Revolution 21 -- Part III

The American people need to understand that small businesses are the lifeblood of American prosperity -- the job creators. And if people understand this, then they will demand that government leave small businesses alone. Months back I wrote that the main problem with the economy now is that no one knows what changes are coming next -- government needs to get out of the way, lower business taxes and give investors and producers the confidence they need to go to work and restart the engine of the economy.

The future of a powerful State is large corporations in bed with government, sluggish, old-hat, arrogant and wasteful -- the future of Revolution 21 is small businesses, innovation, nimble and creative -- dynamic.

The State and the old-hat corporations don't want dynamism -- they want the status quo where they hold the power and call the shots. They don't want competition -- they want protection. We need a transformation of mind and spirit. The future American must embrace on-going learning and dynamism. It keeps people on their toes with new challenges, sharpening their minds and enabling them to become a vibrant part of an integrated global economy. This type of growth and prosperity is the best solution to poverty, because in such an economy everyone can find a niche.

We don't want to become some old, lazy country in which you have an ogliarchy supporting the peons -- we need an economy in which the smallest can knock the biggest off the perch and everyone has a chance to rise as high as they care to go. We want innovation and creative change -- always looking for better ways to improve our lives and to increase our enjoyment -- not become a nation of apathetic worker bees for giant corporations.

We should be demanding that all corporate welfare end as the first order of business.

Have they even read Ayn Rand?

http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/2009/12/04/is-ayn-rand-good-for-the-cause-of-liberty/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+Cato-at-liberty+%28Cato+at+Liberty%29&utm_content=Google+Feedfetcher

How can someone who has claimed to have read Ayn Rand misunderstand her so thoroughly? Rand was against the concept of altruism as a moral duty externally imposed by "society", which is more a claim on man's production than freely chosen charity. Rand understood that giving to othersy is best when freely chosen by the individual without the guilt and pressure.

Also, Rand was not against government, per se, she was against statist government, and this is a big distinction. Why is that when progressives criticize conservative governance the progressive complainer is not called an anarchist? 

Revolution 21 -- part II

As a libertarian, I'm not inspired by opposition organizations designed to win political power, replacing old authority with new authority, so "revolution" means something different from my perspective. What America, and the world, needs, in my estimation, is a spiritual and mental revolution on an individual basis, capturing Nozick's moral/free space which is possible only with the right to own and control the use of private property. 

Too many revolutions have replaced one tyranny with another tyranny. We don't experience hard tyranny in America, just a modern, smiley-face tyranny. The collective mindset in America shouldn't have made the advances its made -- we're not that type of country, but like I wrote in the previous post, incremental gift-giving has its effect. Unless individuals all across this country understand the vital importance of property rights, moral space, self-reliance and the principles of liberty, then we'll slide further into socialistic dependence.

In theory, Revolution 21 can come about with no organization at all. It will not require a team of technocrats and policy wonks, no fire-breathing, charismatic leader, no slogans or guns, no manifesto or unified acceptance of ideological purity, just a change of heart and mind on an individual basis.

All that Revolution 21 will require is a widespread acceptance of non-coercion, except the monopoly on coercion given to a limited government to prevent coercion -- in other words you can be coerced to not coerce anyone else. But how does society get to the non-coercion doctrine? Through a revolution of mind and spirit. Simple, right?

I'll be writing about this for a long time -- more later.

Revolution 21

Most people don't vote on ideological grounds -- they vote because they think they will get something from government. This is the way we've been trained -- how will the candidate I vote for help me. There are a relative few who vote for politicians who will support an ideology, half of the people don't vote, and the rest vote for an economic favor.

A lack of understanding of what's at stake is allowing the State to grow in power, but too many people don't have a framework of knowledge to make sense of the changes taking place. People understand that spending too much is bad, and they don't want high taxes, but they don't really comprehend how the nature of government is changing. Even those who are politically active can fool themselves into minimizing the changes.

The nation has been trained to view government as a counterforce to powerful corporations which own the wealth and keep the middle class and the poor from getting what they deserve. The politically active left, who consider themselves politically sophisticated and now call themselves liberals, see the Republicans in cahoots with the wealthy businessmen working against labor, environmentalists, women, minorities and those who believe in civil liberties. Most people on the left will laugh and roll their eyes when the word "socialism" is used, because most of them don't accept that government intervention against the wealthy and the religious fanatics is socialism -- they believe America can maintain its liberty even if the government is managing the economy in order to instill fairness.

Most on the left don't see anything wrong with taxing people who have, what they consider, "enough" money in order to help those who don't have "enough" money. These people don't see anything wrong with forcing businesses to hire a certain number of women and minorities. Many on the left would not see anything wrong with capping salaries of those who make millions. Many on the left would probably think it okay if government forced the biggest companies to hire a certain amount of people at a certain amount of pay according to how much profit the company is making. In other words, the left doesn't see anything wrong with redistribtion -- and many on the right don't see anything wrong with redistribtion either, as long as it doesn't go too far, wherever that line lies.

It's mainly the ideas on the left which have gained national acceptance, so much so that the line between Republicans and Democrats is blurred -- hardly any Republican administration works to end redistribution or State control of the economy. So when progressives get in office, they aren't viewed as socialists -- people don't vote for the ideology, they vote for what they can get. Many people who normally vote for Republicans voted for Obama because they thought he would be a centrist and that redistribution would be fair under his watch -- that he would not go too far and cross that ever-shifting line.

Most people have bought socialism without knowing it. The sophisticated political pundits will tell you that socialism is state ownership of businesses, and that it's hyperbole and simplistic thinking to call our mixed economy socialism. But the philosophy of socialism has been discredited for a long time, since after the destruction of capitalism in socialist countries the State refused to wither away, but rather became powerful and vicious. Even socialists don't believe in the old philosophy of socialism, but they understand what Mises understood, that all forms of economic control by the State is socialism, even fascism is socialism. What good does it do to maintain private ownership if you no longer have the freedom to make decisions regarding your property, or if your property can be taken? Socialism is the broad category under which you can place statism, which is what we have. The opposite category is capitalism.

Modern socialism is not about class warfare and a transition to communism -- socialism is about power and control. It's a make-it-up-as-you-go-along system whereby the State has control of industry. The way socialism has become a reality in America is through incrementalism -- the State promises favors to enough groups so that dependence on the State is established, and in the meantime the State makes laws, creates a bureaucracy, regulates and worms its way into complete control. Because there is no coup d'etat, no one sees a radical change all at once, it's just thousands of seemingly harmless changes for the "social good". Society trumps individuals, so what's good for society is foisted on the individual, even if it violates her rights -- and the State decides what is good for society. The people receive favors, some receive advantages, some receive a seat at the table of power, and many are simply dragged along and forced to pay for it all, because the State produces nothing, and everything it gives someone is taken from someone else.

Make no mistake, socialism is what the State is practicing, even if there are pockets of freedom the State hasn't reached. The State now has the power and the means to control any industry it wants to control, and the only reason it hasn't used this power to its full extent is because of backlash -- the slow, gradual method has worked, but the State is getting braver, and now there is the possibility of healthcare reform which will be a large power-grab of historic proportion-- it will, if passed, evolve into the last obstacle removed. Healthcare reform is the tipping point, and that's why there's such a battle. Many people intellectually know what's at stake, and many people seem to intuitively know that this is a major game-changer.

No one proposing healthcare reform would openly admit this advance of socialism. Everyone attemps to block the word from being used -- to make the word powerless and old-fashioned -- just a scare tactic used by opponents. But sophisticated political thinkers should know better -- if they don't admit it, then they are in denial. I'm sure many people who should know better have rationalized their socialist tendencies -- I hear it all the time -- "Well, some government involvement in the economy is necessary", yet they never specify a limit, and this is the problem. Perhaps they truly believe that government will limit its involvement in the economy, or that we can persuade representatives to not over-reach, but how much involvement is too much, and how can we prevent over-reach? Modern socialists are playing it by ear, since they no longer have a philosophical base from which to operate -- it's become pragmatic experimentation, but the bottom line is control. Try a stimulus here, a bailout there, a takeover and a healthcare reform, an energy policy to make industry pay for their sins -- try this, that and the other and see what happens.

If all the people who deny the validity of the socialist charge are hell-bent on this statist experimentation, they have no legitimate complaints when economic reality takes over and the economy goes awry. All the people who have sneered at the socialist charge and apathetically watched the State gain power will have no legitimate complaints. The only ones who can stand up with integrity and complain, once negative consequences of socialism come home to roost, are the ones who are fighting it now, and who are calling a spade a spade.

You can't play socialism and avoid the consequences -- you can't pretend we have some sort of perfectly mixed economy reaping the benefits from the best of both worlds. There is no perfect mixture, there is only a direction heading one way or the other, and we are heading in the socialist direction, and have been for a long time. Socialism is becoming institutionalized, and this is the last step. Once socialism is institutionalized and normalized, then it's merely a matter of living under it and submitting to the power -- or planning the next revolution.

GDP comparisons -- capitalism makes a difference

You can come to your own conclusions from this chart, but what it tells me is that European socialism has caused a decline in European countries, while Asian countries which are allowing more capitalism are on the rise. The US has remained constant because there hasn't been any major changes in our mixed economy. What we are likely to see, if the last two years of spending continue and the current socialist schemes are accepted, a decline in US GDP with the Asian countries continuing to rise. Latin America and the Middle East/Africa have the greatest opportunity for growth -- they need free economies and limited government. I was arguing this point on another blog yesterday -- this chart appears to make my point -- socialism equals no-growth and decline, while capitalism equals growth. If we cut our spending and cut corporate taxes, and avoid socialist schemes, we'll grow economically and keep pace with Asia.

Thanks to Carpe Diem for the chart.