The Horrors of Thigh Gap

Column for week of January 19, 2015

     I didn't mean to do it.  Perhaps I was distracted. 
Nevertheless, I did it again.  I neglected the British.  So, it
must be my fault that they had to throw another tantrum to get
my attention.  I don't know why my attention is so important to
them.

     It isn't like I totally ignore the Brits.  I covered their
requiring small chested police women to wear fluorescent vests. 
Their requiring a business owner to hire an industrial waste
hauler to dispose of the sandwich wrap from his lunch was
dully honored in this space.  I devoted an entire column to the
law requiring British farmers to provide toys for their pigs.  I
also noted their making it a crime to sell anything by the pound
or ounce.  Imagine that.  The English system of measures
banned in the land of its birth.

     Still, I can't justify ignoring the thigh gap tantrum.  The
Brits have an agency devoted to reviewing advertising.   All
improper adds must be banned.  I'm not sure how they decide
what is improper.  I'm not about to ask.

     Whatever the standard, thigh gaps violate it.   For the
unenlightened on this side of the pond,  perhaps I should
explain "thigh gap" the best I can.

     The ever diligent nannies who devote their lives to
scanning adds for crimes against humanity discovered the
horrible photo of an underwear model with too much space
between her thighs.  No one has explained to me how much is
too much, or who decides.  Maybe it is another one of those "I
know it when I see it" things.

     Actually, I don't believe the thigh gap was the real
problem.  It was only a proxy for the real problem.  The
model's thighs weren't big enough.  Those who haven't borne
the affliction of living with undersized thighs probably won't
appreciate the seriousness of the problem.  Fortunately the
censors were on the job to nip the problem in the bud before it
spread across the land.

     The photo could have destroyed the health of an entire
generation.  Young women seeing the thigh gap photo would
have instantly concluded that a large thigh gap was an essential
part of an ideal figure.  They would have destroyed their health
in pursuit of that glamorous and elusive thigh gap.  I'm sure
every woman who ever sought to shrink her thighs can testify
to how difficult it is to stop before those thighs vanish.

     No one mentioned that the model was also afflicted
with knee gap.  The photo didn't show her lower legs.   This
leaves open the possibility that her real affliction was bow legs.

     Fortunately the USA took action to protect underwear
models suffering from thigh gap.  In fact we are so far ahead
of the Brits that we banned discrimination against those
afflicted with thigh gap long before the first case was
diagnosed.  All we need now is a few more rules to cover the
details.  I'm sure Barack can handle that between holes on the
golf course.

     The British have already shown that thigh gap is a
disability.  Thus, our laws that ban discrimination against the
disabled will kick in.  No one will dare discriminate against
models suffering with the dreaded thigh gap.

     Statisticians will quickly calculate the percent of models
who suffer from thigh gap.  Let us assume that number turns to
be 10 percent.  Any employer who can't prove that at least 10
percent of its models are afflicted with thigh gap will be
presumed guilty of discrimination.

     All thigh gap sufferers will bring a class action lawsuit
and be awarded millions of dollars in compensation that will
make their lawyers very rich.  The suffering models will each
get a coupon for a 10 percent discount on a set of thigh pads. 
All is well that ends well.  Thank you Brits.

aldmccallum@gmail.com
                                * * * * *
                                 * * * *
                                  * * *
                                   * *
                                     *
Copyright 2015
Albert D. McCallum

What Big Government Has to Offer

Column for week of January 12, 2015

     This column is the final installment of a 13-part series. 
Last time we considered that in freedom we must serve others
to gain satisfaction for ourselves.  The better an individual
serves others, the more those others will give in return for the
service.

     Today we will consider the alternative to freedom --
coercion.  When individuals aren't free to act peaceably in
whatever manner they choose, they are subject to the force,
violence and threats of others.  Those who resort to force,
violence and threats can gain satisfaction from others without
giving satisfaction to others.  Thus, the only options we have
are freedom and exploitation.

     Whether we live in an environment of freedom or one
of exploitation, all individuals have the same goal -- increase
their satisfaction.  The two environments provide entirely
different motivations about how to seek satisfaction.

     A person with the power to take and exploit can seek
satisfaction by threatening and intimidating others.  The others
are compelled to give up their satisfaction and serve the
exploiter.  Outright slavery is an example of exploitation.  Such
slavery is far from being the only way to exploit.  If the
exploitation of slavery is destructive and evil, How can diluted
forms of exploitation be good and beneficial?

     The only institution we have that is legally authorized to
use force, violence and threats to gain advantage over others is
government.  Government has one big advantage.  It writes and
enforces the rules.  Government often uses its force, violence
and threats on behalf of private special interests.  In return
politicians receive votes and expand their power to use force,
violence and threats.

     Only those in government and those empowered by
government can lawfully pursue their satisfaction at the
expense of others, rather than by better serving others.  Those
in government are as motivated as anyone else to seek their
own satisfaction.  They seek to gain, not to serve.  Unlike free
people they can gain without serving their victims.

     Even those in government must serve those who keep
them in power.  Thus, government will always serve the
powerful special interests at the expense of everyone else.   To
call those in the one and only branch of society that can legally
exploit for their own satisfaction "public servants" is a travesty.

     Government can, and to some extent does, provide a
valuable service in attempting to limit the private use of
aggressive force, violence and threats.  Once government steps
beyond this limited role, it becomes the exploiter.  It becomes
the problem, not the solution.

     A government with the power to protect will have the
power to exploit.  People being what they are, it is inevitable
that some in government will turn to the use of force, violence
and threats to increase their own satisfaction.

     If the exploiters prosper, many more will seek to join
them.  Government will grow to be one vast exploitive
enterprise.  Government exploitation by so called "public
servants" has been prospering and growing since long before
any of us were born.  It is our way of life.  Unfortunately most
people have failed to recognize and oppose the destructive
exploitation by government.

     Now we face national bankruptcy and destruction of our
productive economy, all as a result of allowing legions of
"public servants" to take rather than serve.  As freedom totters
on its dying legs, we face the loss of everything.  I don't know
if it is too late to save freedom.  If we don't at least try, all we
have to look forward to it strife, destruction, misery and death.

     If we fail to contain and roll back government we can
only look forward to returning to the Hobbesian world where
the life of man is "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short."

aldmccallum@gmail.com
                                * * * * *
                                 * * * *
                                  * * *
                                   * *
                                     *
Copyright 2014
Albert D. McCallum

Why Serve Others?

Column for week of January 5, 2015

     We have considered how everyone endlessly seeks to
increase their satisfaction.  There is no such thing as altruism,
selflessness or self sacrifice.  People do have radically different
views about what will satisfy them.  Some gain satisfaction
saving lives, others from killing.  Some gain more satisfaction
from giving than from taking.

     None will ever choose the less satisfying of two
choices.  Some may choose less satisfaction now to gain more
satisfaction later.

     The environment in which an individual lives will
greatly affect what he finds to be satisfying.  In cold climates
building houses and storing food is important for satisfaction.  
In warm climates such endeavors are less satisfying.

     We need material things to satisfy us.  The conduct of
others also affects our satisfaction.  Some don't like to hear
loud music and see pink houses with purple polka dots.  To
increase our satisfaction, we seek to gain things from others
and to change their conduct.

     People seek to increase satisfaction by giving up lesser
satisfactions to gain greater ones.  Thus, we all seek to give up
as little satisfaction as possible to gain the greatest satisfaction
possible.  The environment in which we live and act greatly
affects the methods we use to gain satisfaction.

     In freedom we find only one way to gain satisfaction
from others.  We must peaceably influence them to act in ways
that will satisfy us.  People who have the option of using force,
violence and threats can pursue satisfaction by coercing and
intimidating others.  In freedom we are limited to persuasion
and rewards to motivate others to provide us satisfaction.

     In the short term at least coercion can be the easier road
to satisfaction for those whose consciences don't punish them
for exploiting others.  Thus, there are many people who will
eagerly resort to use of force and threats, if they expect they
can get away with it.

     In an environment of true freedom those who resort to
use of force and intimidation, other than for defense, face
punishment.  This can greatly discourage the initiation of force. 
We all must pursue satisfaction by working, producing, and
persuading others.

     With freedom, and the free markets that are the product
of freedom, we pursue satisfaction by producing and trading
with others.  The better our productive efforts serve others, the
better others will serve us.  The more value we produce for
them, the more value they will give us in exchange.

     In freedom the customer is king.  Everyone seeks to
gain more for themselves by providing more for others.  We all
have customers.  Employers are the customers for workers time
and efforts.  Those employees are the customers for the
employer's products.  This gives us an endless circle of people
all seeking to better serve both their customers and their
suppliers.

     The employer must serve his employees by providing
them more satisfaction that other employers do.  Merchants and
customers must serve each other.  All of our voluntary
relationships, from dating to banking, are based on each party
to the relationship providing value to the other.  Much of that
value may be intangible.

     When a relationship ceases to be beneficial for one of
the participants, he ends the relationship in favor of another. 
Everyone is endlessly motivated to serve all of those with
whom they have relationships.  This pushes us endlessly
toward more production and more satisfaction for everyone. 
Each individual has the final say in what he believes will
satisfy him.

     We don't need legions of professional enforcers to
assure that we produce for the satisfaction of others.  King
consumer provides the enforcement.  Everyone is a consumer. 
The consumer enforcers are on the job 24/7/365.  None of us
can escape those consumer enforcers.  We all must act for the
satisfaction of others if we are to gain satisfaction for
ourselves.

     Next time: The alternative to freedom.

aldmccallum@gmail.com
                                * * * * *
                                 * * * *
                                  * * *
                                   * *
                                     *
Copyright 2015
Albert D. McCallum

What Should Be the Role of Government?

Column for week of December 29, 2014

     In this series of columns I haven't attempted to define
the legitimate role of government.  I mentioned a few of the
dangers from government.  Government is force.  All
government can add to any circumstance is "Do it my way, or I
will hurt you."

     Anything that can be done through voluntary
cooperation doesn't need government.  There are few, if any,
things people can't do through voluntary cooperation, if they
want to.  Therein lies the reason so many turn to government
to pursue their pet agendas.  Others aren't enthusiastic about
pursuing those agendas.

     People whose ideas aren't popular turn to government to
force others to cooperate.  People turn to government because
they are too lazy, or in too much of a hurry to work to sell
their ideas.  Often the ideas are so bad they can't gain much
support.  Government is the last resort for bad ideas and the
graveyard for good ideas.

     For starters we should apply a test to every idea before
turning to "Do it my way, or I will hurt you."  Ask  four
questions:  1) Is solving the problem of vital importance?  2) 
Is it impossible, or at least very unlikely, that free people
acting in voluntary cooperation can solve the problem?  3) Is
the use of force vital to solving the problem?  4) Are there
reasonable grounds for believing the proposed government
solution will work?  If the answer to any one question is "No,"
don't turn to "Do it my way, or I will hurt you" government for
the solution.

     Freedom is impossible without the suppression of
aggression.  It is legitimate to use the force of government to
suppress murders, robbers, slave masters, arsonists, etc.  We
can, and do use private voluntary efforts to achieve the same
ends.  In the US we spend more on private security than on
government police.

     Still, it is legitimate to use the force of government to
protect persons and property from domestic and foreign
plunderers.  We should first consider private, voluntary actions
even for defense against aggression.

     There are two big problems with empowering
government as a protector.  First, history documents how the
same power government needs to protect is also used to
exploit.  I don't know of one government in the history of the
world that hasn't used its power as a predator.

     I can't point to even one government that hasn't become
more a predator than a protector.  Hiring government for
protection usually turns out like employing wolves to protect
the sheep from coyotes.  Government in the US, at all levels,
isn't an exception.

     No one has found a way to keep the government that is
powerful enough to protect from using its powers to exploit. 
People in government, like everyone else, first seek to gain
satisfaction.  Most people with the power to exploit don't resist
the temptation to exploit.  Many don't even try to resist.  One
of the big attractions to government is the power to exploit. 
Exploiters are drawn to government.

     Many people in businesses like to exploit too.  Unless
government empowers the private exploiters, or at least looks
the other way, businesses can't exploit.  Exploitation always
involves aggression.  If government does the job of preventing
aggression, there will be no exploitation.

     We can't eliminate government, no mater how much
some would like too.  Even if we did eliminate government, it
would quickly come back.  The most we can do is try to keep
government weak enough that it doesn't destroy us through
exploitation.  Asking for bigger government is at best like
playing Russian Roulette.  Sooner or later you are going to
lose.

     Freedom isn't just one way, or merely the best way, to
peace and prosperity.  Freedom and its byproduct, free markets,
are the only road to peace and prosperity.  If we are to survive
in peace and prosperity, we must get back on freedom's road. 
"Do it my way, or I will hurt you" is that famous road
sometimes paved with good intentions.

     Next time: Service to others.

aldmccallum@gmail.com
                                * * * * *
                                 * * * *
                                  * * *
                                   * *
                                     *
Copyright 2014
Albert D. McCallum