April 9, 2011

• It's the System, Stupid

  I'm sure you've all read plenty of overwrought bloggers and journalists (note; not same thing) who have tried to weigh in on the Planned Parenthood and NPR funding controversies. It's very easy to choose a side and complain that Republicans are creating a generation of cancer-ridden, uneducated women, or that Democrats are creating a generation of liberally-biased children (or would if their mothers hadn't already aborted them all). But let's put away such childish caricatures and look more deeply at this topic.

  Government exists to protect people and to assist them in the pursuit of happiness. Government is not supposed to be the direct provider of that happiness when better private sector options exist. How in the world is the government still in the radio and TV business when we have 10 million channels available to us? If NPR and PBS are so awesome, then why isn't some private company buying up all the second-rate British soaps and third-rate poets to create their own versions of NPR and PBS and make lots of money? Lack of competition from the private sector generally denotes that something is not that great of an idea, unless the idea requires tons of up-front investment that the private sector cannot or will not justify.

  And let's talk about Planned Parenthood and religiously-motivated charities. Why in the world would the government fund a business, whether explicitly or implicitly non-profit, EDIT that the majority of its citizens would find distasteful that makes the government appear to approve of some controversial practices that many citizens would disagree with? This makes me upset the way our funding of Middle Eastern strongmen makes me upset; our dollars signify blanket approval of anything and everything the organization does. END EDIT. If the government truly believes that such an organization is necessary and that the private sector cannot provide such services, the government should itself install such an organization instead of working through middlemen with dirty hands.

  Such organizations, by their very nature, also exist as proselytizing machines. Did the low-quality condoms you got from Planned Parenthood not work? Well, what do you know, they also have abortions available. Not at all a conflict of interest, right? Did the religious charity help you get off drugs? Well, what do you know, they want you to continue going to their services for the rest of your life. There's nothing wrong with this per se, but it's the type of cycle that our government should not be involved in.

  The government can pretend that it is not "directly" funding the organization's most controversial practices. But this is a ridiculous abstraction. If I give my drug-addicted sister $50 in groceries, guess what happens to the $50 she was going to spend on groceries? It goes to drugs. Any donation to an organization that engages in controversial activities makes it easier for said organization to carry out their controversial activities.

  In the end, meddling by the government to score points with various constituencies leads to problems down the road. Once we take a hard look at the organizations our government is supporting, be they left or right of center, we realize that our government should never have been in these businesses to begin with. It's a long-term, systematic problem that short-sighted governmental impulses have created. And don't even get me started on the problems created by businesses getting involved in spousal benefits! Sigh.

  Now if you'll excuse me, I'm off to tend to the potted tomato plant on my window sill. If I get three tomatoes from it, I intend to claim I'm an urban farmer and qualify for subsidies. Wish me luck*!
  *Ok, so MAYBE there isn't an urban farm program yet. Give it another 3 years, though.

  • 6:10 pm
  • 15 Comments