Burlington High School
Burlington, Kansas
Teacher: Devra Parker
Too Many Cooks in the Kitchen
By Hannah Combrink
12th Grade
Picture this: you’re in Central Park, it’s a gorgeous day and you are just enjoying yourself. The park is crowded with people from all walks of life.
Suddenly, from out of the blue, a young girl shrieks with pure terror as she runs out of a nearby building. Her clothes are ripped, her hair is sweaty and she is screaming that there is a man after her. What do you do? Keep in mind, the park is very crowded.
Maybe you think you would do something, find a police officer or even more bold, hold her and shelter her from her assailant. I wouldn’t think so highly because research has proved otherwise.
Scientific experiments have proven that the more people who are involved in a task, the least likely it will be solved or completed. Why? Mainly because when the cards are on the table, most of us think, “Someone else will take care of it. It’s not my problem. Someone else will get involved.” Or, here is another theory. The people who do get involved can’t ever decide on a solution, so a resolution is never reached.
These findings can apply to almost any situation in our society. Tibor Machan used this concept to apply to government spending. Psychologists use it to explain diffusion of responsibility, and ordinary people use it when faced with dilemmas.
So, what are we as humans supposed to do about it? What is our responsibility? Stand up, go against the norm and when action needs to be taken, don’t pass it off for someone else to do.
Maybe this is easier said than done, but our responsibility is to take the responsibility.
Why? Our society is afraid of being sued for helping out if it’s not needed. But think about it. If a person desires to commit suicide, one has two options: do nothing and let the person die, or stop him. Sure, he may be angry and claim you violated his rights, but this proves that even if it doesn’t seem someone needs help, that may be when he/she is the most vulnerable.
Also, consider a world in which nobody did anything unless asked directly or if it applies to only them. We would have a world of chaos and mayhem. Our entire justice system might as well cease to exist because cops would not want to get involved with crime; after all, it doesn’t affect them. Teachers don’t need to go above and beyond to help a student succeed-- that would go past their intended duties. … These are just a few examples of what could happen.
The internal benefits one can receive after doing something right can far outweigh the negative. For one thing, shouldn’t the pride of just helping someone out be enough? Not so much in today’s society. So instead, one can think of it as helping the world become a better place, doing something everyone else was too chicken to do, and possibly helping oneself in the long run. Hey, if that’s what it takes for action to take place, by all means think of it in that sense.
Maybe another solution to the diffusing of duties is to…kick a few cooks out of the kitchen so the cake doesn’t fall. This approach may not work for all situations, but in cases like government spending, it might work. I know the whole reason we have so many political offices is so that everyone can be represented, but how can all the people’s interests be protected if nothing gets done, if the population is TOO represented?
Let’s leave with this. The majority of people will not take action if they believe there is someone else who can take care of the problem. Yet, if everyone in the world were like this, it would be a disaster. So, our individual responsibly towards protecting our communities would be to go against the statistics and rather than relying on others, take the initiative ourselves and maybe even reduce the number of people it can be tossed to in order to make future action easier to take. The next time someone is crying out for help, don’t wait for someone else to do something; cut out the middle man and do it yourself. The rewards will far outweigh the consequences.
Answers To Questions Prompted By The Required Reading
Welfare State on the Street Where You Live
(Tibor Machan)
Q1- Why does Machan
use "steal" in his statement: "Private property solves this problem, but was
abandoned a long time ago when taxes reached the point where we can steal our
way to being provided with all sorts of things we desire, never mind thinking
about paying for them or long-range budgeting."?
When
Machan uses the word “steal” I think he is meaning that if people can’t pay
taxes, they will just depend on government to pay for them. This is like in a
sense taking without giving, also the definition of stealing. Citizans taxes
are so high they can’t contribute to the “pool,” yet still enjoy the same spoils
as those contributing.
Q2-
Machan said: "For that which is common to the greatest number has the least care
bestowed upon it." Give two examples of this from your personal experience.
I can
not really give an example of this in my life because I am not completely sure
of what exactly it is referring to. The language is that of very old and formal
variety, and I would need a commentary before I am willing to provide a personal
illustration.
Q3- Do you agree with Machan that "...everybody is more inclined to neglect the duty which he expects another to fulfill; as in families many attendants are often less useful than a few."? Give an objective example of this.
I agree with Machan for the most part. The phrase “too many cooks spoil the broth” I think is what he is getting at. There is research to prove that when a group of people witness a crime or an auto accident, the more people who see it, the fewer people will take action. Diffusion of Responsibility, someone else will take care of it.
Are
We Going the Way of Rome?
(Lawrence Reed)
Q4- State Kershner's
First Law. Do you agree or disagree and why?
When a self-governing people confer upon their government the power to take from some and give to others, the process will not stop until the last bone of the last taxpayer is picked bare. I see how this could occur, but in modern times, I think government would figure things out before it could reach that level.
Q5- What industry was the first to be taken over by government in both ancient Rome and the USA?
The transportation and shipping was the first industry to be taken over by the government. For America, it was the Railroad industry.
Q6- Is cheapened money the cause or the outcome of inflation? Explain.
I think that cheapened money is the outcome of inflation. Sice the masses were depending on the government to pay for everything, the government had to find a way to pay for all its programs—inflation. To do this, the coin was made less so they could make more profits in order to pay for it all and caused prices to go even higher.
Q7- How did the Edict of 301 affect Rome's economy?
The edict set up a system of reasonable wage/price controls. If anyone broke them, it was punishable by death. This created a lot of tension and bloodshed and the people just stopped bringing things to market.
Liberty and Individual Responsibility
(Dwight R. Lee)
Q8- Lee claims that
individuals could be "entirely independent of others" except for what? Explain.
Scarcity in our world requires us to interact with on another. These interactions are controlled by social rules. Also, competition is brought about by scarcity because it has the idea of always wanting more than the next person.
Q9- Describe the dilemma concerning rules as discussed by Lee.
There is so much competition to be the strongest, that those who are not have no freedom because they have to yield to those who are on top. Competition can either be constructive or destructive depending on the rules.
Q10- Why is the concept of private property crucial to freedom?
The private property view requires that individual rights need to be in place since the property is owned by a single person. Buying and selling occurs between two individual people with a mutual agreement. There is a system of communication and cooperation and the rights of one can be expanded to all.
Lawrence Reed's testimony before the U.S. Senate Budget Commtitee.
Q11- Argue both
pro and con that in his testimony Lawrence Reed was advocating compassion and
aid for the poor.
In my opinion, I see Lee as being more ‘con’ in his approach to any sort of aid. He claimed that dependency on the government to help those people who are in need is what caused the downfall of Rome as well as many other societies. I can not see where he would support aid from the comments he made, though maybe he said it, just not outright.
Q12- "If people are free, they will not earn equal incomes; conversely, show me a people who have equal incomes and I will show you a people who are not free." Explain in your own words Mr. Reed's meaning.
Free people are not equal when it comes to economics. Some people are savers, some are spenders; some like to work to move up the ladder, some like just where they are. When a society tries to make all incomes the same, or equal, it has to be done by forcing some to make more, and others to make less. This goes against who the people are as individuals and therefore takes away their freedom.