Friday, March 14, 2008

The sinner repenteth

We knew that we'd get Team Rant to see sense, eventually. They've been making encouraging noises for some time, but now they have come out with a more explicit post.
It’s becoming ever more obvious that many in Britain are wedded to a model of “State provision is better” It’s becoming ever more obvious that these people are wrong.

Whether in fields of health or education the cry goes up “private provision is wrong” “it’s unfair” “it’s unequal” “it’s immoral” “unfair advantage” “exclusive” “divisive” and so on.

Let’s first be clear about the word better. Something can be better than something else either in terms of effectiveness (does it work?) or in terms of morality. However morality comes in many guises and for too many in Britain equality has become their totem of moral good, not effectiveness.

So in both the health divide and the educational gradient are bigger now than they ever have been. The policy of valuing equality actually succeeds in worsening inequality.

Currently social class one have an average life expectancy about 10 years longer than social class 5. This is not a desirable outcome, nor is it inevitable. It is an inevitable result of a flawed morality of envy and equality that aims at bringing everyone down to a certain level.

Nothing can be achieved ever by levelling down.

Throughout history the people who have excelled, and made a difference have never been motivated by equality. They have been motivated by excellence, curiosity, awkwardness, joy of innovation.

Indeed. It's a good post: do go and read the whole thing and revel in the sinner that repenteth...

1 comment:

Tomrat said...

Dr. Rant is right on all parts bar one.

Life Expectancy.

The reason for this is exactly the same arguement for the unimportance of the money divisions between poor and wealthy; it is entirely relative. If we can have a thousand impossibly wealthy people on the planet, who have built up their businesses, designed and researched new technologies that improve quality of life and employ hundreds of thousand and pension further thousands all at reasonable cost, whilst the rest of us get by on a decent livable wage which makes us comfortable isn't that to be desireable more than all of us equally poor? The same goes for longevity and healthcare; so what is a couple of thousand individuals have enough to afford gold plated healthcare, can afford to have their lives and health extended indefinately when we all enjoy quality of life higher than if it were stagnant (as it is now becoming due to the NHS)? This is one of the key plus points of the American system (though undoubtedly there are many negative points); because the rich pay massive amounts for their healthcare the poorer pay less (still a lot, more due to corporatism, but less) - drugs are cheaper, diagnostic systems we wait months to take (my brother waited over 10 weeks for an MRI of his brain after getting near-continuous headaches) are routine and medical professionals are held to account aggressively, improving clinical practice overall (again, polluted slightly by corporatism, but improving).

The trick here in the UK is to find a balance; we should look for improvements on both itself and that of our better European neighbours for healthcare, such as the French.