Morning Joe 10/17/2011 -- You don't know politics

On Morning Joe today, Scarborough doubled down on stupid regarding Herman Cain and presidents without the experience to run America, and doubling down by Scarborough creates a lot of stupid. Of course, Scarborough's stupid couldn't match Jeffrey Sachs' stupid when Sachs claimed that Cain is a Koch brothers creation -- Scarborough is not so stupid as to follow Sachs in his shark jumping expedition, and Mark Halperin told Sachs he had gone a stupid too far. But there's not much difference between Sachs and Scarborough when it comes to failure to provide good analysis -- whether you dismiss Cain as a Koch puppet or ridicule Cain like a teenager in a clique, both are immature avoidance of analysis in favor of marginalization through smear and put-down.

Scarborough addressed his critics who say he's off-track ridiculing Cain by saying "You don't know politics." Yeah, right. Scarborough, the insider who understands the fine points of politics, and who said this morning that Obama's lack of experience caused him to miss opportunities when there was a Democrat majority in the beginning of his presidency, is elevating himself above his critics in spite of the fact that his political analysis is comparable to a typical sophomore's essay. 

Obama's administration included Larry Summers, Tim Geithner, Hillary Clinton, Rahm Emanuel, dozens of czars, Bob Gates, Valerie Jarrett, David Axelrod, etc., and we're supposed to believe that Obama's inexperience canceled out all the experience around him? The Democrat majority congress was filled with political experience, and all they had to do was crank out legislation and have Obama sign it, yet we're to believe that Obama's inexperience canceled out the House and Senate? This doesn't sound like expert political analysis to me -- it's more like what Scarborough accuses Cain of, making it up as he goes along.

Neither Scarborough, Halperin, Sachs or anyone else on Morning Joe have given an analysis of Cain's 9-9-9 Plan -- they've only ridiculed it. The plan might be terribly flawed, but they haven't proven it's flawed, and they haven't asked Cain on the program to explain the plan -- they haven't even pointed to an analysis of the plan. It's easy to sit in a circle jerk and smear, but it's hard to present evidence and intelligent economic analysis.

Oh, but they eventually got to a sophisticated analysis of all the world's problems when Mika's dad, Zbigniew Brzezinski, came on the show. Brzezinski says we need central global control and more control in the US over the economy, and by "we" he means the State.  He said not all the players on Wall Street are evil, just the whole bunch of them who made millions and didn't spend their money to promote social justice, or something like that. Brzezinski is a globalist, statist, mixed-economy proponent, but it's obvious that these ideas are what have destroyed the US economy. Brzezinski said that deregulation created an out of control financial romp in America by unscrupulous speculators, and I don't have time to debunk this, but I refer anyone interested to Thomas E. Woods' book, Rollback. Woods, who does do indepth analysis, debunks the deregulation meme, and, unlike the Morning Joe crew, Woods shows exactly how the main influence which caused the housing crash and financial crisis came directly from government intervention.

The Big Bang -- Fear of freedom

Alexander Hamilton was one of the first in the beginning to panic at the thought of freedom spreading out without central control -- surely the elite must guide this new experiment from a centralized position with control over the growth.

What is it in the control-freak's mind that fears freedom? It could be, in part, that loss of control means that those who feel privileged will lose their status in society, that they will be left behind as progress moves forward -- plus, people might start behaving in ways which the elite find abhorent or dangerous to order and stability. A free market is not stable, only the rules preventing abuses are stable.

Who has the most to gain from stability? Those who can at first gain power and control over others. Those who gain power want stability in order to protect their advantage, therefore they will fight freedom and change -- they will resist creative destruction -- they will bail-out auto companies which are failing, or banks at risk of losing advantage in the market.

Coercive stabilty hurts the up and coming, the dreamers, the small businesses with good ideas, the entrepreneur with vision, minorities fighting to escape poverty. Coercive stability blocks progress. Freedom demands flexibility and nimbleness, life-long learning and the ability to adjust to change. Of course power-mongers fight against a free market -- they would then have to continuously prove themselves in the market and they would be at risk of losing their position as new ideas and techniques emerge which make the powerful obsolete if they don't have the ability to compete. It's much easier to seek political portection and maintain the status quo. Libertarians have been preaching this for decades, but no one seems to be listening -- the public is mad at the big corporations but votes for the very people who will protect big corporations.

Just look at how the old media, the unions, the government, the big, protected cororations, fight change and laugh at the naivete of free market advocates. The only change they will support is change wihich strengthens their control and privileged position. They fear a free market.

A new vision of freedom

It's not probable, but it's possible, and it's not likely to happen quickly, but, rather, over a period of time, but one thing's for sure, a new relationship between the State and the private sector, which limits the State and empowers the private sector, is desperately needed.

This is a continuation of the previous post, and I want to focus on what I see as a spiritual yearning for action in the private sector. There's a growing need for the individual to experience a sense of purpose, that actions matter. The internet has created a vehicle for intellectual connections, culture sharing, social interaction in various ways, and now there seems to be this developing agreement that public action is required to put our nation back on course to create the Good Society. This idea of action is not limited to Tea Party types, there are groups all across the nation who are getting involved in causes. The division appears to boil down to whether change should come through government intervention or the private sector.

Both forms of expression, to my way of thinking, are expressions of spiritual energy, a search for purpose and meaning. We know what State intervention has created over the past 75 or so years, but what would an empowered private sector and limited government likely create, knowing what we now know? Would individuals enjoy the benefits of a free market and horde their wealth for purely selfish enjoyment? I dont think so, but don't get me wrong -- I don't think there's a moral imperative to be altruistic -- it think it's a personal choice and should never be imposed on individuals through government -- not that true altruism can be forced, but some people have a funny way of thinking our duty to those less fortunate should be forced through government actions.

I believe that prosperous people will willingly choose to help those in need without interference from the government. I believe we've evolved to a point where people want to help, want to get involved, want to see the resuts of their actions and want to be a part of the solutions to societal problems. If government leaders were forced to limit their power and reduce the government to its basic duties, and it was communicated to the American people that the private sector would be responsible for healthcare, retirement, caring for the poor and disabled, training unskilled workers, dealing with unemployment and everything else a government safety net entails, what would likely happen?

Would the American people who have jobs and financial security turn their backs on the rest and say "Oh well, make if you can, and if you can't, tough luck."? I don't think anyone believes this would happen. What would likely happen is that associations would spring up to deal with societal problems relating to poverty, and companies would come up with insurance/savings plans to deal with retirement, sickness, unemployment, disability and all emergency needs now addressed by the government safety net. It's not a matter of having a safety net, it's a matter of which entities create and manage the safety nets. The State has had its go at it, so what could the private sector likely do differently.

This American spiritual frustration I've hypothesized from religious transitions, unrest and broken connections with Church and State, would likely play a big part in how we'd view our roles in a new vision of freedom. We'd be free, but responsible, pushed to the long term view since myopia hasn't worked out too well. A society that helps those left behind benefits from the results of the help, plus individuals gain a better sense of purpose and meaning and empowerment. Making poverty personal, even to the richest of the rich, means understanding the problem more deeply, therefore creating a sense of urgency to be involved and witness the efforts unfold. The old sending a check to the favorite charity to alleviate the conscience is ultimately unsatisfying, but getting involved in ways the internet now makes possible would place individuals in the middle of the efforts, getting to know the ture plight of recipients through social networking, and learning about the assocations' actions and results.

Donors would become connected to the associations they support, having a stake in success and a sense of pride regarding accomplishments, also having a say with ideas and suggestions, or even offering voluntary help. The entertainment industry could be drawn into the efforts, with concerts and gatherings which enhance the overall efforts and feed the spiritual hunger by connecting with something greater through music and art -- raising money in the process.

Progress to a libertarian is not more State control, then a cartel of countries creating international control, then a global world order ruled by a committee of technocrat masters -- this scenario is regression -- the only true progression can be more freedom for the individual. Individualism and freedom don't necessiate Hobbes' jungle, not when the need for survival depends on cooperation, and not when morality is a choice. The statists don't believe morality is freely chosen, the libertarian does -- in fact, only in freedom of choice is morality even possible. Statists can't imagine allowing people the choice to be moral -- it's beyond their comprehension of human nature, which makes me wonder why they feel comfortable, following their logic, being contolled by humans who can't freely choose to rule morally. What prevents rulers from self-seeking and abuse of power?

The elitist view is no longer valid. The fact is that people are capable of freely chosen morality and it's witnessed all the time -- Americans, for the most part, are generous, caring people. We've had the ability to live in freedom from the very beginning, but those who seek power somehow convinced the public that safety, health, justice and financial security are not possible without a strong intervening State. The State has misused power and partnered with powerful business interests to rig the game and lead us to some international arrangement of statist power -- it all seems mysteriously inevitable, but it's not. The statist system works against morality and feeds the hunger for power. Yes, the statist leaders are free to rule morally, but it's a losing game allowing the few to choose the direction and acceptable behaviors for everyone -- humans are capable of freely choosing morality, but they aren't capable of choosing for everyone. Just the practical reasons to reject statism are enough -- it takes all us of working freely together to gradually find the right paths -- central planning and social engineering are ludicrous and futile propositions

Americans might be the only people left on earth who can protect liberty, but we can only do it by being responsible, expressing our better selves in action and building something infinitely greater for all who want to participate. If we choose to live together in society, then we should actively, freely and creatively work toward building a good society. We can and we will, but we're lost if we forfeit freedom for State promises of cradle to grave security. Greece and the European statist crisis ought to serve as clarion call to change the game.

More later.

Libertarian capitalism

Since capitalism is most often defined and discussed by different people according to an individual's ideology, it's helpful to remember from time to time that capitalism, especially understood through the ideas of libertarianism, has a specific, rather limited, definition --

Main Entry:

cap·i·tal·ism 

Pronunciation:

\ˈka-pə-tə-ˌliz-əm, ˈkap-tə-, British also kə-ˈpi-tə-\

Function:

noun

Date:

1877

: an economic system characterized by private or corporate ownership of capital goods, by investments that are determined by private decision, and by prices, production, and the distribution of goods that are determined mainly by competition in a free market

This is pretty straightforward, yet to read some discussions of capitalism, you'd think it's the most nefarious system known to humankind. Contrary to some beliefs, capitalism is not a conspiracy of rich, old, white men to oppress the poor, rape the earth and deny assistance to the needy. Capitalism wasn't designed to provide a means for corporations to work in concert with the state to create an ogliarchy. If a country has allowed its government to work with corporations to control the economy, then that country doesn't have an economic system which can be called capitalism. Anytime businesses and government can collude to limit competition, then the economic system is something other than capitalism. Some say that in reality this is what naturally happens when a country starts with capitalism -- I say this is what happens when government is not limited and prevented from interfering in the economy. There's a big difference between the two propositions.

Is it possibile for a country to maintain a government which does not interfere in the economy? If a constitution is written which forbids government intervention in the economy, and abides by the constitution, then the answer is -- yes. The US Consitution had loopholes regarding interstate trade and the welfare of the nation which allowed government to crawl through like a bunch of termites which eventually destroyed the foundation.

Now, certainly, most people will have a conniption fit at the suggestion government should be prevented from intervening in the economy, and when you ask -- why? -- they will begin describing the horrible results when government and businesses collude to control the wealth. But, these critics of capitalism don't seem to realize they are making the argument for a limited government. They automatically assume a government/corporation relationship, but this is the reason to prevent the government from intervening. When they see the error, they immediately begin claiming capitalism would do this anyway if unregulated -- but they never explain why it's inevitable, although they will likely explain how capitalism creates commercialism, and how it ignores the needy in society -- capitalism doesn't do these things, people do. A libertarian-minded society would envision the diverse possibilities. 

Capitalism is a system and there is nothing in the system which prevents a spiritual, artistic-minded society or a society where there is voluntary benevolence -- charity -- or a society concerned with protecting the environment, for that matter. Capitalism is merely a system which prevents the government from interfering with private ownership, prices, investments, production or distribution of goods -- or interfering with competiton. Ownership is protected from theft, forceful taking or damage, the private decisions are contractual and protected from violation or fraud, and competition is unhampered in the market. Outside that system, private citizizens should be free to make any arrangement they want to make as long as there are no violation of basic rights. If some people want to give money to others, then capitalism doesn't prevent this. If people decide they'd rather live less commercial lives and form communes in the country, capitalism doesn't prevent this.

What gets tricky is when some say that a capitalistic system prevents the government from stopping harm done to the environment by unregulated production. But in order for private ownership to have any meaning it must be protected from theft, forceful taking or damage. If a company was putting toxic chemicals in the air, it would be violating the rights of all those it affects, and it would even be affecting the people who work in or own the business. What makes us think we can't voluntarily work out environment standards -- especially, now, knowing what we know? It amazes me to think how so many people view businesspeople as heartless, ignorant and myopic. It's true that businesspeople will do what is best for business, but I'm not sure everyone understands what's best for busines and how these decisions are made. Knowing what we know today, how many companies would poison the environment -- the environment they live in, the communities they live in -- risking backlash, condemnation, sickness, etc?

Even if some company led by a madman or madwoman willy-nilly poisoned the environment around them, there are ways to set up accreditation processes that industry voluntarily submits itself to upfront to instill confidence in the processes -- and there would also be courts to take up the issues of violation and harm. There's no reason to think that government regulation will do any better than a voluntary process -- plus, with government regulation, there's the danger of political motivations using regulation to engineer industry according to ideology or special interest pressure. Standards can be voluntarily developed which govern environmental concerns -- any company bent on violating the standards and harming the environment would never survive the societal pressure to adhere to the standards -- the company would adhere or go out of business.

It's in a company's best interest to maintain good public relations and for the brand to represent excellence. It's not in any company's interest to knowingly destroy the environment and risk the health of the public, of which the company's employees are a part.

I don't think many people have thought through the issues of capitalism, limited government and free markets -- it appears most people have merely accepted the state version which always places government in the position of public protector and the capitalist system as the violator. What an interventionist government does, in part, is attract dishonest, politically-motivated businesspeople who lobby the government  for favor so that competition is limited and the favored companies have unfair advantage -- which substitutes the system of capitalism with a system of cronyism and corruption.

So, the choice is between trusting voluntary agreements in a free market or trusting government to regulate business and, thus, the economy. A political system which is a constitutionally limited republic fits well with the economic system of capitalism. Very few people trust such a combination in the 21st century and they have myriad reasons for why it's naive, utopian, doomed to failure, selfish, consumeristic, downright evil, simplistic, etc., yet it's never really been tried in earnest. From the beginning of our nation there has been government intervention and collusion of government and business. In the 21st century, however, the situation is ripe for the re-assessment of these systems. We have evolved to a point where we can better understand our problems because we now have better information and much more knowledge of how the world works and of the collective problems we face. The atomistic idividual has been shown as myth -- cooperation is understood as an inherent part of capitalism. Perhaps a new social imaginary will emerge, one based on honest assessment. The idea that we've abided by capitalism and free markets, only to fail, is one of the greatest con jobs in history. Libertarianism defines the conflict.

The Third Way

I guess the Third Way is supposed to be a fusion of right and left, a synthesis that transcends the duality by adopting the best of each. Clinton and Obama are examples of the Third Way. Clinton alienated some on the far left with his welfare changes -- Obama talks about unity and adopting what is best for the country regardless of partisanship. It's always an appealing approach to be so broad minded that you build a reasonable consensus in spite of divisive core beliefs. Excuse my cynicism, but I won't leave my reaction at -- bullshit.

If this is the Third Way is seems like more of a capitulation to statism than anything else. Actually, it all boils down to two ways -- the thesis of statism and the antithesis of libertarianism. Isn't this the way of progress? You have a thesis, then an antithesis, then a synthesis -- the synthesis becomes the thesis, then there is an antithesis, then a synthesis, on and on. Since conservatism has been subsumed within the Third Way synthesis, libertarianism can become the antithesis -- but, wait -- can statism and libertarianism be synthesized? Actually, no more than liberal and conservative were synthesized -- what we have is the relentless march of statism -- another attempt by progressives to transform America.

If there is a battle, this is where it lies -- statism vs anti-statism, with no synthesis, only a victor. It remains to be seen if there will be a battle, or if the country goes to sleep. I've had it up to my eyeballs with the pretty ideas of a Third Way, unity, consensus -- in the real world there are Obamas, Pelosis, Reids, Franks, Bushes, Paulsons, Geithners, Bernankes, Goldman Sachs, GMs, European Unions, World Banks and all the various combinations of government/corporate partners establishing a power structure to rig the game and buy off the public while robbing them at the same time. This is a grand play against capitalism -- crush capitalism and control is complete.

The statists want control and they're merely following a family tradition -- history is a story of the powerful using physical coercion  to rig the game. All the intellectual rationalizations in the world can't change the nature of the beast. How many promises have there been throughout history to protect the little people from the monstrous money-changers, the corrupt merchants, the greedy and hateful rich who want inequality? This is just another chapter in the story, and people are falling for it once again. People are once again following like sheep. When will they ever learn -- when will they ever learn?