Wild-Eyed Libertarian (Part Four)

In which His Crankiness finally attempts to explain exactly what he means by bleeding heart. Warning: It's a long one, you might need a beverage. It's all about my bleeding heart, the "other shtuff" I mentioned last week will have to wait till next week.

If you're new here, this is a weekly column consisting of letters written to my grandchildren (who exist) and my great-grandchildren (who aren't here yet), the Stickies, to haunt them after they become grups and/or I'm dead.

[Bloggaramians: Blogarama renders the links in my columns useless. Please click on View original to solve the problem/access lotsa columns.]

Irregularly Appearing Imaginary Guest Stars

Marie-Louise -- My beautiful muse (right shoulder) and back scratcher 

Iggy -- My designated Sticky 

Dana -- My designated gentlereader (left shoulder)

"There are two primary choices in life: to accept conditions as they exist, or accept responsibility for changing them." -Denis Waitley

Dear (eventual) Grandstickies & Great-Grandstickies,

The Citizens of the Republic (well, mostly) are a...

[Dana: Ah geez, there he goes again. Uncharacteristically, the gang has appeared early on in the proceedings. I suspect they're as anxious to wrap up this series of columns as I am. Dana and Marie-Louise are at their assigned shoulders. Iggy's stretched out on my bed, earbuds in place and softly singing, off key.]

Sorry, I just think it sounds cool. Also, I'm subtly making a point. The Founding Dudes set up a republic so we wouldn't be subject to the tyranny of the majority (mobocracy). Facebook, Twitter, and the like are a perfect illustration of why...

[Cough, cough. That was Marie-Louise. Dana laughs.]

Point taken. Grandstickies/Great-Grandstickies, I hope that by the time your generation is in charge, the left v. right war over how to build and operate a social safety net is over, or at least a workable truce is in place. Assuming, of course, we haven't devolved into a continent of warlord-led nation states by then. If not (or, for my gentlereaders, in the meantime...)

Warning: Sweeping Generalizations Ahead

Americans (well, mostly) are a generous, fair-minded lot.

However, Lefties tend to favor a social welfare state, to one degree or another.

Righties, to one degree or another, would prefer that the gummits role be minimal, that the private sector (as was mostly the case pre-FDR) provide the social safety net. Which, once upon a time, it did.

Except for when it often didn't, which I have a problem with, even though I tend to identify with the Righties.

And, lest we forget, there are no shortage of (seemingly endless) arguments within the clubhouses of both teams.

[Dana (who leans to the left) and Marie-Louise (who leans to the right), start arguing. Yikes! I'm a triggerer.]

Finally, we're at the mercy of the professional Pols of the Depublican and Republicrat parties and whoever it is (all I know is it's not you or me) that keeps putting the same people back in power.

The Depublicans, having secured control (for a minute...) of Congress and the Presidency "fixed" our screwy health care system via 2,300 pages of legislation and spent $200,000,000 bucks of our money on a PR campaign to sell it -- to us.

The Republicrats, having secured control (for a minute...) of Congress and the Presidency last fall, and having had 7.5 years to prepare, attempted to fix the fix, and (for the moment at least) failed, --but now are going to fix our screwy tax code.

End Sweeping Generalizations Zone

This is yet another reason America needs a reluctant, benevolent, mostly hands-off monarch (as long as it's me and/or my chosen successor) to occasionally step out from behind the curtain and split the baby. Fear not, I offer broad-strokes only. My Royal Privy Council of Perspicacious Polymaths will design the new system and sweat the details.

Righties: While I'm sympathetic to your cause and familiar with your arguments, we must be realistic. The welfare state isn't going to just go away and we need to forge a compromise and move on. Americans, in some form or fashion, take care of their fellow Americans.

Lefties: While I'm sympathetic to your cause and familiar with your arguments (in fact, as a callowyute, embraced them) we must be realistic. Not to worry, the welfare state isn't going away, but we need to forge a rational compromise and move on. Americans, in some form or fashion, take care of their fellow Americans.

Case in point -- there's been a law in place since 1986 that mandates that any hospital that receives funds from The Gummit (most of them) must provide emergency care to any poor soul that shows up. They are not compensated for this and no one that I'm aware of is calling for the law's repeal, including me.


[Gentlereaders of all political persuasions, consider this. The Dizzinformation age is upon us. It's literally impossible to not be aware of the destitute regardless of whether their destitution is the result of bad luck, bad choices, or something in between.

It's also literally impossible for a grup to not be aware that no matter how financially secure and physically healthy you may be at the moment, fate may be tightening up some fishing line stretched across the top of a steep flight of stairs that stands between you and your cozy living room with the Lay-Z-Boy and your new TV with the drive-in sized screen. 

Not your problem? Survival of the fittest? That's fine, it's a relatively free country, except... Those you wash your hands of don't have to stop at Pitchforks, Clubs, & Torches Are Us before dropping in to say hi to you and the family. They can come at you electronically without getting off their rent-to-own furniture (well, as long as they're up to date on the payments...).]


My inner libertarian, and the fact I live (well, I try...) in the real world, makes me doubt that The Gummits and the gummits current system is capable of providing an effective, efficient social safety net (genuine "social security").

What we have now are huge, hulking, expensive, impersonal programs run by unelected, mostly unaccountable bureaucrats that encourage dependency and punish ambition, (if you don't know what the Welfare Cliff is you really need to click on the link, I'll be here when you get back.)

BIG BUT

Singapore, as I've written elsewhere (but, being 39, I can't remember where) has a health care system that gets results we can only dream about while spending far less money. It's part of a comprehensive cradle to grave social safety net. You can access some of the wonky details here.

Not into wonky details? Not up for a walkabout in the tall weeds? Allow your friendly neighborhood crank to summarize.

The title of the article about the wonky details mentioned above is, "Social Policy In Singapore A Crucible of Individual Responsibility" (my emphasis).

Three highly relevant quotes if you please.

"...many capitalist democracies in Europe and Scandinavia spend over 35% of their Gross Domestic Product (GDP) on these programmes. Even the US, often assailed as a laggard in social spending and solidarity, spends 32%."

And, "...the government of Singapore spends only 16.7% of its GDP on all its social programmes...".

Finally, "Solidarity is the principle that the people of a nation, often operating through their government, accept some responsibility for helping fellow citizens (and even non-citizens) avoid destitution and enjoy some of the fruits of modern economies."

Full disclosure, the article dates to 2011 and programs ain't spelled wrong, at least from the author's perspective. You really should read it, it's not that wonky, but I know, I know, you're busy and you're tired.


Bottom line it for us Cranky...

Well, instead of you and/or your employer paying into programs (think Social Security and the like) legally mandated by The Gummit and the gummits...

and/or you and/or your employer paying into voluntary programs (think 401(k) and the like)...

You and your employer both pay into a legally mandated program that provides pensions, health care, and housing.

[That's socialism! Dana snorts. Were you high when you wrote part three? You said that... Marie-Louise Gibsmacks him and they both storm out of my consciousness, arguing as they go. Iggy doesn't even look up.]

No, it's not. Within certain limits, a given citizen decides how the money is spent. Your pension collects interest, and unlike Social Security, there's actually money in the bank, not IOUs placed there by the professional Pols who spend it faster than it comes in.

You choose how to spend your health care money. It's a (highly, carefully, and intelligently) regulated system, but, consumer choice and competition, just like in the real world (that the current American healthcare system only tangentially participates in...) drives prices down.

C'mon, read the article, watch the video -- you'll thank me. Oh, by the way, 79% of Singaporeans own their own apartment (itty-bitty Singapore doesn't have that many houses).


"A good compromise is when both parties are dissatisfied." -Larry David. King Crank's Compromise is bound to do just that. And although he wasn't talking about political parties...

The Depublicans won't like it. They're the party of select special interests (read factions) and the self-selected elites of the Infotainment Industrial Complex. Their various factions, one of which consists of the employees of the gummits and The Gummit, all want to maintain or enlarge their slice of the pie.

Our self-selected elites think we're too stupid to be trusted with managing our own money. This is the gang that gave us, and still support, Obamacare.

The Republicrats won't like it. They're the party of um, well, that depends on who exactly you're talking about and whether or not they have an election pending, or if they're certain people that seem to be perpetually pursuing the presidency. Do you realize the next election is less than four years away? 7.5 years and the party (allegedly) of small gummit and free markets doesn't have a healthcare policy they can agree on. Please.

Thus, reluctantly, the future King of America will take care of it, all without firing a single tweet. Poppa loves you.

Have an OK day.


[P.S. Gentlereaders, for 25¢ a week, no, seriously, for 25¢ a week you can become a Patron of this weekly column and help to prevent an old crank from running the streets at night in search of cheap thrills and ill-gotten gains.

If there are some readers out there that think my shtuff is worth a buck or three a month, color me honored, and grateful. Regardless, if you like it, could you please share it? There are buttons at the end of every column.]


©2017 Mark Mehlmauer   (The Flyoverland Crank)

If you're reading this on my website (where there are tons of older columns, a glossary, and other goodies) and if you wish to react (way cooler than liking) -- please scroll down.

Wild-Eyed Libertarian (Part Three)

If you're new here, this is a weekly column consisting of letters written to my grand/great-grandchildren to haunt them after they become grups or I'm dead.

[Bloggaramians: Blogarama renders the links in my columns useless. Please click on View original to solve the problem/access lotsa columns.]

Irregularly Appearing Imaginary Guest Stars 

Marie-Louise.....My beautiful muse (right shoulder) and back scratcher 
Iggy....................Designated Sticky
Dana..................Designated gentlereader (left shoulder)

"If you put the government in charge of the Sahara Desert, in five years there'd be a shortage of sand." -Milton Friedman


Dear (eventual) Grandstickies & Great-Grandstickies,

OK class, let's review.

In part one I declared myself to be a wild-eyed libertarian with a bleeding heart and conservative impulses. I explored what I mean by libertarian.

"... I want the playground to have minimum rules and maximum fun. I want just enough rules to give everyone an equal shot at some swing time and neutralize the bullies." -me

I promised to explain (justify?) my bleeding heart and conservative impulses in part two.

In part two I only explored my conservative impulses; my bleeding heart was left out in the cold. I explained that this was due to my writing style, edited stream of consciousness.

To wit, while I prefer to travel with the current and try to stay in the middle of the river for the sake of safety and efficiency, shtuff happens. Also, I often don't know where I'm going till I get there (pretty much the story of my life...).

This was/is all true. But it's also true that I had/am having a helluva time nailing down the bleeding heart part.


Because...

As I mentioned in part one, I discovered that left-wing libertarianism is a thing. It's such a thing that Wikipedia has separate and distinct articles for both it and its right-wing brother sister cousin ex-spouse?

I wasn't exactly shocked. As I mentioned in part one, I'm aware that libertarians are all over the political map. But I have to confess I've never gone walkabout in the tall weeds even though I voted for the Libertarian Party candidate in the last election. Your dilettante about town (that would be me) was unaware that left-wing libertarians versus right-wing libertarians is a thing.

For the record, I think of myself as a center-right libertarian sort, but I strongly support the No Labels movement. I'm a big fan of compromise for the sake of maintaining a peaceful playground (compromise, don't demonize) where all the kids can have fun.


Now, I was aware that support for a gummit run social safety net is generally considered to be a center-left/liberal/progressive fundamental, which isn't/wasn't a big deal to me and my bleeding heart.

But when I read the Wikipedia entry for left-libertarianism, in short order, I tripped over the words socialist, anarchist, and communist. Yikes! There are far lefties that call themselves libertarians? Huh? Why didn't I know that? 

In my defense, my fascination with current events dates back to grade school, and if anything has gotten stronger over the years. However, a fascination with politics has faded in direct proportion to my ever expanding political cynicism.

I firmly believe that my fellow Citizens of the Republic should strive to stay informed and vote if they honestly believe they've got a clue. I also firmly believe that in politics, and everything else (but particularly politics), the best you can do is hope for, and strive for, the best -- but always be prepared for the worst.

When I was an idealistic callowyute, my hippie with a job period, I had a vague, ill-considered notion that socialism and hippie sensibilities would save the world. I didn't actually know all that much about socialism, but it sounded good.

Alright, I admit it, I didn't have a clue. At least I didn't vote. It was widely understood at the time, at least in certain circles, that "the man" was in control of everything so there was no point to it. This is embarrassing, let's move on.

Now that I've reached the ripe old age of 39, I  believe I do have a clue. As I mentioned above I want the playground to have minimum rules and maximum fun. You may disagree but the Founding Dudes are on my team. And I have been paying attention for the better part of, um, 39 years.

In my semi-humble opinion, socialism and communism, not necessarily in theory but always in practice, generate big, sticky, bureauonated, liberty-limiting gummits where everyone is equally miserable -- except for the boss(es) who embody the lesson of Orwell's, Animal Farm. "All the animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others."

[Alright, I'll bite, what's any of this got to do with you trying to define your bleedin' bleeding heart? Dana is awake. Marie-Louise got here first and is scratching my back, she loves Animal Farm. 

Iggy materializes, the gang's all here.  Hey, Iggy! Hey, Poppa, like, what's Animal Farm?]

And don't even get me started on anarchists and anarchism. Sure, there are thoughtful, gentle, well-spoken anarchists in the world. However, I can't help but notice that there seems to be no shortage of doomed to be forever broken hearted romantics and idealists who haven't/can't/won't become grups.

Also, there's the issue of the sociopathic/psychopathic cohort. For example, the masked, black hoodie-wearing types that destroy and/or loot businesses, large or small, and toss paving stones at the cops that try to stop them. (Google the following: riots at anti-globalism protests.)


And there's another problem.

Although it might get me banned from certain libertarian clubhouses, I am all for a rationally designed social safety net run by the gummits and The Gummit.

However, I want a system that's set up to accurately measure (real, not politically motivated) results that is run by a flexible bureaucracy required to put the customers (us) first.

Surely the nation that put a man on the moon can do better than the complex, expensive (and growing like a weed), often ineffective system we now have. Did we lose the war on poverty and the war on drugs?

I'm also acutely aware of, though admittedly barely familiar with, something called public choice theory (PCT). Wikipedia sez "... the use of economic tools to deal with traditional problems of political science."

I know enough to know it maintains that politicians and gummit employees behave no differently than the rest of us do at work. Some are driven/dedicated/etc, many are weasels, most fall somewhere in between.

"...governments are not run by omniscient benevolent despots, but by individuals. Individuals acting in the political arena are the same individuals who act within markets. They are just as self-interested and  prone to ignorance as any other population." -Students For Liberty

Sounds right to me, commonsensical in fact. The guy who came up with PCT called it "politics without romance."

The Economist: "James Buchanan, a Nobel Prize-winning economist and the architect of 'public choice theory'...eschewed the professions embrace of complex models and maths in favor of serious reflection on political philosophy...". Rock on! Dr. Buchanan.

So, in light of the above, and parts one and two, just what do I mean when I describe myself as a wild-eyed libertarian with a bleeding heart? I want a compromise, a social safety net that combines the best aspects of the private and public sector. See...

Ah geez, I've already broken the word limit...

Stickies (and gentlereaders), looks like there's gonna' be a part four. Two years and there's never been a part four before. Sorry, it's me, not you. I didn't plan it this way.

I don't plan. I just write, see what happens, clean it up or throw it away. Not as I would, but as I can. (Hey! I just invented a tagline?/motto?/_______?)

I pinky swear that not only will the next part be the last part I'll define my bleeding heart early on. I need to talk about some other shtuff. Poppa loves you.

Have an OK day.


[P.S. Gentlereaders, for 25¢ a week, no, seriously, for 25¢ a week you can become a Patron of this weekly column and help to prevent an old crank from running the streets at night in search of cheap thrills and ill-gotten gains.

If there are some readers out there that think my shtuff is worth a buck or three a month, color me honored, and grateful. Regardless, if you like it, could you please share it? There are buttons at the end of every column.]


©2017 Mark Mehlmauer   (The Flyoverland Crank)

If you're reading this on my website (where there are tons of older columns, a glossary, and other goodies) and if you wish to react (way cooler than liking) -- please scroll down.

Wild-Eyed Libertarian (Part Two)

In which, Poppa, self-described wild-eyed libertarian with a bleeding heart and conservative impulses, as promised in part one, explains (justifies?) his bleeding heart and conservative impulses. My bleeding heart will be covered in Part 3. Such are the vicissitudes of my edited stream of consciousness style of writing.

If you're new here, this is a weekly column consisting of letters written to my grandchildren (who exist) and my great-grandchildren (who aren't here yet) -- the Stickies -- to haunt them after they become grups and/or I'm dead.

[Blogaramians: Blogarama renders the links in my columns useless. Please click on View original to solve the problem/access lotsa columns.]

Irregularly Appearing Imaginary Guest Stars

Marie-Louise -- My beautiful muse (right shoulder) and back scratcher 

Iggy -- Designated Sticky

Dana -- Designated gentlereader (left shoulder)

Dear (eventual) Grandstickies & Great-Grandstickies,

Conservative impulses? Harumph. Personally, I don't think of my conservative impulses as conservative impulses. I think of them as the practicing of good manners (GM) and as sort of new millennium version of modesty (M).

Also, cultivating strategic taste (ST).

[Gentlereaders, for the record, I have no problem with cultivating good taste. In fact, considering our seemingly ever coarsening culture, I can't recommend it enough.]

I came up with strategic taste because in matters of good taste, while I personally hold any number of semi-humble opinions about good taste, I hesitate to inflict them on anyone else. Louis Armstrong said that if you like it, it's good music. However, I reserve the right to point and giggle when the emperor isn't wearing any clothes (you've been warned...).

Strategic taste refers to, well, here's an example. Sometimes a good fart joke is just what's called for, but all fart jokes all the time? not so much. That is to say, knowing when to show some class or style, as opposed to knowing when it's time to get down and dirty.

That is also to say, employing GMMST to keep the playground family friendly, but respecting that what consenting adults choose to get up to behind closed doors is nunya (none of your _______ business), as long as they employ GMMST. More on this in a future letter.


I used to think that most, or at least many of my fellow Citizens of the Republic, regardless of assigned political or demographic labels, would find my "conservative" impulses to be reasonable.

Nowadays, however, I have my doubts; I may (I hope) be wrong. More on that in just a sec'. Nothing to be alarmed about. I'm in the wrong with disturbing regularity. Being a libertarian, I have no desire to see most of 'em, my conservative impulses that is, turned into laws, not even when I become (the world's first libertarian) king. "Libertarians share a skepticism of authority and state power." -Wikipedia

Be forewarned, however, for once I'm the King of America, although I will (as previously promised) rule with a very light/benevolent hand, I shall assert my power when I deem it absolutely necessary. For example, the very first edict I'll issue, post-coronation revelry of course, will be The Great Abortion Compromise.

As to those doubts that I now have that many of my fellow Citizens of the Republic would find my alleged conservative impulses to be reasonable? I wish to illustrate my doubts with a boring old man story (BOMS).

Contrasting the story below with the links that folloe will clearly illustrate, the who, what, when, where, and why of my (alleged) conservative impulses.

[Note: A BOMS is not necessarily (but often is) boring. Nor does it necessarily refer to a story (boring or otherwise) told by a boring old man (although he often is). It's the name I painted on the front of the phenomenon that many old men feel compelled to tell stories, boring or otherwise. However, anyone is capable of telling a boring old man story.

A proven, scientific reason for this phenomenon, the need for geezers like myself to mansplain the world to the world, eludes us. Personally, I think it's genetic. Fortunately, most women of a certain age are not afflicted, proving, yet again, female H. sapiens are generally more evolved than the males.]


BOMS: When I was in public high school, reveling in/adjusting to/slightly terrified by the dramatic contrast of eight years of traditional Catholic grade school to a public high school in the late sixties, I had a friend named Bernie.

Bernie took delight in the use of profanity. Bernie took particular delight in demonstrating his cursing chops to females. I took delight in Bernie as he was considerably braver than my high school persona.

At the time, the dark ages, although rapidly drawing to a close, we're not going away quietly and still exerted much influence in the world. Also, I -- an introverted, insecure, hormone-saturated callowyute -- walked with one foot in the dark ages and one in the revolution.

Bernie swore like a sailor, but rarely in front of grups, particularly authority figures. At the time, to do so was a major violation of the rapidly fraying social contract. I realize this is still true in certain, seemingly ever shrinking circles. However, nowadays it's more likely to be a mere technical violation. Back then, setting off f-bombs was a felony as they were packed with psychic shrapnel.

As to girls...

[Gentlereaders, in my little corner of Flyoverland, referring to H. sapiens identified as female on their birth certificates, and under the age of 18, as girls, is considered acceptable and is commonly practiced. If I'm stepping on anyone's politically correct and/or gender neutral toes I insincerely apologize.]

As to girls, although the miniskirt was all the rage at the time (thank you, God), many a maiden still maintained a modicum of modesty even as we were all busy coming to grips with the overdue and necessary women's liberation movement.

Which brings us back to Bernie. Bernie's excessive use of profanity served two purposes.

Like all adolescents, since the invention of the teenager and youth culture in the early 1940s at least, rebellion against grup norms was/is expected. Anyone that has gone through this stage and lived long enough to become a grup knows that peeing on a given grup norm, rocks. This was the first of the two reasons Bernie loved to cuss.

The second was the bad boy thing. Bad boys, real bad boys (what are you going to do?) are born that way. The rest/most of us, are not.

Now, remember, I was reveling in/adjusting to/slightly terrified by the dramatic contrast of eight years of traditional Catholic grade school to a public high school in the late sixties (and surrounded by mini-skirted maidens).

And I know you'll find this hard to believe, but back in the dark ages, many, and all sorts, of female H. sapiens, "good girls" and otherwise, were often attracted by/in relationships with bad boys. Therefore, the rest of us tried to adopt what bad boys ways we thought we could reasonably fake in order to facilitate job-one -- find out what's going on underneath all those mini skirts.

[Stickies, the phrase good girls probably had a different meaning in the dark ages than what you might be thinking. A dated definition that you needn't concern yourself with (unlike GMMST).]

Long story short (too late?), profanity was a bad boy characteristic and employed because most girls back then were generally much less likely to cuss than boys. Carpet bombing (Bernie tended to get carried away) a "chick" with profanity might provoke shock or nervous giggles. Or shocked nervous giggles. Or a look of revulsion. Or... well actually, it didn't matter.

The point was to prove that while you may not actually be a full-fledged bad boy, you had bad boy characteristics. It was hoped that this might make you more attractive to chicks. We didn't understand the why of it any more than we understood the mysterious nature of the female mind (any better then than we do now), me and Bernie anyway. We just wanted girlfriends. End of BOMS.


Found on the web, July 4th holiday weekend, 2017.

The rise of 'designer nipples' 

Real-Life Vampire Couple Says Sucking Blood Is Better Than Sex

ATTN. MEN: We Don't Care If You Can See Our Buttholes (PG)

"A conservative [or maybe even a wild-eyed libertarian with conservative impulses?] is someone who stands athwart history, yelling Stop, at a time when no one is inclined to do so, or to have much patience with those who so urge it." -William F. Buckley Jr. Poppa loves you. 

Have an OK day.


[P.S. Gentlereaders, for 25¢ a week, no, seriously, for 25¢ a week you can become a Patron of this weekly column and help to prevent an old crank from running the streets at night in search of cheap thrills and ill-gotten gains.

If there are some readers out there that think my shtuff is worth a buck or three a month, color me honored, and grateful. Regardless, if you like it, could you please share it? There are buttons at the end of every column.]


©2017 Mark Mehlmauer   (The Flyoverland Crank)

If you're reading this on my website (where there are tons of older columns, a glossary, and other goodies) and if you wish to react (way cooler than liking) -- please scroll down.