Health officials say part of the problem with the vaccine is the rigidity of the guidance.
“I would strongly encourage that we move forward with giving states the opportunity to be more expansive in who they can give the vaccine to,” said FDA Commissioner Stephen Hahn during a recent policy event.
Changes in the rules might help. But it will not fundamentally fix the problem. The vaccine roll-out will be unavoidably dysfunctional so long as it is controlled by government bureaucracy. That is because the most a bureaucracy can do is replace one set of highly arbitrary rules with another.
“You will never understand bureaucracies until you understand that for bureaucrats procedure is everything and outcomes are nothing,” economist Thomas Sowell once observed.
That is inescapably true, because bureaucrats are fundamentally disconnected from the social outcomes of their actions. Those social outcomes are extremely complex. Every decision about the distribution of a vaccine has innumerable impacts on the public. Prioritizing young health workers over the elderly will have many public benefits (more COVID patient care, etc.), but also many public costs (more direct risks to the most vulnerable population). There is no non-arbitrary way to balance the manifold public costs and benefits, or to incentivize bureaucrats to strike that balance.
Sowell is right. For bureaucrats, outcomes literally are nothing, because they have no way to make meaningful judgments about them. And for bureaucrats, procedure is necessarily everything, because it’s all they have to give their activity any kind of coherence.
“Public administration,” wrote Ludwig von Mises in his book Bureaucracy, “the handling of the government apparatus of coercion and compulsion, must necessarily be formalistic and bureaucratic.”
“Bureaucratization,” Mises added, “is necessarily rigid because it involves the observation of established rules and practices.”
The Entrepreneurial Alternative
Thankfully, this is not the case for private business and entrepreneurs.
For entrepreneurs, outcomes are everything, and procedure is, at most, a distant second. That is because the incentives of an entrepreneur have a tight and meaningful connection with social outcomes: namely, profit and loss.
Profit is often denounced as “selfish,” but it is actually a powerful and subtle way to tie private interest with public benefit. In fact, it is the only way to do so, given the extreme complexity of public benefits and costs discussed above.
The antidote to anti-American indoctrination is to keep proving, with facts and reason, the unique advantages of American society compared to other past or present civilizations. This will expose the double standard of anti-Americanism, which demonizes democracy’s imperfections but condones oppressive regimes’ crimes against humanity. It would significantly broaden and deepen children’s patriotic instruction in school. In college, instead of Marxist pseudo-science offered with a hefty price-tag, students would benefit from a rigorous training in American history and foundational philosophy contrasted with other political, economical, and social systems since ancient times and across the globe.
Educating people about America’s time-honored virtues as compared to the rest of the world will provide a much-needed frame of reference—a historical and geographical perspective that will give us a 20/20 vision of how good we have it. It will arm us with solid knowledge—with the unshakable realization that we cannot equate the flaws of a free country with the unfathomable atrocities of tyrannical governments. It will pierce the veil of cancel-culture groupthink and uncover its totalitarian core.https://www.capitalismmagazine.com/2020/11/why-i-love-america/
“It is time to demystify democracy. The surest effect of exalting democracy is to make it easier for politicians to drag everyone else down. Until presidents and members of Congress begin to honor their oath to uphold and defend the Constitution, they deserve all the distrust and disdain they receive. Americans need less faith in democracy and more faith in their own liberty.
The phrases which consecrate democracy seep into many Americans’ minds like buried hazardous waste.
If Joe Biden wins the presidential election, voters will be told that our political system is redeemed: the “will of the people” is now clear, Biden will rule with “the consent of the governed,” and Americans are obliged to again trust and obey the federal government. If Donald Trump is reelected, much of the same media will continue howling about imaginary Russian plots. But these notions remain dangerous delusions regardless of who is declared the winner on Election Day.
Americans are encouraged to believe that their vote on Election Day somehow miraculously guarantees that the subsequent ten thousand actions by the president, Congress, and federal agencies embody “the will of the people.” In reality, the more edicts a president issues, the less likely that his decrees will have any connection to popular preferences. It is even more doubtful that all the provisions of hefty legislative packages reflect majority support, considering the wheeling, dealing, and conniving prior to final passage.
A 2017 survey by Rasmussen Reports found that only 23 percent of Americans believe that the federal government has “the consent of the governed.” Political consent is defined these days as rape was defined a generation or two ago: people consent to anything which they do not forcibly resist.
Voters cannot complain about getting screwed after being enticed into a voting booth. Anyone who does not attempt to burn down city hall presumably consented to everything the mayor did. Anyone who does not jump the White House fence and try to storm into the Oval Office consents to all executive orders. Anyone who doesn’t firebomb the nearest federal office building consents to the latest edicts in the Federal Register. And if people do attack government facilities, then they are terrorists who can be justifiably killed or imprisoned forever.
In the short term, the most dangerous democratic delusion is that conducting an election makes government trustworthy again.
When scandals erupt, citizens will be told to trust politically approved fixes to the system—even though most Washington reforms are like fighting crime by hiding the corpses of victims.
Until presidents and members of Congress begin to honor their oath to uphold and defend the Constitution, they deserve all the distrust and disdain they receive. Americans need less faith in democracy and more faith in their own liberty.”
Given the expanding role of government and erosion of individual liberty that occurs under both fascism & socialism, and the murderous history of each, why is communism/collectivism so much more palatable than National Socialism?
“…the company is learning marketing progressive ideas is easier than implementing socialist-style economics.”
“For months, company leaders have been resisting a unionization effort by workers at their Weaverville, North Carolina plant.”
“I sincerely believe that right now a union would be a terrible thing for you and for No Evil Foods,” Mike Woliansky, the co-founder and CEO of No Evil Foods, told his employees earlier this year. “You could get the same thing you currently have. You could get less than you currently have. I don’t think you need a union voice here.”
Dr. Zuhdi Jasser, a devout Muslim, speaks to Candace Owens about the dangers of political/theocratic Islam and its incompatibility with the Constitutional Representative Republic form of government in the USA. He discusses the ideological roots of theocratic Islam and it’s alliance with social collectivism and separtist/fascist movements of the 20th Century. He contends that disruption, by speaking truth to power, within the Muslim communities will be the only force effective enough to bring about reforms compatible with western democracy.
While Joe Biden and Kamala Harris go on and on about leadership we should look back to leadership lessons from Thomas Jefferson’s first inaugural address.
Harris says she wants a mandate, yet Jefferson understood the country was a republic, not a democracy. In the Constitution, there are no provisions for claiming a governing mandate; claiming to have a mandate based on a majority vote, Jefferson would say violates a “sacred principle” and makes you an oppressive tyrant:
“Though the will of the majority is in all cases to prevail, that will to be rightful must be reasonable; that the minority possess their equal rights, which equal law must protect, and to violate would be oppression.”
Many have pointed out that today’s progressives behave like “Medieval Inquisitors.” Jefferson pointed to political intolerance as “despotic” and as “wicked” as religious intolerance:
Let us restore to social intercourse that harmony and affection without which liberty and even life itself are but dreary things. And let us reflect that, having banished from our land that religious intolerance under which mankind so long bled and suffered, we have yet gained little if we countenance a political intolerance as despotic, as wicked, and capable of as bitter and bloody persecutions.
So, what should government do? Jefferson was clear:
A wise and frugal Government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government, and this is necessary to close the circle of our felicities.
In his address, Jefferson didn’t promise a single new program, but he explored the principles by which he would lead:
Equal and exact justice to all men, of whatever state or persuasion, religious or political; peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations, entangling alliances with none; the support of the State governments in all their rights, as the most competent administrations for our domestic concerns and the surest bulwarks against anti-republican tendencies…
Welcome to Friday’s Philosophical Foray beyond Healthcare!
Government bureaus are not needed for mass censorship. You only need people in authority willing to acquiesce to the intimidation tactics of an idea-censoring, anti-free speech mob wielding their social & professional weaponry like pitchforks.
Rule One: Speak your mind at your own peril. Rule Two: Never risk commissioning a story that goes against the narrative. Rule Three: Never believe an editor or publisher who urges you to go against the grain. Eventually, the publisher will cave to the mob, the editor will get fired or reassigned, and you’ll be hung out to dry.
“The above is a quotation from George Orwell’s preface to Animal Farm, titled “The Freedom of the Press,” where he discussed the chilling effect the Soviet Union’s influence had on global publishing and debate far beyond the reach of its official censorship laws.