But Libertarianism would be a good reality

http://dailycaller.com/2013/06/10/were-all-libertarians-today/

Matt lewis wrote a reply to E.J. Dionne who made a claim that since Communist government's fail whenever applied, and since a Libertarian government has never existed, then Libertarianism should be condemned as Communism is condemned as unworkable, or something to that effect.

Before addressing Lewis's main point, I'd like to say that Dionne makes a dumb comparison. Communism is responsible for millions and millions of deaths and much suffering under totalitarian regimes. Anyone familiar with history knows the horrors committed in the name of Communism. We can rejoice that Communism has been shown by experience to be a failure. However, it's a tragedy that nations fall under the control of statism to such an extent that Libertarianism has never been given a fair shot, not even at the beginning of America. I wonder if Dionne can understand this? Lewis seems to understand it to the extent that he likes a few Libertarians around on the wall to scream about violations to individual rights, although he doesn't want Libertarians limiting government power to the point that government can't operate as Lewis thinks is necessary.

Lewis does make a good point that liberty will not last without diligence from the American people to protect freedom. Why is this? Because the natural evolution of the State is to expand power and control, and if left to its own devices the State will gain complete control. How is it that so many Americans have either forgetten this or don't know it? It's not a comfort to me, although it might comfort Dionne, that half of all Americans are willing to trust the State to limit its power and wisely use information about our private lives. It's sad really. It's sad that Libertarianism has never been chosen by any nation.

 I suppose Communists could make the claim, and they have, that Communism proper has never been given a chance, but the principles of Communism necessarily lead to totalitarian control, while Libertarianism could exist without necessarily leading to totalitarian control. Libertarianism doesn't require coercion, but Communism does. Libertarianism allows any social arrangements that are voluntary and don't violate the rights of others, while Communism has to disallow by force certain social arrangements. It's conceivable, and ironic, that a Libertarian society could choose to live in a communistic way, or at least have large parts of society in certain regions living in communes, while a Communist society would prohibit Libertarianism that would permit capitalist activity and property rights secured by contracts. See Ludwig von Mises' Socialism. The path from Socialism to Communism leads to horrors. Right now, it would be enlightening to see where the path from  Statism to Libertarianism leads. One can only hope -- and be diligent.

What ideologues?

It's mostly a claim made by the Left -- Rightwing ideologues are obstructing common sense compromise and pragmatic problem solving -- although the Right also accuses the Left of adhering bull-headedly to ideology. Many historians talk about the ideological battles from WWI to WWII and through the Cold War conflicts between communists and capitalists. History and close observation of political parties today reveal something quite different. Although, rhetorically, one might find ideological posturing then and now, in reality, the opposite has been more true than not. From Stalin's NEP to Wilsons socialist measures -- from Gorbachev's perastroika to Reagan's eventual expansion of government power -- from the fall of the Berlin Wall to Clinton's capitulation to budget balancing and wefare reform -- and from Bush's Big Government Republicanism to Obama's militaristic interventions in the mideast, the underlying motivating causes have been related to State power maintenance and expansion than adherence to any ideology. Vague ideas regarding welfare and regulation and national defense have driven the government toward a statist system, but no can blame ideology for this system. It's banal-- government gains control by giving people stuff and promising security. There's been no careful efforts to create a system that's effective, efficient and fair, based on a well-reasoned set of ideas, even if that is possible. Government has implemented a hodgepodge of regulations, entitlements and interventions which have eventually strangled the economy.

No powerful American leaders have ever fought for strict limits on government power and an authentic free market, as, on the other hand, none have fought for government control over the means of production, and, although Russia attempted socialism, they mostly floundered between different schemes and five year plans that could be totally opposite from an ideological perspective. In America, particularly, rather than ideology being a problem in the political realm, lack of an ideological foundation has been the real problem, and still is the real problem. The two leading candidates for the Republican nomination to run for President in 2012 are accusing one another of being the biggest flip-flopper. There's been a lot of ideological rhetoric, but not much ideological consistency. Even when one party stands on "principle" to obstruct the party in power, when power switches, that principle is usually violated by the winner in a matter of weeks or months.

Ideology is spoken of as if it's a modern evil, regardless of the set of ideas in question, so, in practice, pragmatism and ad hoc convenience are the preferred political methods, even though ideology is used to give a good speech every now and then. Has the public shifted Right? Oh well, better give a rousing free market speech. Has the public shifted Left? Well, then, let me pull out my welfare, regulation and fat cat speech. Although Obama has been one of the most ideologically consistent political figures in quite a while, a progressive in congress, and a fighter for universal healthcare in his first two years as President, when push comes to shove, he's more ordinary statist than Super Progressive with a clear agenda he's willing to fight for against all odds. Maintaining or expanding power is the name of the game. If the public turns against power-grabbing, then work to maintain the gains in power. If the public has been bamboozled, then work your ass off to expand power. If each political party did have a set of ideas they belived in, and if they were clear about the ideas, then it would be easier to determine which set of ideas make the most sense, but we're stuck with pragmatic tweaks and schemes that are supposed to give the appearance of wise, common sense governance. As it turns out, government doesn't have a clue how manage an economy, or deal with the affairs of other nations. Our Founders had a good set of ideas that they worked out over a period of time. The results were not perfect, but it was the best blueprint for governance developed so far. What our government does now is so far from the blueprint, it's more like a theater of the absurd.

Ideology is not a matter of political taste. Some ideas are more true than others. The biggest problem I see in the political realm is that not enough representatives are sent to DC who defend and act on the best set of ideas. It's clear that governing by ad hoc convenience and whatever protects the status quo of power has not worked. The main ideology that threatens statists is the set of ideas that promote dynamic economic growth in a market not managed by government. Government favored corporations which act as allies of the State fear a free market that upsets the established economic order. Through the years Big Corporate players have welcomed government regulation that suppresses competition. An ideology that promotes limits on government power is a threat to the political realm. The rigged game depends on government control over the economy. An ideology that promotes peaceful, free trade and non-intervention in foreign affairs threatens the military industrial complex that our Founders warned against and hoped to prevent.

The image of an "ideologue" as a wild-eyed, close-minded fanatic who holds on tight and stubbornly to discredited ideas overlooks the fact that ideology can include the idea that the intellectually honest person always adjusts his/her views when new information calls for adjustment. Promoting a set of ideas a person believes have been validated by experience is hardly fanatical. The main criticism against ideological "purity" is that in politics there must be compromise, and that the perfect shouldn't be the enemy of good enough for government work, but this has been the problem. For too long, too many politicians have compromised on important principles, justifying their compromises by claiming politics is a game of give and take. The result of compromises, however, have put the nation at risk because too few representatives have stood on principle to do what's best for the nation. When you can't find a representative who doesn't agree that entitlements, unchanged, are unsustainable, yet there isn't a consensus to tackle the problem and avoid collapse, compromise or inaction are not virtuous. When practically every representative agrees that defense spending can be cut without threatening our security, yet defense contractors continue to over-charge and build unneeded weapons, compromise or inaction are not virtuous. When all representatives agree that waste, fraud and abuse of tax-payer dollars are realities in government, but the waste fraud and abuse continue unabated, compromise or inaction are not virtuous. 

The charge that ideologues are blocking progress is a ridiculous charge. We are at a point where ideology, the best set of ideas, are needed more than ever. Yes, I know that there is disagreement over what represents the best set of ideas, but if government worked through reason rather than partisan power-mongering, it wouldn't be too difficult to agree on the set of ideas that make the most sense, and, as I said, we have a blueprint. But these ideas will never find their way to DC unless the public rejects the demonization of ideology and begins to develope a better vision for America. It's not up to politicians -- it's up to the nation as a whole. The 2012 elections should be primarily about the role of government going forward, and only an ideology which understands the problems of unlimited government will lead to the best results. 

The spirit of communism transformed

Those not yet born on the 50s and 60s and who haven't read the history of communism might think of communism as something ancient with a few present day nations like North Korea still hanging onto a dead political movement, but communism has greatly influenced what we see in governments all around the world, from East Asia, to Europe to African nations to the nations of South America and to North America. Marxism or High Stalinism might be dead, but the spirit of communism lives on.

The anti-imperialist movement in Third World nations which bloomed in the 50s and transitioned into anti-capitalism is the main force still influential today. Communists and nationalist socialists joined forces to fight the imperialist super-powers, and this battle spread throughout the world. In many cases this struggle for national identity was a justified battle against interventionist super-powers, although the means and resulting regimes in many Third World nations were less than righteous, and in many cases they were totally unrighteous and murderous.

But the ideas remain, and anti-capitalism is alive and well. It's understandable that capitalism, as it was perverted by industrialized nations, attracted anger and negative reactions from smaller nations who were, and still are, used as pawns in the power elite's interventions to gain global domination. Who knows what the world would be like today if all nations had been allowed to naturally develope, and if free market/non-interventionist principles had reigned.

But, we can't go back and change it. We can, however, learn from the mistakes. In America, we have a deep division between the haves and have-nots, among other divisions, of course, and this division is breeding class warfare in the political realm, or it's bred by the political realm. Much of the class warfare is instigated by political interests in the quest for power, and the political interests have been the main culprits causing the problems which created the division to begin with. Groups are pitted against one another as the State grows in power -- we've been divided and conquered.

Communism is not the answer, but the spirit of the smaller nations, mentioned above fighting to free themselves from the clutches of imperialist super-powers, should be revived among the American people, and this time the results to strive for are freedom and empowerment, not just a replacement of chains. I submit that, even more radical than communism, a strictly limited government and a free market are the means to transcend the division in America and to prosper in equal opportunity.

This coming week I'll write several posts using history as a learning guide in regards to perverted capitalism and the damaging effects of Big Government intervention and central planning.

Pragmatism in government

Pragmatism in a free society is definitely useful. The more experience and wisdom one has the less one has to experiment, but attempting to find the best ways of doing things, the best ways of communicating, the best ways of producing and meeting needs, etc, are all perfectly fine, but pramatism in government becomes dangerous rather than helpful. If government could practice perfect pragmatism, then it might have a case, but since this is impossible, a theory of government's role must be establsihed and maintained. The Constitution was ostensibly designed to limit government's role, but it has flaws which allow government to expand its powers, so amendments are necessary to clarify the limitations. Rather than work toward limiting government, though, too many are praising the virtues of pragmatism practiced by technocrats with a monopoly on coercion.

The business owner might find pragmatic solutions to his problems with sales, but the business owner can't coerce others to adopt these solutions. The social scientist might develope pragmatic solutions to poverty, but the social scientist can't coerce others to adopt the practices. In the private sector, there's a free market of ideas where everyone can make a case, consider evidence, then freely choose their course

Who really trusts politicians in Washington to be ideally pragmatic, free of political motivations or motivations for personal gain? Who thinks that giving these politicians the power to enforce their pragmatic solutions on the American people is a good idea? Well, those in society who have something to gain from the enforced pragmatic solutions might think it's a good idea, until another group of politicians come along and enforce their pragmatic solutions which then favor other groups and disfavor the previous group so satisfied with pragmatism. The problem is that even if the politicians were sincere in their efforts, they don't have the capacity to know what is good for everyone, except in a general way in that it's good that people are protected from coercion by others, and that the nation is better with the ability to protect itself from foreign attack, and that if there are disputes, there's a place to go where objective judges can help find a resolution. There are limits, though, to what government officials can do to "make things better". Even in a government designed on the theory of limitations, pragmatism can be useful to help make the government itself more efficient in performing its limited duties, but pragmatism in the form of economic intervention and moral legislation destroys freedom and eventually creates a lack of confidence to act due to unintended consequences when the few attempt to pragmatically plan and manage for the many.

Several writers on the Left have compared the "ideological" Right to the Communists of the 20th century, but communism in the USSR, from NEP to strict socialist control of industry, was not ideologically rigid -- the communists were pragmatists who switched from one plan to the next even if one plan contradicted completely the ideas of the previous plan. The worst nightmare I can imagine is to have more Cass Sunstein-style technocratic pragmatists in government nudging, pushing, prodding and eventually commanding their plans to "make things better."

Where else ya goin' to go, sucka?

Political pundits on the Left are fond of defending Obama's wishy-washy relationship with his base by saying the base has no other place to go -- they aren't going to vote for Republicans? Hee Hee. If I were a radical Leftist, I'd be even more pissed with this response. There is an alternative -- someone can challenge Obama from the Left. This is what I'd advise, and it could be either one of two types of challenges.

Sensible liberals who realize the ending tragedy of progressivism could support a candidate who promotes fiscal conservatism and social/civil rights liberalism, or the Left could get a radical who, unlike Obama, is not afraid to state principles and stand for socialism/communism or whatever brand of statism is the leading ideology among the radical Left.

Wouldn't that be refreshing? Especially if the Republicans choose someone who stands for something on the Right. Let's have a real national debate without the faking to the center, or shifting with every poll result. We don't need less ideology, not if ideology is a set of ideas, but more debate over ideas.

Some of the pundits said today about Obama's press conference in which he was asked if he now approves of gay marriage, that he winked and nodded toward his base while refusing to take a stand one way or the other on gay marriage. Come on! Wouldn't it be cleansing if a real person were President, and this real person was honest? Wow, just think about it.