The End of Our Way of Life:
Innovation has been the life blood of the American success story. Diverse individual ideas are the driving force behind innovation. But the legacy of the United States of America may be at its apex.
We are dangerously close to a precipice. The Federal US government determines more and more. At some point, in the not-too-distant future, we will awaken to realize that we have become a socialized state.
Innovation, through the years, has allowed us to devote more resources toward solving problems. Nowhere is this more evident than in agriculture. Previous to last century, 80% of the population was devoted to the production of food. Innovative techniques and tools have reduced this man-power expenditure to a scant 20% of the population, while we export more food than ever before. When there were only 20% of us doing everything other than agricultural work, there would have been less scientists and researchers. Now that 60% of us are freed up from food production, a lot more of us can pursue our passions.
Massive shifts in the labor market helped to cause the great depression. Once the labor was reabsorbed and people learned new skills, new technologies began to arrive in earnest. Suddenly, our society could afford for people to sit around and day-dream. We encouraged it. Then something went awry.
At some time in the recent past, a large number of people in the US decided that security is more important than freedom. They haven’t yet come to realize that you must sacrifice innovation when you opt for security.
I work for a large corporation. I have had several innovative ideas that I have not pursued for the security of working for a corporation. My ideas may have been successful, but they may have failed. I didn’t try them because I feel that I can’t risk the failure at this time in my life. This might be a prudent choice. It might be a terrible decision. Time will tell. I will serve as an example to others one way or the other.
Insecurity is one of the problems that we humans try to solve. We give security blankets to babies. We created Social Security for those that didn’t or couldn’t save for a retirement. We create new laws, daily, designed to protect us from problems.
The problem is that a select few are solving these problems. Is a group of 600 people more likely to develop, implement, and manage a solution to a problem than a group of millions?
When a few people are placed in charge of production and distribution, as with socialism, the drive to increase efficiency declines. In my imagination, Jane Smith didn’t develop the new baby-wipe because one government bureau after another, just to get started, was too daunting a task. But that’s what government intervention does to people; diminishes the drive to make things better.
If the government starts to control production (health care is a product, ladies and gentlemen) we will have shortages in supply or increase in cost. Doctors are not robots. The doctor’s staff needs to be paid. When the government decides the price for the Doctor’s time, it is, in essence, stealing from the Doctor, and reducing the incentive for another doctor to compete based upon price. This leads to a shortage in doctors and an increase in cost.
Our way of life is under attack by those that, mostly with good intentions, have not thought through governmental control of our lives.
Carrick
JazzyKat
nunez
Craig
realitybasedbob
robert108