Responsible parents know it; irresponsible children loathe it. It is the "engine of our ingenuity," to borrow a phrase well known among Houston listeners of John Lienhard’s show on NPR, 88.7 FM. It is this principle – to wit, ideas – that Lienhard tirelessly brings to the Houston community, emphasizing the sense of amazement, curiosity and relentless drive for improvement underlying social betterment.
The Engines Web site, as of last Tuesday, boasts 2,264 episodes aired and available for download in podcast format at www.uh.edu/engines. Lienhard’s program illuminates those bright points in the centuries-long process of technological improvement that non-specialists may have taken for granted, but there is another realm in which ideas are just as, if not more, important.
The realm of politics and economics is not far from any American. One has only to casually peruse the myriad rules and regulations that – from life until death -"eat out our substance" to realize that the government created was not properly safeguarded against the injustices which its creators supposed to prevent.
Creating sustainable ideas is a methodological process, however, even in the realm of social science. Social science concerns itself with human action: people engaging in culture, commerce and, in short, living. The way people choose to act is similar enough, (even kings eat, sleep and die), such that aggregate theorizing is possible – the body of empirical evidence must bear out those theories.
Ideas and theories are the colloidal substance that unites the idealized with the realistic and pragmatic. They must be without personal bias – logical, yet abstract and specific enough to apply to the entirety of humanity while deducing a critical point.
Thus, the economic theory of opportunity cost tells us that for every action we choose to take, there are myriad actions not taken that might have otherwise benefited us. Economically rational choices seek to maximize the value of chosen actions, even though a rational action might lead to less than a maximum return.
Ideas, further, imbue human existence with meaning apart from that enjoyed by any other animal. They give us the capacity to reach beyond ourselves and grasp at – and eventually achieve – something better. That "something" will necessarily differs from age to age and civilization to civilization, but we can derive this foundation, identified first among economists as the rational foundation for theorizing – that humans act for their own good.
Socialists, statists, fascists, totalitarians and despots tell you that to act for your own good is an act of selfishness and decry it as the exploitation of fellow man. They routinely and fallaciously decry the profit motive as villainous, when, in fact, humans employ the profit motive in identifying and choosing the best of myriad possible actions to make every day.
Truthfully, the good of your fellow man is your good, too. It is impossible to become a Robinson Crusoe, alone on your island and sole provider of your infinitely boundless desires in a world economy of increasing specialization and division of labor. (Infinite, that is, unless one has achieved Nirvana, that state of ultimate, uninterrupted satisfaction).
When we choose to get up with the alarm’s cry – or choose to stay in bed, we are evaluating the profit we receive from each action. When we decide to eat at Taco Bell rather than Prince’s Hamburgers, we identify the profitability of each possible course of action as it applies to us and then employ that action.
When we order our food, we are not exploiting the fast food employee – they, too, have employed their rational, economic faculties to discern that working rather than doing something
else is better for them.
The Founding Fathers attempted to codify the greatest idea they found on earth – liberty and individual freedom – by erecting a government that sought to protect humanity’s ability to achieve that end – in whatever way that human chooses.
Freedom to pursue happiness in the infinite ways we find it, is an undeniable right. Whoever opposes this truth must first prove the right to squelch that pursuit underfoot in attaining a higher need. Staunch supporters of liberty hold that there is no higher need except in such case as one human’s rightful action impedes on the rightful action of another. Recall that rights are universally and intrinsically held – not meted out by the will of tyrants.
Humanity imbues us with meaning and equal rights. But since no one can reasonably claim one right higher than another, how is it that organizations take on powers that no individual possesses? We must defy logic to find the answer, for if rights are not universally held, equally applicable to all humans, they are a mirage. Universality is necessary for validity, since there is not yet a universally agreed-upon higher authority in which to turn.
Today, we have all the resources necessary to provide for the needs and wants of the world’s population – except for freedom. The U.S., for the moment, is unique in striving to protect the personal economic and social freedoms necessary for peaceful and civilized society.
But even this is not new under the sun; Patrick Henry knew the sentiment well:
"It is in vain, sir, to extenuate the matter. Gentlemen may cry, Peace, Peace – but there is no peace. The war is actually begun! The next gale that sweeps from the north will bring to our ears the clash of resounding arms! Our brethren are already in the field! Why stand we here idle? What is it that gentlemen wish? What would they have? Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!"
Granger, a political science senior, can be reached via [email protected]
