American Rebirth Movement -- Part 3

I've noticed through the years, especially when working with troubled people in therapy, a job I had years ago and have recently returned to as a way to combine skills to make it through this recession, that many people, when given good solutions start discounting the solutions as unworkable. For many people, real solutions are frightening, and some people fear success more than they do failure. Solutions and success mean being responsible -- day in and day out. The pressure of being responsible and applying solutions is too much for some people to bear -- they'd rather be able to blame others, fate, a handicap or past experiences -- anything but take the solution and go with it.

American society is like that in many ways -- everybody complains but few do anything about it. It's much easier to feel victimized by the system, some power outside our control, than it is to find solutions and do what you can to succeed. So, naturally, some of the hyperbolic claims I've made about the rebirth of America will be discounted as naive and utopian. The sophisticated cynic doesn't believe in the goodness of man. The statist will tell you only a strong interventionist state, which regulates human activity, can ensure that society is fair and that a safety net is there for those victimized by the oppresive system.

But deep down, I think we know what is possible -- that men and women can cooperate and solve problems. Most of us have witnessed the powerful reality of compassion, the creative energy of groups with a purpose. America is known for its charitable spirit -- we simply haven't unleashed our full power to tackle all societal problems.

With nation-wide, coordinated efforts we could build charity hospitals and clinics all across this nation to give healthcare to the poor, with health professionals volunteering their time, or taking reduced pay. Most people want to help -- they want to be part of solutions and know they are making a difference, even if there is fear in such responsibility.

If the market was freed from strangling regulations, income taxes were lowered, or ended altogether, and if companies are challenged to come up with solutions to meet the demands of retirement, healthcare coverage and unemployment, smart people (and there are many, many out there) would devise means to insure these areas of demand are met-- and if society spreads the idea that young couples having kids need to start dealing with retirement, healthcare and emergencies from the moment of birth, creative savings/insurance plans would be offered so that by the time someone becomes 20 years old, their policies would cover most safety net issues.

It's not wise for anyone developing different theories of meeting society's needs to get into specifics, because there's the risk of getting bogged down in the details and looking foolish, but we need to begin envisioning ways to voluntarily create safety nets and an environment in which the economy can thrive so that anyone wanting a job can find one. We need innovative education solutions which arise from supply and demand in the market, and which meet our needs.

Those who sit back and scoff aren't helping. I'll close this series out tomorrow.

The American Rebirth Movement -- Part 2

Anyone who has worked in business for any period of time understands the complex nature of competition and cooperation. In real estate, if the broker is working with a home buyer as a buyer agent, the broker must cooperate with everyone involved in the transaction, although there are competing interests. The agent representing the seller is trying to get the highest price and best conditions for the seller, while the buyer agent is trying to get the lowest price and best conditions for the buyer. Both agents involved cooperate to reach a meeting of the minds, and hopefully both sides win. The agent must also cooperate with the lender, attorney, inspectors and anyone else involved in the transaction. The buyer and seller also agree to cooperate, although they have competing interests -- they agree to complete all parts of the transaction in a timely manner -- they agree to be honest and give good information -- they agree to abide by all conditions of the contract, which are required to make the transaction happen. If the buyer is trying to screw the seller, the buyer agent has the responsibility to work with the buyer to show them that if the buyer wants the home they are going to have to be more realistic and enact a certain amount of cooperation or go on to another deal -- the seller is resistant to being screwed, but, if reasonable, is willing to cooperate. There has to be give and take throughout the whole process with everyone competing and cooperating to make the transaction happen. The buyer, if they are getting a loan, is competing with the lender for the best loan. The loan orginator is trying to get the bank the best deal, and the buyer and her agent are trying to get the buyer the best deal, so they all cooperate to come up with a loan with which everyone is satsified. There are other areas of competition and cooperation which must be negotiated, but this gives a picture of the interplay of cooperation and competion and this is how business is done in the free market every day.

 

To hear some politicians and pundits speak, who've never spent much time in the free market world, there are predators and victims -- it's a vicious world where powerful capitalist interests dominate and the consumer is always victimized and oppressed. In more complex industries such as manufacturing, the interplay of cooperation and competion is even more complex, but again, to hear the political class talk, it's all about a grand struggle of workers overcoming the oppression of greedy capitalist owners. The new/old idea in America must be a return to that interplay of competition and cooperation.

 

Underneath it all is also the idea of individualism and community -- the same interplay of competing interests and common interests are present and constantly taking place all across the nation -- so complex that no committee of social engineers will ever be able to control it to whatever ends they propose and aim toward. Unleashing this interplay of competing interests and common interests with common goals that also help each individual, either directly or indirectly, is the vital need we have. America must be allowed to handle its problems.

 

 

Imagine for a minute a nation challenged to handle the problem of access to healthcare. With all that has been learned in business management and technology, and with all the resources which could be channelled toward assistance for those who are disadvantaged, or temporarily in hard times, there's no limit to the creative solutions which could provide healthcare access to everyone who has a need. Just imagine if we droped our divisions long enough to restore America and put it on the right track for the 21st century -- this would be a national goal worth the cooperation -- it would be a national investment. Just imagine if the government backed off coercion and social engineering and presented America with the option of a public/private effort to resolve our most pressing problems.

 

First, the idea of charity must be transformed to remove the shame and the patronizing elements that have made charity so distasteful, and have pushed wrong-headed efforts to make assistance a right equal to our basic rights. It is neither a shameful act nor a right, it's the solution to the problem of those among us who can't help themselves, or those who need assistance to begin helping themselves.

 

Once a national movement is in place with the purpose of designing a private safety net, people will come out of the woodworks to make it happen. The first problem will be to convince people that involvement in the rebirth movement is widespread and supported by some of the most wealthy and powerful people in the country. This type of positive energy can be contagious -- and the transparency of the internet can be a vital tool to show everyone what's ahppening and how it's happening. Once it begins, everyone will be inspired to meet the challenge and make it happen. Societal pressure will prevent the deceitful from taking advantage of the effort or corrupting it. Private organizattions will likely arise to instill integrity and oversight into the effort, so people are informed of efforts to corrupt the effort -- and pity the ones caught corrupting it.

 

The effort would touch the deeper part of the American soul beneath the callouses of cynicism formed from years of dishonest players gaming the system and violating the trust of those willing to help. Above all, this would be a spiritual movement -- not a religious movement, although churches have already been doing this for years -- that calls our humanity to task -- not some misguided altruism based on a moral imperative, but a free choice to join a collabortaive effort to achieve something spectacular and excellent which will also help each individual participating. 

 

Rock bands giving concerts to raise money, billionaires making large contributions, professional atheletes and Hollywood stars putting their money where their mouths are, and all the millionaires across the nation, could jointly do a lot of good work -- plus all the ordinary people like myself willing to do our part. The rebirth movement, though, doesn't need to be a formal movement all under one form of leadership -- it can be like that corny elder Bush phrase -- "A Thousand Points of Light" -- because, although corny, when taken seriously, it's a very powerful and inspiring concept which can be made a reality.

 

I'll drill down a little further later.

The private sector narrative -- part III

The story-tellers of capitalism and limited government are bombarded by statists with myriad questions on particulars, because the statists are accustomed to plans and programs -- What about the poor? Who's going to pay for poor Millie's artificial hip? What about the children? Who will save the pin-striped owl? Who will keep the ice-caps frozen? Who will care that Uncle Ben can't even afford Alpo? What about expanding home-ownership with low-interest rates, no down-payment and a furniture allowance? Who will screw the rich bastards?

Don't get me wrong, my sarcasm isn't a let-them-eat-cake insensitivity, but the statists who ask these questions are missing the point. The story of the private sector is not a story of five-year plans and social engineering -- that's what got us into this mess. The libertarian-minded aren't callous to these problems -- they simply know the problems are too complex for a gaggle of a technocrats to solve (do technocrats come in gaggles?). "But," responds the statists "our neighbors don't care about these issues, so who will care?"

Everyone thinks they, and their group, are the only ones who care. And, of course, the capitalists don't care, because we've seen in the movies how they act -- a vicious and greedy bunch, they are. Personally, I'm sick of hearing liberals and progressives talk as if government is benevolent, and the private sector is selfish and greedy. Anyone who has kept up with the antics in government can't possibly believe politicians and bureaucrats have better answers for our lives than we have ourselves, or that government will take care of the people while we would back-stab each other and watch people starve or die in the streets from lack of healthcare.

The point is that government poses as the benevolent, wise giver of care and financial protection, when in fact they have no idea how to solve our most pressing problems -- and, for the most part, they care more about power than they do about real solutions. Look at the public schools -- look at the results of the welfare state -- look at the financial condition of Medicare -- look at what they did to housing and, ultimately, the financial system, in cahoots with corporate cronies. If the government cared about real solutions they'd be considering private solutions, yet they resist private solutions so they can protect turf and maintain a powerbase of voters.

The story of the private sector is one of innovation, magnificent economic gains, unbelieveable technological progress and great feats of charity. The story of the private sector is that where there's been need, answers emerge -- where there is demand, supply emerges -- where there is a challenge, ingenuity emerges. Free people find real solutions, yet our unique abilities have been weakened by government dependence, by regulations which thwart our best efforts and protect large corporations against smaller competitors, by laws which prevent the emerging innovations and changes that would naturally develop.

The progressive will read this and come up with a list of market failures, how the private sector failed to deal with poverty, failed to eradicate pollution, failed to deal with racism, yet, if you dig far enough back you find an America that was creating organizations to deal with societal problems until government stepped in and began meddling. Alexis de Toqueville wrote about the magnificent genius America had for helping organizations, and he also predicted how this genius would be dulled by the state slowly taking over as we passively transferred responsibilities.

So, in the end, the progressives are accidentally right, the private sector has failed -- it failed to resist the state.

Soft socialization

The mass-murdering, totalitarian socialization in Russia and Germany, led by Lenin/Stalin and Hitler bears little resemblance to modern European socialization and what's happening in America. Our socialization is based neither on Marxist class struggle nor race domination, but the principles of socialization are basically the same, motivated by cloudy ideas of social justice and equality, led by elite technocrats, not a tyrannical individual with a private goon squad or professional revolutionaries. Although Obama does have his czars, their left-leaning/progressive ideas replace lethal weapons, torture and annihilation. Bush had his neo-con gang helping to implement State policy over the spontaneous order of a free market, but their violence was pointed at terrorists, not the American people and political enemies.

In the two preceding posts, here and here, I wrote about European and American socialization and quoted Hitler, but our socialization is soft and modernized as we're gently led to depend on the social engineering technocrats and the compassionate wisdom of the State leaders. Modern adherents of socialization recognized they could not survive a totalitarian approach, and the deadly results are no longer acceptable to the advanced modern mind which avoids domestic violence when possible, so capitalism has been used to finance a much softer approach. There hasn't, however, been any total acceptance of capitalism as an economic system which morally answers the human need for liberty, choice, prosperity and flourishing -- in fact capitalism has been blamed for most of the modern ills, yet accepted as a necessary evil which allows the innate selfishness of humans to produce wealth needed to distribute to those in need. In other words, capitalism has been used to create a world which doesn't need capitalism, but this has yet to be accomplished, although very smart people are hard at work trying to find a modern approach to central planning which will accomplish something close to a managed economy which is free of all capitalist weaknesses which enrich the few at the expense of the many.

First, businesses are socialized to act in service of the State's central plan, so that the right cars are built, and banks have the right relationship to borrowers, and healthcare is free of profit-motive, and energy is in service to the State's environmental plans. If the State can partner with the larger corporations to achieve national policy, then capitalism is transformed to an active component of the State and there are no conflicts of interest -- the central plan is not thwarted by businesspeople motivated by competition working at cross purposes for higher profits rather than the betterment of society. Once businesses are on board, with certain gaurantees of protection for cooperating, then social plans for justice and equality are easier to implement -- the jungle is tamed and the weak are protected from the strong. Socializing losses is a way to get major industries on board -- they don't have to worry about competition and they build a public image of working for the greater good.

If those in the middle class can be convinced they are victims of the excesses of capitalism then the State creates a power-base to complete the socialization process. This becomes difficult when the economy is strong and many couples have combined incomes in six digits, but during recessions, economic stagnation and high unemployment, it's an easier sell. Seeing as how an over-regulated economy is more likely to stagnate, government efforts which hurt the economy can actually help their cause to socialize the economy. It's no mistake that down economies are incessantly blamed on prior over-heating by greedy capitalists who went too far and created a bubble. The State then places itself in the position of cleaning up the economy by instituting even more regulations to prevent bubbles and "irrational exuberance" in the future, further stagnating the economy and making their stimulus, bailouts and regulatory activity more indispensable.

Although I stated at the beginning that socialization in the U.S. is different from Marxist class struggle, our present socialization does depend, in part, on class warfare, but no one is proposing a proletariat revolution, because it's well known today that producers are the sine qua non of wealth creation. The problem is simply how to bring the producers into the service of the State. Once the public becomes accustomed to social engineering, it's a steady process of implementing the central plan -- yet as I wrote in a preceding post, in America there's still the remnants of classical liberalism which promotes limited government and a free market, so the process of socialization will be quick during crises and slow during boom times, although either can work to the benefit of the State, as our society slowly begins to forget the attributes of capitalism.

In boom times the case is made by politicians that a generous nation needs to take care of its own, yet there is little encouragement to increase charity, but, rather, there's a push to enlarge the welfare state. In a financial crisis, the State simply says it has no choice but to enlarge the welfare state. The challenge for those who still adhere to the principles of classical liberalism, or to conservative libertarianism, or just plain libertarianism, as classical liberalism is now called, is to take back the mantle of compassion by promoting the benefits and moral superiority of private assistance through charitable organizations -- and the promotion of innovative private insurance arrangements to deal with social security and unemployment.

Welfare/social security was the thin wedge which gave the State the moral advantage in promoting socialization in America, although the U. S. has always been proficient at helping organizations -- we simply lost our nerve in the 30s and the Progressives pushed their agenda with force in a horrible Depression. Had government policies not made the Depression in the 30s much worse than necessary, the private sector would have likely continued its innovative path to dealing with many of society's problems. We have to return to this earlier understanding of the private realm, capitalism, private assistance and the free market before socialization has enveloped the entire nation.

Libertarian Preparation Part 7: Pursuing Wealth

Almost all of us pursue wealth. There are some people in society who have a different value system, and wealth means very little to them, but for most of us wealth represents security and acquisition of the means to do and experience things we enjoy -- to pursue happiness.

Free, capitalist countries have shown to be more prosperous than countries under some form of socialism, but great wealth has also shown to create class envy and warfare. It appears that many people haven't mastered the concept that wealth is created through productive activity, that there isn't a limited amount of money sitting somewhere that shrinks when someone becomes wealthy. If I start a business and make a million dollars, that doesn't take money away from anyone, it justs adds to the total amount of wealth, just as if I lose that million it doesn't take money away from others, unless there are people dependent on me making money and not losing it, such as an employee or supplier, but even then it doesn't directly take money from their amount, it just means they won't be creating their wealth off money I had been supplying for a productive activity on which they were dependent (and I was dependent on them, too). If I went out of business, the employee would not get any more paychecks from me, and the suppliers would not have my business.

We should be joyous when people create wealth, because it adds to the total amount of wealth. If I create a million dollars of wealth from a productive business, then I will spending it at stores, buying things, putting it in a savings account so that others can borrow it, investing in another business through stocks so the business can survive or grow, perhaps expanding my business and hiring more people who may be out of work.

Creating wealth is a good thing that helps others. It also means I'm not directly dependent on others to take care of my wants and needs -- I don't have to ask anyone to give me money, because I'm making my own. Ayn Rand once said, and I'm paraphrasing, that one of the best ways to fight poverty is to not be poor. But speaking of poverty, a wealthy society is also a more generous society. As I mentioned in another post, we've barely tapped into our charity potential, and charity is hampered by high taxes and the idea that government will take care of the poverty problem. As many libertarians, and other free, objective thinkers, have claimed, pertaining to inequality of wealth, is that the major cause for wealth inequality has been government intervention/regulation in the economy which favors some economic endeavors over others, thereby rewarding some buisness enterprises and punishing others, interfering with competition and blocking smaller players from rising through hard-work, better ideas and quality.

The idea that great wealth in a society causes consumerism and a materialistic society which slowly erodes culture and spiritual pursuits is also an unproven propostion that is contradicted in reality. America's great wealth, historically, has allowed more people to pursue spirituality and culture -- art, music, religion and spiritual diversity abound in this country. It's difficult to be spiritual and cultured in dire poverty. A mature society can separate business and soul-pursuit, or combine both with no damage to the spirit. Even in business for many people there's a deeper understanding of the spontaneous order that arises -- a type of beauty in the actions at play which aren't planned in a central government committee, but rather the results of millions and millions of free choices. 

We still have a problem with poverty in America, but pursuing and creating wealth is not the cause. A large part of the answer lies in an enlightened national mindset regarding wealth, and a separation of government and economy which allows the economy to grow and create more opportunities for people to create wealth.