Obligatory Reagan post

Okay, here's my obligatory Reagan post for the week. Given that he's now died and that every media outlet imaginable has made him the center of attention all week, how can I not be included in this tidal wave of overblown emotion? Yes, he was a good President. Yes, he was a good person and actor. Yes, he died. And, yes, there's other news worthy stuff to report on. Move on. Please.

That said, I'd like to take this moment to comment on an article by William Saletan over a slate.com. The entire Slate cast of reporters has really gone quite overboard picking on Reagan this week, but it's Saletan's article that stands out. In his article, Saletan comments on what he calls "Reagan's Law".

"There's a clear cause and effect here that is as neat and predictable as a law of physics: As government expands, liberty contracts." Reagan's Farewell Address in January 1989

Saletan asks the following question:

" . . . do you define liberty as the right to do things, or the ability to take advantage of that right? If liberty is the right to make a decent living or attend a good school, then getting government out of the way will suffice. But if liberty is the ability to make a decent living or attend a good school, then getting government out of the way isn't enough. In fact, government expansion, in the form of student loans or job training, may be necessary.

I counter that liberty isn't necessarily either of these, but, instead, is the "protection against the tyranny of the political rulers" - John Stuart Mill On Liberty. This is the intent of the founding fathers when they authored the Declaration of Independence, and likely what Reagan had in mind. As such, if follows that as the government or the "tyranny of the political rulers" grows, individual Liberty, or the protection from that tyranny, must decrease.

Regardless of what it's called, though, Saletan's question is interesting. Take his example of the right to make a decent living and think through it. If a decent living a wage above the poverty level the minimum wages must be set accordingly given what would be expected to be a normal work period. As wages increase to that level, the costs of goods and services generated by that labor would also increase. This, in turn would increase the cost of living for those buying these goods and services and would eventually raise the poverty level for those unable to afford the essential goods and services impacted by the higher wage. The process would then start over again and it would become an never ending circle.

Let's complicate things further. Who's to determine what "making a decent living" is? Is it the ability to buy merely the basics of food, clothing, and shelter or is it name brands, TVs, and individual bedrooms for each of the kids in a single parent family? Regardless of where you set the bar today, in a decade someone will call for its change because it's cruel and unusual for every household to not have a PC and broadband connectivity to the Internet. As this "decent living" grows it too will impact the minimum wage levels, the cost of goods and services, and the poverty line.

We need to face the facts that life isn't fair and that it's not our government's job to ensure fairness in this world. Using Saletan's definition, liberty is the right to a job that pays a "decent living" not a guarantee of that job. People will be poor in this world. People will live without what some of us consider the barest of necessities and survive. They have for centuries and will continue to do so. Social, political, and economic enlightenment should come with this lesson. Human nature ensures us that providing everyone with a good job and a good education won't equate to societal happiness and peace. There will just be something new and different to complain about that will have to be fixed by the government that will lead to the "increased tyranny of the political rulers" and reduction of our liberties.