Frozen or Socialist? Ideas of Scarcity

A very popular Alaskan blog posed an interesting multiple choice question today: Would you rather freeze to death, or be a socialist? This is a very serious dilemma, indeed. No one wants to die, especially by freezing to death. But is it worth compromising on true, eternal principles. In other words, would you give up your birthright for a bowl of soup?

Due to the rising price of oil, in the past few years Hugo Chavez, admitted adversary of the United States and especially of President Bush, has offered free heating oil to the cold weather states. Some have accepted while others have refused. The controversy seems to be at the boiling point this year as residents claim they will gladly take the handouts but state officials apparently wish to reject the offer. And many see the irony in their actions and policies.

Such is the point of Mudflat’s blog, pointing out the socialism in both Chavez’ offer and in Palin’s past actions of offering tax breaks to all Alaskans for the high price of fuel. “Isn’t that socialism too?” the blogger asks. And he has a great point. For, where did the dollars come from that she was able to use for the assistance? Stealing from one and giving to another is socialism. Heck, stealing from one and giving it back to that person for a reason other than to recompense the wrong is also socialism. But there is something in the blogger’s important question that reveals the scarcity in the idea.

Would you rather freeze to death or be a socialist? Hmm. What if the answer is, none of the above? I don’t want to freeze to death, but I don’t want to be a socialist. And those are not the only choices in this question. What about moving, which some long-time ruralite Alaskans are starting to do? What about increasing the supply of heating oil? Alaska sits on one of the largest oil fields in the history of the world and technology is such that this oil is easily accessible. What about creating other methods of heating?

A socialist usually reduces situations down to the dilemma, the choices of which are always damning no matter which you pick. “You can be physically dead or morally dead. Now choose.” This just is not so. The abundance paradigm teaches a different lesson. For example, Carleton Sheets, in his Nothing Down real estate course, teaches that there are at least ten solutions to every challenge. It takes a deliberate thinker to come up with ten solutions, but an abundant thinker is also a person who has chosen to think, to act, and to govern himself. Sit down for a few minutes and come up with ten non-socialist solutions to the problem of expensive heating oil.

1. Relocate to a more friendly climate. History is replete with migrations from environmentally hostile regions to more amenable climates. It is not necessary or natural that villages must exist in arctic regions.
2. Learn the ancient ways of the Eskimo. Although it is not necessary or natural to live in the colder regions of the world, man has survived for millennia in those regions. Without the use of modern technology. Crude oil for heating is a relatively recent development. What other ways did the eskimos survive in that region for so long? Which of those ways are still feasible today?
3. Invent other more efficient and less costly methods of heating. Necessity is the mother of invention. Open one’s mind and create the methods. One of the great dangers of socialism and its restricted thinking about challenges is that it squashes problem solving activities. Chavez offering free oil to these areas only increases these residents’ dependence on the black flammable liquid. Handing out money as tax relieve as Palin did obtains the same results. Ironically, so does the division of labor.
4. Open up the oil fields in ANWR and increase the oil supply. Granted this is controversial, maybe even for the Alaskans, but this tends to turn the original question: Do you choose to be a socialist and freeze to death?
5. Convert to gas.
6. Convert to electric heat.
7. Use coal.
8. Use trash to create energy that can then be used for heating. The last four deserve the same argument. Perhaps the cost of conversion at this point is higher than the cost of sticking with oil. If true, then see #9.
9. Recognize that oil may be the most cost effective and feasible method of heating. If this be the case, there should be no complaint.
10. Increase personal productivity. This will bring increase revenues in the area and make each productive family more able to afford heating.

These ten solutions may not be the ten solutions that will get it done for this dilemma. Surely other solutions exist that no one has thought of yet. The trick is to not panic, to be deliberate, and to think. Abundant minds can think their way out of any situation.