploitation of workers, out of the growing realization that private citizens were NOT going to meet the needs of their fellow citizens. Do you disagree that we should have a minimum wage? Do you think that we should pay folks as little as they are willing to be paid, because it is better than nothing?

Many american capitolists have shown they do not give a damn about their workers, and they do not give a damn where they dump waste or what the long term effects of their actions will be. It is make a buck now and the rest be damned. Again the greatest ideal-that we can be self made people and make as much money as we desire to make, has been perverted by our lack of concern for our fellow men. I cannot help but think of that book and movie(the one Travolta was in) about the cancer cluster in New England and The Grace Company(there was another company involved in this). I also cannot help but think about the story retold in the movie Erin Brockovich. I wish these were isolated incidents, but they are not. I live in a state where there are over a 100 superfund sites, which ironically has now produced the new EPA secreatary. The irony is not lost on me. Big business, left to their own devices, left free to pursue the "american dream", will trample over anyone who stands in the way.

This is why I have such concerns over the conservative agenda. Many of these folks seems to be on some fantasy island, that somehow reducing the size of the government will return our country to some imaginery "time before" when people cared about each other and helped each other. I think that most of our government programs are a necessary evil. The ideal platform you suggest may work in a country of 50 million-but a country of 281 million is just too large. There will be too little benevolence to go around.

One more thing. Many charities in this country are dubious at best. There are not enough reputable, honest charities around to accept all this new money that would come flooding into their couffers. Just how do you propose all these new charitable dollars be distributed?

-- FutureShock (gray@matter.think), December 29, 2000.

Kofe, the short answer is "no." I'd offer to discuss the matter further, but I imagine it would be a waste of time for both of us.

FS,

It seems you prefer not to discuss utilitarian philosophy of the abuse of state power. So be it. Let's talk welfare reform, a subject where I have professional experience. I worked in the nonprofit sector in human services and worked directly with welfare recipients early in my career. I have done policy analysis on state and local welfare programs and managed programs under the federal "Welfare-to-Work" legislation... all in the nonprofit sector.

My statement was not supported in my response. To do the subject justice would require a book... and the subject has already been well covered. Your reduction of the problem to a logical syllogism is inappropriate. Like any complex social policy, one must argue based on the weight of the evidence.

Until 1996, welfare (AFDC) was run as an income maintenance program. The system did not encourage economic independence... it simply provided a check to persons based on poverty. The reform of the system created incentives for both recipients and social services agencies to move people off welfare. These incentives included short- term and lifetime limits on welfare, requirements to work or participate in work preparation activities, fraud reduction strategies and incentives for social services agencies to reduce the rolls.

"This is not the end of welfare reform, this is the beginning, and we have to all assume responsibility." -- Bill Clinton, August 22, 1996

With those words, President Bill Clinton signed welfare reform legislation largely authored by congressional Republicans, making good on his now-famous promise to "end welfare as we know it." The new law replaced the 61-year-old federal guarantee of aid to the poor with a system of block grants to the states that imposes work requirements and a 5-year lifetime limit on benefits, while denying aid to all immigrants, legal or otherwise. CNN/Time

"All Americans, without regard to party, know that our welfare system is broken, that it teaches the wrong values, rewards the wrong choices, hurts those it was meant to help," Clinton said. "We also know that no one wants to change the current system in a good way more than people who are trapped in it."

What Clinton realized was that the welfare system (AFDC) started growing during the "War on Poverty" in 1965. Some thirty years later, the poverty rate had actually increased by a percentage point and the number of out-of-wedlock births had jumped from 5% to over 30%.

In short, welfare did not "fix" poverty despite the trillions of dollars spent. Welfare rolls increased and the social problem associated with welfare seemed intractable.

Until 1996, the democrats in Congress blocked any reform of the welfare system. In 1996, there were 12.8 million welfare recipients in the United States (DHHS) In June 2000, the number had fallen to 5.7 million, a reduction of 59%.

You statement that statistics "only tell you what you want to see" is silly and baseless. Statistics are as good or bad as the source data. Welfare reform has been under the microscope since 1996 and it is considered a success by conservatives and liberals. What is even sillier is substituting personal experience for statistical data in analyzing the impact of a national legislative reform. If you or your wife know of families "starving" in the street, I suggest you contact social services or your local charities. There is no reason for anyone in America to die of hunger.

In Anne Arundel County, Maryland, a single mother with three children living in public housing needs about $28,000 per year in income to replace all of her government benefits. I have been to the homes of welfare recipients... and rarely did I note the lack of cable television, a VCR and a microwave. The poor in America do quite well as compared to the poor in third world countries.

The real issue here is how to "fix" poverty. America tried to deal with poverty by giving people a check... and for 30+ years the welfare rolls increased. We are now trying the notion of personal responsibility... and the rolls are shrinking.

A safety net, FS, is just a hammock for some people. Few disagree that we should care for the truly disadvantaged, the profoundly disabled or the mentally ill. I think the able-bodied are capable of contributing to society... and that few things are more damaging than government handouts. Spend a month on one of the poor western reservations, FS, and tell me how the government subsidies have "helped" the Native Americans.

Sure, there should be basic protections for individuals including safety in the workplace. OSHA is also a wonderful example of how a government bureacracy can go well beyond common sense guidelines into the absurd.

But we are moving here from your agument against conservatives into an Upton Sinclair rant against capitalism. Enlightened conservatives realize businesses exist to make a profit... not to empower works or preserve the environment. The government has a legitimate role in protecting the public good from rapacious businesses.

The key here, FS, is not to lose sight of a very simple fact. Government can be just as odious as any business... and rarely does one have the protection of the courts when the governments decide to perform syphillis experiments or inter some Japanese Americans.

This is why I have concerns over the liberal agenda. Many of these folks seem to be on some fantasy island, that somehow allowing goverment to regulate every corner of one's life will make things better.

Finally, I'd love to see your data on the "many" charities in this country that are dubious. As far as an influx of money, this is how markets work. New money means new charities or the expansion of existing firms. The great advantage of the nonprofit sector is that bad charities can fail... unlike government agencies.

-- Ken Decker (kcdecker@att.net), December 29, 2000.