A Presumption of Individual Responsibility

As I write this, the Winter Olympic Games are taking place. If you think about it, the nationalistic element of the Olympics is unnecessary. Why make a big deal about how many medals are won by "the United States" as a collective entity? Why not just focus on the achievements of the individual entrants?

Nationalistic rhetoric about economics is even worse than nationalistic rhetoric about the Olympics. Nationalism about the Olympics is a marketing tool for commercial exploitation, and the harm done is relatively minor. Nationalism about the economy is a marketing tool for politicians, and it leads to loss of freedom and responsibility, with enormous quantities of resources channeled through government.

• Our children will wind up having to pay taxes down the road to pay for our government spending today.
• Even today, the people paying the taxes are not directly in control of how the money gets spent.
• "We" are not doing anything wrong by using oil instead of a more-expensive fuel.
  
• Individuals need education and skills. Employers need workers with education and skills. But there is no separate "national need" for education and skills. Instead of school districts where the most affluent families are also the ones with the most money to spend on public education, we could have a voucher system where the voucher starts at $15,000 a year per child for the poorest families and gradually declines to zero for families earning the median income.
• Take a moment to think about health care without any economic nationalist preconceptions. Suppose that we start with a presumption that consumers can make their own health care decisions, with advice from doctors and information available from third parties. Would it be unreasonable to have an individual factor in cost when making these decisions, rather than take it for granted that an insurance company will pick up the tab? If individuals were choosing health insurance to purchase themselves, rather than using employers as middle men, what sorts of policies would they want? If someone does not choose any health insurance policy, what consequences should they face? Should we continue to force working people to subsidize the elderly, or should people be expected to save enough to pay for the almost-inevitable expenses of health care in their retirement years, and to obtain insurance to cover any unusually expensive late-stage illness?