Another Anniversary

balloon image found here

I started the Spherical Model blog on March 4, 2011, so it’s now eight years old. Usually on an anniversary day, I recap some of what the Spherical Model is, or maybe offer some best-of collections. But I want to put that off for a couple of weeks, because I’m also about to hit the mile marker of 1000 posts.

In the first year and a half I wrote five times a week. Posts were shorter, but that meant there were frequent multiple-part posts. For the last several years I’ve been posting twice a week, usually Monday and Thursday. I tend to do longer posts now (sorry). I end up putting out about the same number of words per week. That adds up over time. For however many posts you’ve read, I thank you.

Today I’d like to take a second look at a chart I created for a piece called “North and South Comparison,” in August 2014, and handle the examples piece by piece. The original comparisons are in blue; today’s added commentary is in the white space beneath each comparison.

Southern Hemisphere Version	Northern Hemisphere Version
Everyone deserves equality, so the government forcibly takes from those who have earned more than they need and gives to those who earn very little.	Everyone deserves equal opportunity, so laws protect a person’s right to what he earns, and all are permitted to choose their legal means of earning wealth.
When equality is defined as “equality of outcome,” that’s a red flag. And when there’s coercion involved, that’s another red flag.  Then that coercive government decides how much is too much for someone to have earned, takes that “surplus,” and gives it to someone the government decides they’d like to have it—such as someone who can vote to keep power in their hands. That’s corruption. Equal opportunity means there’s a level playing field for everyone. But there will be unequal outcomes, because people will put different levels of work, and produce differently valued products and services.
Everyone needs food and shelter, and everyone should give charitably to those who can’t afford it, so government takes from those who have plenty and pays for the food and shelter of the less fortunate.	Everyone needs food and shelter, and everyone should give charitably to those who can’t afford to provide for themselves, so people who have enough and to spare freely give charitably to those who would otherwise go without.
Coercion is the red flag again. It’s a mistake to think government has feelings. Government is simply power; it can’t be charitable. Whenever government takes from producers to give to non-producers, they disincentivize production. That eventually leads to not enough surplus for the ever larger body of non-producers. Charity has to be voluntary, or it isn’t charity at all. If a people care about the poor, then the solution is for people to give freely. Voting for government to take from someone else and redistribute isn’t charity at all.
Everyone deserves medical care, so government forces everyone to buy health insurance that the government determines is best, at the cost the government requires, regardless of specific individual needs or preferences, or ability to pay.	Everyone deserves to be able to seek medical care, and for those unable to provide payment for themselves, philanthropy can offer aid. Free market helps provide better service at better prices, which is good for everyone.
Coercion shows up here again. Plus, you have government deciding what everyone “deserves,” which is dangerously subjective. Add to that, health insurance isn’t medical care; it’s a method of payment that separates the patient from the costs, which leads to increased costs. The free market always leads to better products and services at better prices. If better and more affordable medical care—or any other good or service—is the goal, then searching for more free market approaches is the solution.
Gun violence is bad, so people shouldn’t be allowed to own guns, or ownership should be strictly controlled by government. Law enforcement personnel should be depended on in all circumstances to protect against outlaw violence.	Gun violence is bad, and cannot be completely prevented by law enforcement, so people retain the God-given right to defend themselves—as long as they are sane and law abiding. Otherwise the unarmed innocent are at the mercy of the armed perpetrators of violence.
Law enforcement—or protection of life, liberty, and property—is actually a proper role of government. Government has been granted that right from a people who have the right to protect themselves. They don’t give up that right when they hire government to help. Claiming that a person no longer has the right to protect themselves looks like (and has historically proven to be) government trying to increase its power over the people. The Second Amendment, at heart, has always been about the people being able to protect themselves from a tyrannical government.
Marriage is a statement that people are in a sexual relationship and live together at this time, and therefore deserve tax advantages and other privileges expected by any married persons. Banning anyone from marriage is bigotry and anyone with such beliefs should be prosecuted and/or ostracized.	Marriage is a permanent and exclusive commitment between a man and a woman, forming the basis for a family, and is to be protected and encouraged, since it is the basic unit of civilization—the best way to safely raise children, educate them, prepare them for productive adult life, and inculcate in them the principles of civilization. Redefining marriage as anything else damages the family.
Changing the definition of marriage does not eliminate the reason for the original definition of marriage—to raise children within the basic unit of civilization. Adding coercion to change the definition just makes worse the failure to meet the basic civilizational need. In this case, not only does the southern hemisphere redefinition fail to sustain civilization, it fails to even perpetuate the species.
Religion is allowed for those who think they need it, but they shouldn’t expect public policy to support religion in general, nor should they be allowed to express their religion in public places, such as on public property or in the workplace.	A religious population is essential for a free and prosperous civilization. People get their rights from God, and govern themselves in accordance with God’s laws. Religious freedom, therefore, is essential for civilization, and should be encouraged in public policy, so that the free exercise thereof shall not be infringed.
Notice coercion again. Instead of government protecting the rights of free people to believe as they see fit, government controls, with its coercive powers what the people are allowed to express and where. Freedom to think and believe and express are essential for a free people to choose civilization and all that comes with it. Government interference, rather than strengthen civilization, can only erode it.
Government knows best what information it needs in order to protect everyone, so it should have free rein to gather data and use it as it sees fit; no one should have the expectation of privacy in today’s world.	People should feel secure in their persons and papers, without any illegal searches or seizures. Law enforcement officers must have legal warrants for searches, and no data not pertinent to a pending case should be retained if gathered inadvertently.
Government is intended to serve the people; people aren’t intended to be the subjects of a ruling government. Any time government steps on the rights of the people, claiming “government knows best,” that is a step into tyranny.
Everyone deserves to have a job that pays a living wage, so government can force employers to pay what the government deems necessary, regardless of the business’s ability to profit under those requirements. The government knows best what a minimum wage should be, and assumes all employees are in need of a wage to support themselves free of family or other help that have traditionally been provided for young workers gaining skills.	Everyone is free to exchange their work for pay as they see fit, according to their skills and value to an employer, and the employer is free to exchange pay for work, as it values the contribution of that employee. This reduces unemployment and offers employment that gives experience that may lead to better opportunities in the future for a worker who shows his worth.
Government decides what people “deserve”; again, that’s a red flag. And coercion—forcing businesses to make decisions that are bad for business—is another red flag. This kind of government interference exemplifies this principle: Whenever government attempts something beyond the proper role of government (protection of life, liberty, and property), it causes unintended consequences—usually exactly opposite to the stated goals of the interference.
Government may favor people of various races, ethnicities, or genders, because government knows best how to make up for perceived past generational disadvantages. People not meeting quotas put forth by government should be punished and labeled as bigots until they conform, and may be labeled bigots even after they conform.	People should be valued according to the content of their character, rather than the color of their skin or some other characteristic.
Again with the government “knows best” about anything. Then add the coercion. The tyranny way may try to disguise itself as kind, giving, and fair. But it’s really about favoritism and unfairness enforced by coercion. Justice needs to be blind for a reason—because we’re all created equal before the law. Anything else, and "fair" is up to an unreliable ruler.

Coercion, in some form, shows up every time the southern hemisphere way is tried. And governmental authorities claiming that government “feels,” and has positive human traits such as generosity or wisdom is just a cover for those governmental authorities to take more power—with the goal being they don’t even need to hide their motives anymore. They’ll just wield power.

Whatever government claims is a beneficence they want to grant, you can look at the goal; if it’s worthwhile, there’s a better northern hemisphere way to actually get it, free from government interference and its unintended consequences.