Human Folly
New York City recently elected a new mayor, a new style of mayor by all accounts. He claims to be a democratic socialist, and billionaires are in his sights. He wants to up tax on the rich and use the revenue for more ‘humane social policies.’ He thinks enough money is enough, after which it becomes monopolistic, oppressive, even obscene. He does have a point but who gets to set the limits? The mayor? Capitalism has its issues, for sure, but Marxist socialism has fared much worse.
Some say there will be a mass exodus from NYC with the attendant loss of (taxable) wealth because of the mayor’s socialistic policies. I’m not so sure; NY is more robust than any one person, or party for that matter. The mayor has a lot of work ahead of him.
One of his policies, that gained popularity for him and that sounds good on paper, is free city buses.
Free buses will be welcomed by those that use them – plenty don’t - so this is unlikely to be a drain of NYC’s economy, which could be reason enough to not even mention it, but I do so because it may do damage to NYC’s social economy.
Free doesn’t always mean better, as free doesn’t create. The human tendency (something often not taken into account by those who should know better) is to take. Paying even a small amount maintains responsibility and the sense that a service (such as a bus service) isn’t a given, a freebie. It cost someone/s and can’t be taken for granted as some sort of social right – which is what it will become. If I have no skin in the game, I will likely be care-less. If I own something or pay for a service, I am more likely to care for that product/thing.
This simple concept was missed badly in Bulgaria during the Soviet communist years. When one person/family/families farmed the land, it was productive and cared for. When no-one owned it, it became uncared for, unproductive (or much less productive) and when the Soviet collapsed the land was unproductive, farm machinery broken and rusted. Families couldn’t afford to go back to their land – it was left in such a state of disrepair. The glorious collective became the ruination of whatever it touched.
Free public health is a great idea and a boon to many Western countries - those who live out some form of responsible capitalism with social care. I have lived in three countries where free health care is available, and am alive because of it. Unfortunately, and this is becoming increasingly apparent, free health doesn’t encourage good practice or regulate the human tendency to be unhealthy (because the Govt are going to look after me). Our health systems are buckling under unprecedented demand; heart disease, obesity and diabetes, etc. rates are soaring. If health care is free then I expect the system to care for me, regardless of the abuse or battering my own body is subjected to, but not by outside forces (unless we allow advertising to be an outside force) or people. It is by me. I can live how I wish because I will be looked after. My choices become your bill.
Private health care is expensive; it is hardly driven by altruism. Still, it is infinitely better than no health cover. Again though, it is getting more expensive, in part, because of the human folly of human choices.
Either health system has little incentive or consequence – except that we all pay more or wait longer. Human nature wants everything – cash or care – for free, if possible.
Doing grand, even good, things with no understanding of human nature doesn’t turn out so well. The folly of human nature is the folly of not taking into account human nature – the more so when applied to political and social ideologies. Both capitalism and socialism (Marxist, not democratic) suffer from the same thing; neither take into account human nature. Human nature is both greedy and entitled; it is certainly never satisfied - you have too much, and I want more - of yours, that is.
.