At least Germany is waking up

http://www.voanews.com/english/2009-10-24-voa25.cfm

Germany appears to be moving in the right direction, realizing that pro-business measures and tax cuts are the way out of a recession, not government spending and meddling. We'll see how far they move from socialization.

Removing nuclear weapons is also a good idea -- perhaps they are sending a message that peaceful trade is their goal. Now, if they can work it out where they provide all their defense needs, they can become an example of independence for other European countries.

The future will reward countries which move toward free enterprise, production and peaceful trade and away from international military entanglements.

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.

Trade wars of the future

A tip of the hat to Don Boudreaux at Cafe Hayek.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/06/29/AR2009062902307.html

As the US economy weakens, the unemployment rate rises and congress places more tax burdens on US businesses, there will be pressure to protect workers from imported goods. Plus the unions are going to demand protection from Obama, since they helped him get elected -- just saving GM is not near enough.

The rationalization for protection will most likely be an emotional appeal like all the big item changes are -- save the sick and poor, save the American worker who has given his/her greatest efforts to this country, save the planet for our children -- always remember the children!

I can see this emotional appeal being marketed in the media with personal stories of tragedy, of families thrown from their homes because jobs were lost, of individuals with hard hats and sad faces standing next to an empty factory, stories of executives escaping with millions who are now traveling the world and living it up. Nationalism will likely come into play -- the American way of life, traditional jobs victimized by globalization, foreign countries paying pennies for slave labor.

If the government goes this route and starts a trade war, we could be in for a long, hard depression. The present situation begs for economic freedom, lower taxes on business, less strangling regulation and global free trade, not war. I know that hardly anyone anymore believes that a strong economy, unburdened by taxes on businesses, capital gains and income, will create enough economic activity so that government revenue will increase rather than decrease, but it sure beats starting a trade war by circling the wagons. It's the difference of allowing the people of this country to go and make things happen and government trying to enforce safety even if it means stagnation and economic decline -- the difference between dynamic and static.

Loss of vision, courage and ambition

I worry that a universal dependence on government is pushing the world in the wrong direction. In the US, one of the last places on earth for individuals to express the creative, liberal force which has drastically and wonderfully changed the world since the Renaissance, there is an anti-business sentiment affecting about half the population which is driving people in great numbers to the guidance and protection of the state. The state no longer exists to provide protection for free people and the excercise of free enterprise and civil liberties -- the state now exists to establish control over "progress". Progress, historically in the US, has meant innovation and technological advances brought about by the relatively free interactions of people working within a capitalist system.

As I've written about lately, capitalism is now considered by many as an obsolete and unworkable system which must be replaced by government social engineering -- regulatory bodies, social programs and active representatives who believe in the power of intervention and redistribution. There's a risk that the public will lose their individualism and that group dynamics will pressure us toward conformity and dependence. When I talk about individualism, I'm not talking about atomistic individuals who are independent masters of their own destiny, the fictional Randian character who needs nothing but reason and an unbreakable will, which liberal critics have turned into caricatures for ridicule when the warts of human fallibility are uncovered -- however, to a realistic degree, I am talking about this individual, in part, along with the reality of interdependence and the knowledge that co-operation is necessary if there is to be progress. Of course, it is dramatic think of an individual as the sole master in his/her world, accomplishing great feats on will power and intellect alone, but each person usually has untapped power that is not realized unless there is a recognition of excellence, and a brave effort to achieve that personal excellence suing the strengths of others wisely. I do beleive there is virtue in free-thinking, having the courage to stand against popular opinion when you envision what seems to be a greater truth, always open to changing direction if proven wrong.

The more the state engineers our lives and provides for our needs, the more I fear we'll become weak, lose our ambition, rely on powers above to handle the problems of society, become fearful of change and risk, settle for the mediocre which presents no danger. A slow numbing of the mind and spirit could put a nation in a sleep-walk, comfortably walking through our days, assured a benevolent government is handling the difficult issues. No one will want to stick their heads above the crowd as we share our lives in relative equality and nice agreement -- magnificence and excellence will be seen as arrogance and insensitivty to those less fortunate, so we'll be taught to hide our light in a unified dimness.

To a degree this is already happening among the parents and teachers who are teaching that everyone wins and everyone is okay regardless what they achieve -- an unconditional acceptance that sees no right or wrong just unfortunate choices at times. Yet many people rebel against this, and they are called insensitive, uncultured, loons who believe they can go their own way without consideration of how it affects their neighbor's well-being. The business executive who makes millions is seen as an enemy who is sucking up all the wealth when others are less fortunate, not as lucky -- and it's seen as unfair. We're losing sight of the differences among us, and the fact that some produce more because they exert more effort, learn more, persevere, sacrifice time and pleasure to advance and achieve -- there is only the recognition that this one has more than the other, and something should be done to make it right.

We are also at risk of distrusting our ability to innovate and move forward in progress without the guidance of higher powers, whether it's God and the church or the state as a god. We are losing our trust in charity and goodwill. Because we see evil done, it stands to reason that people are naturally selfish and myopic and therefore a benevolent government is required to enforce morality. There is magical thinking that representatives in government are somehow transformed with the responsibility to establish equality and fairness, or there is realistic scheming in getting the right party elected so that they will ensure comfort and safety. Who has the courage to stand alone and create, to take the risk of bringing something new to the world with no gaurantee it will be accepted? Will we kill innovation and creativity for the sake of safety and comfort? Will we sacrifice excellence for mediocrity as long as no waves are created and the status quo is not upset? Will we notice when risk and reward are no longer present? Will there be anything to strive for? Will we notice when greatness doesn't die and appears from another place to remind us of what we've lost? Or will we see it as a threat and destroy it?

The power of innovation

We've come too far to turn back now. In spite of all the manipulations by government which make me at times want to move to an island and forget it all, I look past the MSM's portrayal of America's hot mess and the global crisis and I see the dynamic movement of creative people which will define the future and leave dullard statists wondering how it all passed them by. We've come too far. The future belongs to a new breed of geniuses and producers and artists and brain-workers and service providers and craftspeople, and, yes, laborers who have tools other generations couldn't imagine. It's always been that way, I suppose, except now we've reached a different level where changes will be mindblowing, quick and dramatic. The base for change is more complex and the accumulated knowledge is increasing like never before.

This buildup of technological knowledge and expertise is busting the seams of an old structure of power and control. I believe we're in a lull of doubt before an explosion of innovation which will render obsolete most of what we witness today from nation-states. We may be witnessing a dual movement of statist collapse and technological revolution, with the state delusionally writing the narrative as a government-led transformation. The silence regarding free enterprise's newest promise is deafening -- while the media covers and makes excuses for the latest tax-dodging government appointment and announces another government scheme to patch a hole in the dike.

The social scientist's bed-wetting concern over technology de-humanizing us all has failed to materialize as we cheerfully embrace innovations which move us further and further, cyber-wise and technology-wise, beyond the reach of a sluggish state. This last gasp of statism is making the best use it can of the economic lull in order to make a stand, but it's legs are as weak as its collective mind. State control of dying industries and daddy fat-cat banks is a desparate move to avoid the reality of failure.  The state defense of public education and the welfare state is a reactionary justification for its existence while potential change and innovative possibilities lie in wait -- and as the new breed of entrepreneurs wait for showtime, a nation absorbs the information flow which increases through growing channels. To many, the revelation of a state in conflict with its limitations and aspirations is an awakening to where we stand in history -- if the over-reaching state reveals itself to be the manipulative obstacle some of us know it to be, the rest will realize the emptiness of government's benevolent claims and the obstacles will be removed. We've come to far to allow a dying power structure to support dying industries and institutions at the expense of progress.

The state has done a grand job conflating government with America, but it's always been doomed to faliure, just as extreme failure keeps North Korea in darkness and, to a lesser degree of failure, keeps Europe in perpetual mediocrity and gradual decay. To the extent America has been different and more amenable to free enterprise and an open, free society, we've advanced a standard of living which no one 50 years ago could imagine, and we didn't come this far to tear it all down.