What we know can set us free

Every age, I'm sure, thought they were the greatest and smartest, but it has to be acknowledged that humans have made great advances in knowledge over the past 200 years, especially in the last 100. Great changes happened throughout history, although no major changes for long periods of time, but change has been incredible from the beginning of he 20th century until now. The 20th century brought fantastic technological developments, horrendous collective violence, psychological revelations, political unheavals, political freedom, sexual liberation, spiritual pluralism -- we've learned a lot about human nature -- what to do and what not to do.

The fall of the Soviet Union taught us that central planning doesn't work long term. America has been confused politically, but much of our statist tendencies, which have worked against an underlying free enterprise energy and genius, have been caused by the human defect of wanting something for nothing. I think we realize now that there's a price tag for everything we receive. Never before in history has a country been more ripe for the creation of a free society and a literally limited government. The Founder's vision has proven to have been premature, and during our capital formation many bad relationships were developed between industry and government -- plus, our society wasn't ready for freedom, thus the continuance of slavery and the suppression of women. That was addressed as we learned.

We've reached a point in human development where it's painfully obvious that economic information is too complex for government management, and that society simply needs a few general rules to guide its daily activities. In a previous post I wrote about community in freedom -- and this is where we stand. Government regulations have created a cronyism which feeds off American taxpayers. If government becomes the center of influence, then all efforts are geared toward directing the influence. Responsibility can't be a State monopoly -- it creates dependence in the majority, weakening communities, and it creates cronyism among the powerful few. We've also learned that ogliarchies aren't the best arrangement, except for those in power.

The idea that an unregulated society will fall victim to powerful corporations is opposite the reality of open competition and the personal responsibility of all citizens to oversee our interactions. The power to effectively regulate commerce lies in the private sector based on the indivdual interests, which are unfathomly interconnected, of everyone involved -- the general rules apply and are enough -- no one receives favoritism, no one commits fraud, government protects individual rights, courts mediate disputes and punish violators, transactions among individuals send the most reliable economic signals, failure weeds out incompetence and bad players, excellence is rewarded, honesty is the best policy, equal opportunity is moral.

Government intervention in the form of economic management and social engineering has complicated our economic relationships and has created a cronyism and nannyism which puts our nation at risk. We know enough now to live in freedom, although it'll take a gargantuan transition effort to move away from statism. There are creative ways to maintain a free market and avoid the risks so many statists have feared -- the dangers of statism are greater at this point, and statism, in one form or another, is the bulk of our experience. Using our communication/information technology and creating even more transparency, coupled with an invigorated, individual responsibility, will allow private sector self-regulation -- open competition with no government back-stops will clear the field of rent-seekers and power-mongers who can't survive without State assistance. The smart, transparent and nimble will win in a free marketplace.

We have also learned that a properous country cannot survive morally unless it has compassion for those who are unfortunate and can't make it on their own -- there's no doubt that the private realm will respond to the unfortunate and will take care of them much more humanely than a government welfare system. It's also obvious that social security will be best handled through responsible people making plans in a private system, which will foster the development of creative insurance/savings arrangements - we don't have to follow Greece to collapse.

A free market, prosperity, compassion, social security and safety nets are all connected. It's time to apply what we've learned -- it's time to apply the Founders' vision -- we know enough now to know we can't know enough to centrally plan, and to know we shouldn't pretend to know.

Statism or free market? Calling for a fair debate

Intellectual discussions regarding inequality and the duty of the State to establish social justice are interesting excercises in University classrooms, thinktanks and on blogs, but in reality the problems are less theoretical and more a matter of practical human concerns and results. I'm not sayng that intellectual debates between free market proponents and social justice statists are useless -- in fact, they're vital, but the debates mean nothing if reality-facts, human nature and economics aren't brought into the debate.

It's one thing to claim that a State run by intelligent, informed experts can regulate the economy in such a way that equality and justice are maximized and poverty is ameliorated -- it's another thing to prove this claim and lay out the actions necessary to accomplish the goals -- or to explain the failures. Much of the statist mindset is based on faith in the rationalist approach, that if we do it right it will work, that central planning is possible if enough information is available (which it never is) and the right regulations are put into place (which they hardly ever are). Statists look at organizations where rational application of organizational plans create the desired results, so they extrapolate that if the right government experts rationally apply the targeted regulations, social justice and a stable, fair economy can be accomplished -- perhaps not perfectly, but close enough for government work, and certainly it wouldn't collapse the State as the free market proponents claim in their excited denial of statism. We have to ask if this faith in statism is warranted?

But in order to have this debate steeped in reality-facts, human nature and economics, it has to be accepted that free market proponents are not evil, that they want equality and justice (even if these concepts are understood differently), and they want to ameliorate poverty -- otherwise, the debate is morally rigged in favor of the statists. We can agree that nefarious motives may exist on both sides of the debate, especially at the top where political power is concerned -- but at the level of ideas among thinkers who have no political power at stake, each side should be considered sincere, wanting the best for society as a whole. The question is which approach is best for society as a whole. It can also be considered whether a mixture of the two approaches is even possible,  even though history has shown that mixing the two approaches always leans toward the State's unfair advantage to expand statism, leaving the market at the mercy of politicians. So, let's say the idea of a mixture of the two is actually statism, and the free market approach is free of regulations which don't have anything to do with the protection of basic rights -- life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness -- in other words a market which operates freely, but within the rule of law which prohibits fraud and physical coercion in all its forms.

Because the idea of the statists is that the right regulations will work, this implies a mixed economy -- most statists aren't calling for totalitarianism. Once a significant portion of the economy is regulated, we have statism. Presently we have an economic crisis that has to considered at least partly caused by government interventions. The current economic crisis is more than a cyclical recession, it threatens our viability with unfunded promises going way into future, at a time when U.S. citizens are retiring at high numbers every year for many years to come. So far, all the government interventions have added to the debt, but they haven't created the necessary growth to avert a collapse. If there are no major reforms of entitlement programs, we face economic collapse within a couple of decades.

The purpose of this post is not to provide answers to the problems, but to call for a debate regarding the mutual concern both statists and free market proponents have for the future. Are the statists correct -- that we haven't applied the correct interventions, and, once we do, then the economy will stabilze, begin growing, and in the future avoid this type of financial crisis? Or, is a free market approach required which liberates businesses to make their own decisions based on the principles of spontaneous order? Again, this is not about a third choice of a correctly mixed economy, because mixed means statist -- it's a question of whether any mixture can be successful, or whether the best approach is an unmixed, free market. Plus, it has to be accepted, and not dismissed as a free market cop-out, that free market principles haven't been fully applied since the beginning of America. 

The correct mixtures of free market and government intervention have been experimented with from the beginning, and, so far, we've steadily drifted toward collapse, with periods of great growth as blips among the overall movement to insolvency. The left may be forced to consider the reality and viability of a truly free market, and how the private sector can replace the welfare state. But first the demonization has to stop, so that the debate is open-minded and honest. When either side demonizes the other, defenses prevent an honest search for solutions. We can no longer afford the fight. I believe that if an honest analysis is made, the findings will show that government intervention has prevented a steady movement toward economic stability, prosperity and greater equality, which would have occured in the absence of intervention. This is not to say that a free market is perfect and never falters -- it's to say that a free market is better for society as a whole than statism. It might be impossible for great minds to get together and to objectively determine this proposition, but I do think it needs to be done.

Cutting through the political fog

Are there any free-thinkers who simply want to cut through the political fog and get to essential questions that will affect our future? To be honest, it doesn't seem so. All the mental gymastics going on make it difficult to get to essentials. Some might say they're avoiding simplistic dualities in a complex time which calls for a nuanced approach, and although I appreciate a good nuanced approach, it'd be like lifting a heavy fog and finding myself on Greek island in perfect weather if thinkers today would simply cut through the fog and committ to a position -- even if they leave room for change upon the appearance of new facts. But most of the facts and knowledge we need in order to decide between statism and classical liberal principles have been established, so there's no need for socratic gad-flying except to feign cosmopolitan sophistication or to simply avoid taking a stand.

But, not to worry, there'll be no reduction of cosmopolitan street-cred on the mean academic streets just because you clarify your position.

Frankly, I'd be tickled purple with a stand either way -- just, please, let's have honesty and clarity. So, you believe statism is necessary? Fine, then let 'er rip and defend it -- push for it -- write about the wonders of statism. A little too broad, you say? It depends on the meaning of statism, you say? Okay, we're getting somewhere -- let's use a dictionary definition for the sake of simplicity and clarity. It's not like statism has a dozen definitions from which to choose. Basically, statism is government control of  economic and social matters. True, there are degrees of control, and this is where positions are hidden, but let's say that statism is defined as any government control outside fraud and violation of basic, individual rights, keeping in mind the historical tendency of governments to increase control once given the permission.

The current financial reform being proposed is one example, and the healthcare reform is another example -- should government be given this much power to intervene in the market? Mr./Ms. Politician/Journalist/Blogger/Entertainer/Proctologist, do you believe government should have the power to intervene in the business of private companies outside issues of fraud and other crimes, in order to guide industries in pretermined directions decided by government, or take over companies at risk of failing? This is a good definition of statism in America, as opposed to those who believe private businesses should take care of their own affairs, as long as they aren't violating the rights of anyone, and if they fail, then they fail. Let's avoid getting bogged down in specific issues and look at the general principles. Only in this way can we determine our direction -- there will always be tough cases that fall in a gray area, but that's why we have courts.

The problem is too many people claim to support a free market, then go on to create so many conditions that it's clear they don't support a free market. This is disingenuous. Let's not be afraid of the words statism and socialism -- some in government, Maxine Waters, for instance, are losing their fear and openly talking in socialist terms -- this is healthy. At this point we have to clear the fog and defend positions, because the double-talk only creates distrust among the public. The public will appreciate straghtforward talk, and politicians shouldn't be ashamed of their ideology -- however, praising the free market, then acting against it in favor of heavy regulation and control is creating a heavy fog and insulting the public.

The left can no longer get by under the idea that the public doesn't understand the need for market control, with spoon-feeding statism to the public while telling them it's free market yummy. The commentators on the right will call the left on this dishonesty, further infuriating the public. The old game no longer works. The left, and those on the right, like George Bush in reality, and other establsihment Republicans, who believe the government has an interventionsit role in private enterprise, will have to make their case and explain the transformation from classical liberalism to statism -- the mixture of the two has failed miserably.

This is one of the major lessons of the 20th century -- the American style mixed economy doesn't work long term -- it leads to collapse. This is why we're forced today to either go forward with statism and raise taxes and give more control to government over the economy, appropriate for a statist government, or establish a true free market. We can't spend like Bush/Obama and tax like Reagan. We can't partly control the economy like a European government and expect American free enterprise results.

The two approaches have become like oil and water -- they don't mix. They especially don't mix in a global economy, and this is why we're being forced to choose. China has chosen -- their government is going to control their market and allow industry partners to benefit financially (how long, no one knows) -- China is going to take what it needs from its people and build the nation of the future -- China has a Plan and it's going full speed to implement the National Plan. China has shown that statism can succeed in the global economy, if you're willing to sacrifice the freedom of a majority of the people. Can a truly free market succeed in the global economy? What would be sacrificed?

America is stuck between statism and a free market, stagnant, confused and divided. Who do we trust to lead us to the future? We're faced with the decision to sacrifice freedom for statism and government managed growth, or embrace a free market and depend on producers and free people to find the best way for everyone. The argument from many on the left is that in a free market the haves will leave the have-nots behind, and there is no freedom in poverty -- is this true? Will statism answer the problem of inequality and poverty? These are our most important questions, but they have to be dealt with honestly. Patronizing sleight-of-hand hidden in a political fog is not helping.

Glenn Beck's God-talk

Lately, Beck's been going overboard with his God-talk and channeling the religious nature of the Founders for support. Spirituality has evolved and what is understood today is much different than in the 18th century, which was still influenced by strict religious dogma. For many of us, too much God-talk is disconcerting, not necessarily from lack of belief or being uncomfortable with the topic, it's just spirituality is so intimate, I've never liked the feeling that someone's selling me on their "god", even if they condition it with religious tolerance. Whatever the Founders believed, that was their business, and if they were influenced by the Bible, then, good, whatever it took to come up with a philosophy of freedom.

But I associate limited government, fiscal responsibility, and a free private sector bound by laws to not violate rights, with principles and reason, not necessarily with God's political philososphy. I've never accepted the Master idea in religion -- it was developed by religious tyrants -- it's what some of the Founders were escaping. It's enough to uphold the principles without claiming to be on God's side of the issue -- I don't think anyone has direct knowledge of God's political philosophy. Plus, for those who don't believe in a personal god, but, nonetheless experience spirituality in non-religious ways, I imagine the God-talk comes across as exclusive, as if a non-believer can't possibly understand classical liberal principles without the personal God connection. I don't think Beck wants to exclude non-believers, but his talk lately has been a little over-bearing and seems too certain of its righteousness -- I hope Beck is not receiving direct commands from God -- that never turns out well. The last time I thought I had a direct connection was in the 60s -- nuff said.

Letter to Republican Party -- How to unite Libertarians and Conservatives

First, let's start with the conservatives. It should be crystal clear that government has no responsibility to legislate morality. This doesn't mean that moral issues are not important. A society concerned with working out issues of morality is a healthy, good society, but unless individual rights are at play, legislation is not the avenue to get others to accept certain moral positions. Republican candidates running for office, rather than pander insincerely to the religious faction, knowing it's only words, should begin articulating what constitutes limited government, and that government power is not the route to moral clarity -- individual spiritual journeys and interaction with others in the marketplace of ideas lead to moral clarity. Spirituality is a deep, complex issue, so the simple solution for politics is to concentrate on the practical aspects of a limited government which protects individual rights -- individual beliefs are a separate matter. It's not necessary to be a good Christian in order to work in government and provide a service to the people. We've elevated matters of the State so high that it entails evrything important to human interaction -- a limited government would keep a low profile and perform certain limited duties, that's all. The national personality, mind, soul, etc. should come from the people and how we relate to one another, what principles guide our interactions. It's not that government servants can't be guided by the same principles, it's just that their power is limited so that one majority religious belief is not turned into a poltical weapon to control the rest of the country.

On the other hand, libertarians need to understand that religion in itself is not dangerous -- a libertarian should be concerned with freedom of religion and let it go at that. Many conservatives and almost all libertarians agree on limited government, a free market and fiscal responsibilty. The smart Republican politician should build on these shared ideas. Then we come to national defense.

National defense is a divisive issue between conservatives and libertarians, but it doesn't have to be. If conservatives believe the founding philosophy, then they'll understand that government was to be limited mainly so that the State wouldn't become poweful, rich and militarily adventurous. Republican leaders should find the right balance to amend this division. We all agree that America needs a strong defense, but a non-interventionist foreign policy is what the founders had in mind regarding our relationships with other nations. We can debate the War on Terror, but we can also find a way to extricate ourselves before we're bogged down so far we can't get out -- then going forward we can use much more caution and smarts when addressing external threats. We can also agree that it's time for other countries to build and fund their own self defense.

Once past social issues and the use of our military, the union of libertarians and conservatives is an easy fit. The bottom line is that if no one is violating the rights of another, they are free to live as they wish -- on the other hand, freedom demands moral responsibilty, or the freedom will be squandered. In our fantastic age of communication, the moral troubles of our nation can be discussed and debated, but let's remove moral questions from political power. Let's also work toward free trade and peace, free up the market place to offer opportunity and give a helping hand to those stuck in poverty. If we can take on these responsibilites, there are no disagreements between libertarians and conservatives which can't be surmounted.

Economically, there should be agreement that all corporate welfare should end, the market should be free and the courts should rationally prosecute fraud. If companies take stupid risks, they should pay the consequences. There should be no barriers preventing equal opportunity. We can all work toward these goals. As a people we should be prepared to reform all entitlements and create something better to replace them -- this could be a long transiton, but we have to start.

This is the challenge to all Republican politicians who want to serve the country and represent those who want to save our Constitutionally limited Republic -- rather than compromising with the left and continuing the slide into statism, illiberal mob rule and crony capitalism