How the Left is geared toward collectivism

Most young modern liberals deny that the direction of the Democratic Party is influenced by socialism because they think of socialism in terms of old-fashioned ideas that are now replaced by an enlightened pragmatism, but they carry on the structural construction, as they are told must happen, that allows modern socialism to advance. Socialist intellectuals understand the slow progress and they've never thought socialism would come about overnight. Young idealists on the Left weren't properly educated, and they never learned where to look to understand the heritage of their ideas. There's nothing new under the sun, not even in a tent in a park near Wall Street.

Some on the Left call themselves progressive but mainly because it's hard to be against progress. Howard Stern recently interviewed NY liberals/progressives/Obama-supporters on the sidewalks, and while Stern did it for the entertainment value, he chose his interviewees at random. The answers they gave to Stern's questions suggest that America has no shortage of useful idiots on the Left. It's a shame our educational system didn't teach the raw knowledge of the socialist movement/influence in America so that its modern adherents could at least make a semi-reasonable argument, or, at least know they are adherents.

Intellectuals who've studied the development of socialism over the last two centuries understand that in history's time this is a twinkle. The structure on which to hang socialist principles had to be built, and now it's almost complete. The Left wants power for four more years, and while the large majority simply want a strong, interventionist government to help them fight against the perceived disadvantages they've been taught they face, the knowledgeable few understand that four more years will complete the structure and destroy any remnants of free market principles or attempts to limit power.

The knowledgeable Left, the modern American socialists, understand that collectivism has finally reached the point of overwhelming individualism and establishing the society that so many have dreamed of for so long. The subjects of gender, race, culture and environment are at last primary, with the structure in place for regulatory finish work. Those who are campaigning for Obama and Democrats in Congress, who have no understanding of the consequences, believe that their group, whichever it may be, will be favored, that government will now have the power to accomplish what Obama failed to accomplish against recalcitrant Republicans. These useful idiots have no idea how disappointed they'll be when power is consolidated, and they are left behind as the State machine impersonally rolls over them on its way to sucking the required resources from the economy to pay for the socialist power-structure. The US standard of living will have to drop for the majority, and the phase will begin in which half the nation lives on handouts as the other half grinds away wondering how all this happened. But the worried non-individual will move as the leaders of the group tell it  to move, holding out one more carrot, one more chance for the miracle to happen, hope and change.

How will we eliminate corporate welfare?

Either party could make this a top priority today, but they won't, because they're scared corporate donations will dry up. When government co-opted Big Business in a partnership to develope comprehensive State power and "stability" and the ability to manage the economy, it started the corrupting process of attracting and rewarding the absolute worst corporate players. Even those who were not rent-seekers had to play the game to survive in the market, so they hired expensive lobbyists to make their own valuable government connections. The State has protected favored Big Corporations from competition and it's time to stop this completely. Before anyone on the Right even suggests cuts to the welfare state, they must first pledge to eliminate corporate welfare, farming included. Before the Left begins cutting defense spending, they must first promise to end all corporate welfare. Otherwise we have two parties who fight to give our money and protection to corporations who should be competing fairly in the market sans government help. Let's create a free market and allow small and medium size businesses the chance to compete without the State fighting against them.

If we build it, will they come?

I hate to harp on the media, but Old Media sources are a sad and pathetic joke. I suppose an understanding writer could explain all the nuances regarding the media's fall from grace, but I believe the bottom line is that they fear for their existence, and they know that progressive policies will help them survive more than conservative or libertarian policies. Old Media depend on statist control, because a truly free market would soon eat them alive.

I don't really want to write about the media, but I'm wondering if this election is the end of their influence or if it'll take another four years, if we can survive another 4 years of rampant statism. I've read and heard all the rationalizations from Leftists and Centrists regarding the need to protect the integrity of the State. Anyone who denigrates our powerful State is now framed as an extremist kook, and, if the threat is very real, framed as racists, homophobes and misogynists.

We'll see in November if the public at large is ready to bury the Old Media and go forward with another defense of liberty. Every so often Americans are stirred to resist the over-reach of the State, although America citizens haven't fully resisted the encroachment, and now government has gained the necessary powers to allow State dominance if the power players so choose to use the power. I fear that 2012 is the tipping point. I'm always reticent to sound the alarm to the point of claiming we can lose our liberty completely, because, relatively speaking, Americans still possess a large degree of liberty. The only reason we possess relative liberty, though, is because the State has not moved to an extreme degree of control, but the structure is built for the State to do so, mainly through an interventionist government controlling the major aspects of the economy -- healthcare, finance, energy, manufacturing, education and so forth.

I can easily imagine civil liberties swept to the side as another terrorist attack gives the State the rationaliztion it needs to dominate completely. I'm tired of the argument surrounding Barack Obama -- in the large scheme of things, Obama is a bit player. What is at stake in 2012 is ideas -- the concepts of free speech, limited government, free markets, innovation, non-interventionism, free trade, peace through strength, freedom of religion, pursuit of happiness, equal opportunity, fair competition, creative cooperation. These ideas have little to do with government and a powerful State. As long as a minimal government can protect our rights, society can thrive from the influence of these ideas.

Opposed to the ideas above are the ideas of statism -- dependence, taxation, progressive narratives, central management, social engineering, social justice, equality of results, obedience, stability, uniformity, militarism, welfarism, etc. We'll know in November if enough Americans still value liberty, limited government and a free market. We'll know if Americans are ready to leave the mideast and stop intervening in the affairs of other nations. There are so many issues caused by a powerful State that we'll have to start now rolling back the power -- we're out of time. The Fed, the military/industrial complex, the bureacracies, the UN, the IMF and WTO -- the State is a Leviatahan and has to be beaten down to size or  transcended by a vibrant private sector. In a couple of months we'll know. If Republicans gain control and fail to roll back government power, then we'll know the next step, and the next step will not entail either party.

Morning Joe 9/17/2012 -- Is Joe Scarborough really this dumb?

On the show today, Scarborough did his usual Romney bashing using the angle that the economy is so bad under Obama that it should be a walk in the park to oppose Obama and gain a lead. Mark Halperin or one of the other regulars brought up Romney's team's criticism of the biased media. Scarborough said it doesn't matter if the media is biased, that Republicans have to play the hand they're dealt. It was all good macho chest-thumping by Scarborough who loves to tell anyone who will listen how much better a candidate he would be than Romney or any of the Republicans who ran in the primary.

Perhaps Scarborough is frustrated because he believes the polls and really thinks Romney is losing, and perhaps Scarborough doesn't understand that Romney's critique of MSM as irrelevant because of their bias actually describes the new reality. Scarborough, at MSNBC, is a part of the dying, irrelevant mainstream media, so I guess he's blind to his own irrelevance. Old Media will not decide this race -- they will only attempt to block the message coming from those who are going to vote for anyone besides the Democratic Party. The Democratic Party has blown it.

I have my problems with Romney, as I wrote about yesterday, but the problems aren't what Scarborough described. As Joe was thumping his chest rattling off all the avenues of attack that he would expertly take against Obama as he tore Obama limb from limb are exactly the avenues of attack that Romney and Ryan have taken against Obama over and over and over, so I have no idea how Scarborough has missed it or what he's talking about. Romney is winning, but that's not the main point.

What will Romney do when he wins? Will Romney maintain 99% of the present statist system while making a few symbolic cuts and changes to show his supporters he's a real live, bonafide small guvmint good fella? Romney and Ryan need to win with the understanding that they will fight with the help of the American people to place strict limits on government power, to eliminate entire departments, to remove military bases from countries who can protect themselves, to end the mideast wars and develope a new doctrine that addresses our relationship with the world going forward, then to open all energy production to a free market. This would be a good start, and Romney has touched on some of these, but certainly not the foreign relations/military bases part. Romney has instead blustered ballistically about the mideast and has said he will end parts of Obamacare but not all parts, so Romney is in favor of more foreign intervention and partial government control of healthcare -- this is not going to bring about change, so it doesn't matter who wins really. If Scarborough really promoted limited government and a free market, he'd know how to criticize Romney. See, that's how someone who really opposes the Democratic Party thumps his chest. If you're going to be macho, get it right, Joe.

Libertarians pushed back by GOP

The GOP is too steeped in desire for political power and too concerned with establishment-protection to allow renegade libertarians to move the party in the direction of anti-statism. The truth is that the Republican Party is still controlled by Burkean-type conservatives who believe that the average American needs government to provide wise and benevolent leadership, even though the leaders should prudently manage the nation's finances and restrict interventions as much as possible. This concern merely for intelligent, frugal spending and benevolent, wise leadership is not quite a libertarian revolution.

When libertarian-influenced representatives like Ron Paul talk about ending the Fed, removing our military from the mideast and bases from around the world, and eliminating entire departments, the GOP establishment-defenders shake their heads and wonder why they have to put up with such non-sense. If Paul didn't have such a big following, the establishment types would completely marginalize him and his followers -- they almost completely marginalized Paul at the convention. Romney and Ryan flirt with the most popular aspects of libertarian thought, but they don't go far before establishing a clear line of demarcation between conservatives and libertarians.

GOP conservatives talk about a "small" government, which to them means spending money on their statist preferences while cutting what they think is wasteful. Democrats do the same thing -- they usually are eager to cut military spending, then increase spending on welfare and education. Both Democrats and Republicans claim that certain parts of government are too interventionist and too costly, even unnecessary -- they just choose different aspects of government to oppose or promote. Government grows in size and power under both parties. The State is basically a self-perpetuating Leviathan that protects itself from opposition and innovation.

It's unlikely interventionist government, with all the perks, advantages and presitige congress people have voted for themselves, will do anything to limit its power. The pressure to change will have to come from the people. Welfare and warfare are two major areas which libertarians must address in ways that capture the public's imagination. When I say "libertarians" I'm not talking about members of the Libertarian Party, but anyone who understands and promotes the classical liberal principles of limited government, free markets and non-interventionism. I won't say the priniciples of our Founding Fathers, because founders like Hamilton promoted an early form of statism. The principles I promote don't belong to a period in time, but to human reason for all time.

A person who understands the principles of limited government will challenge current drug laws -- not because the person wants to use drugs or thinks that using drugs for recreation is a good idea, but because humans should be free to make their own decisions as long as their actions don't involve coercion of others to do things against their will. A person who understands the principles of non-interventionism is not necessarily a peacenik and might even support the use of incredible force when national security is threatened, but the person will not support intervening in a sovereign country to spread Democracy or to manage regime change. In the case of a country's people being slaughtered by a mad dictator, the libertarian will most likely support freeing the people from such certain death. In most cases, though, the libertarian will support each country taking care of its own issues, and although revolution is hard and requires sacrifice, each nation's people must decide what they value most and what they are prepared to lose to create change. There are certainly many grey areas in global relations, but the less the US intervenes in the business of other countries, the better off the whole world will be. The US should not intervene at all unless our national security is truly at stake or the humanitarian call for help is so great that no sane people can resist the call - but in that case there will be many nations involved in stopping a brutal murderer terrorizing the nation's people, and it will be clear that the people themselves have no power to save themselves.

In the area of welfare, libertarians must make it clear that being against government sponsored welfare is not to be against helping the poor and unfortunate. An average citizen with libertarian leanings can care more deeply than a government social worker, but still call for end end to government welfare programs. This is an area in which American's absolutely have to think innovatively and keep it simple. This is always the question when opponents of libertarianism debate the need for statist control -- what about the poor? What about the people who can't help themselves? They accuse libertarians of taking the position of I've go mine so screw the rest. Although I can't speak for libertarian leaning people as a whole, this is just not true of the libertarian philosophy in general, and it's certainly not my position. I don't know of any libertarian thinker who holds the position that the poor and the helpless should be on their own and no one should give them a hand. Most libertarians, I'm sure, feel this issue is subsumed in a free market, a free society in which people keep more of their money and can support private organizations that would provide help to the needy.

Perhaps libertarians should more fully develope their ideas regarding charity. The first thing we should establish is that charity is voluntary and thus avoids State coercion and redistribution of wealth, but this simply establishes adherence to the limited government principle. In a free market, Americans will do what they've always done, help fellow Americans in need. Those of us who believe in a free market, believe in the morality of allowing free people to make free decisions, but also believe a free market is more likely to create new wealth and widespread prosperity than a State mananged economy. There are two major categories when dealing with the issue of public welfare -- there are poor people, and then there are people who can't help themselves for various reasons. There are also people who fall on temporarily bad times and need some support until they get back on their feet, but innovative, comprehensive insurance plans can take care of this for the great majority of people. So, that leaves the poor who need knowledge, skills and a good job and the truly needy who can't help themselves.

It's no great flaw in any individual who doesn't conciously care deeply if there are others who are born in poverty and who have a difficult time finding their way out or about others who are handicapped in ways that make it impossible for them to take care of themselves. This individual might hear a story about people in poverty or about people born with physical diabilities who don't have familiy support to help them, and the individual might feel sorry for the people, but the individual, say, has a family to worry about and bills to pay -- he simply has but so much capacity to care and little to act to help such people. In the welfare state, this individual can say that he pays taxes to help people like that, so that's enough. What would happen with a limited government and free market? How would the poor receive help and the helpless receive the needed assistance to survive? Proponents of the welfare state say that private charity is insufficient and not enough people will donate to charity, and not enough organizations will form to replace all the programs of the welfare state.

I've written about this dozens of times, but with the political realm constantly framing support for limited government as a call to let the poor and helpless suffer, it seems it's not written about enough. A wealthy, prosperous America has proved in the past to be a generous nation. Americans already contribute generously to charity. When the welfare state collapses, though, and when we realize that a free market is the only way out, we'll then perhaps see just how creatively generous Americans can be. In earlier times men and women could not envision the changes that came -- the aristocrat could not envision a healthy democracy -- in the old south the master could not envision a black slave possessing the same capacity as a white person to acquire knowledge and succeed in a competitive world.

Just because most Americans can't now imagine the poor receiving a hand up in a thriving private market and the helpless receiving the care they need from private assistance organizations funded by generous corporations and grateful individuals who want to give back, doesn't mean it can't happen -- it can happen, and this is what Americans need to understand, whether we ever voluntarily transfer assistance to the private sector or not -- it can happen. The GOP would do themselves and the nation good if they would become a true opposition party. The State is unravelling, although the establishment is fighting hard to save it and redeem it. When it unravels, it would be good to have grownups ready to allow a free market to move past government interventionism and begin the process of new wealth creation and economic expansion. And it will be really good to witness this expansion and growing, widespread prosperity in the environment of peaceful, free trade internationally.