Sarah Palin - President of the Private Sector

If Democrats really think that Sarah Palin running for president will destroy the Republicans, then the Obama administration ought to be talking to Democrat operatives and their friends in the media, telling them to lay off Palin, and actually give her a little support.

We know why the moderate statists like Frum hate and denigrate her - they're terrified of her. Frum asks about her intentions:

It’s not the presidency. But it may be more fun. Why campaign, when you can tour? Why seek votes, when you have fans? Why be Evita, when you can be Madonna?

And why care what a lightweight like Frum thinks? But Frum's sarcastic attack is unintentionally correct. It's obvious by the obession that Frum has for criticizing Palin that he knows she has star-power, and this makes him angry. Frum is the type who hates what he believes is unearned success in the political realm. If Palin is as incompetent as Frum suggests, then why even worry about her -- Frum, too, could lighten up and give her a little support, if he believes that if she runs, she will implode -- then she'll be gone for good, right?

No, the moderate statists and the progressive statists must destroy Palin, because Palin is a threat to them, but it's backfiring. The more they pile on, the less credibility they have. It's a pathetic show of fear and elite disgust. But, be that as it may, Palin should not run for President.

The high-stakes political game in Washington D.C. is run by snakes, and only snakes emerge unscathed. Either someone enters politics at a high level already a snake and they survive, or they become a snake and survive, or they resist becoming snake and they're destroyed, or at least marginalized.

Sarah Plain doesn't stand a chance running for president, and if by some miracle she won, she'd be destroyed, or become a snake. Palin's forte is in the private realm. I can't even imagine why she would want to run for president -- it would thwart her power. She would be in constant battle with snakes and nothing would be accomplished.

The private realm is where the untapped power lies. If we want to regain free market principles, it will be done in the private realm. I've recently wrtitten about the need for innovative safety net initiatives in the private realm, but we're using an old worn-out term -- what we need are private empowerment initiatives. There's a certain small fraction of the country which needs permanent assistance because this group of Americans are incapable of helping themselves for various reasons, and they should be taken care of in a wealthy, powerful country. But the great majority of people simply need an environment of empowerment to fight against the big government/big business cartel in a competitive/cooperative free market. Yes, we need representatives in government who will work to limit government power, but a president will not get this done, so it's useless for Palin to even consider running at that level. Palin, and others like her, can avoid the unfair advantage of the political class by running in the private sector for leaders of a private revolution to restore the integrity of the Constitution, capitalism and voluntary social change.

Palin, and other charismatic proponents of the free market, liberty and limited government, can raise money to defeat progressive, professional politicians -- they can represent small businesses, and women, and minorities, and all ordinary people in the private realm, in a battle to fight the state/corporate stranglehold on America.

Palin should be brushing up on the particulars of free market principles and Constitutional issues so she can articulate the philosophical differences, then use her star power to help persuade America to gain control of our government, so that private realm forces are unleashed to make changes. The politcal snakes can't use inside political tricks to destroy her if she immerses herself in the private realm and becomes an integral part of a peaceful revolution of principles. Perhaps principles don't mean much in Washington, D.C., but they are vital for the private realm to restore integrity and to protect our freedom.

So, I say -- "Sarah, give the finger to the political class and join the private citizens who will support clear-headed, limited government ideas, and who will help to re-establish free market prinicples -- who knows, we might make you President of the U.S. where it counts, among producers and hard workers, and intellectuals who are not subsidized by government, and women who need empowerment, and minorities who need empowerment, and all the rest who are trying to make sense of it all. Plus, the pay will be better than a government job. But, here, you'll have to prove you mean what you say, and you'll have to compete, and persuade by reason, rather than coerce." 

We socialize the people

Bouncing off my previous post, I, for one, resist socialization. There appears to be many people who all might not understand the details of what's happening but are also resisting what they see as too much government interference. Once this is clarified in the minds of the public there will be much more resistance, especially as people begin to realize that government interference is a big reason for unemployment, economic stagnation, struggling and broke big cities, community dissolution and rampant ignorance caused by the failure of our public schools.

Socialization efforts by the State work only when the State can control information, but that has changed and information is now free and uncontrolled. The internet revolution has exposed the State. The extreme socialization of other countries was possible because the State could convince the people, through the control of information, that the State knew best, and the socialization process was largely hidden.

Many Americans know better, and until the State can control information for several generations, the knowledge of capitalism and free markets and our Founders' intentions will prevent propaganda from having its effect. This seems to place the State in a nefarious position, but that's not my intention. The State doesn't have to have nefarious purposes to promote socialization -- good intentions are more likely. The State, with all its diverse players, surely believes they know best and that their plans are for the good of all.

It's not necessary to demonize the State in order to resist socialization or to believe there's a better way -- we can resist good intentions by well-meaning social engineers just as energetically. As they say -- the road to hell is paved with good intentions. No, we can calmly, reasonably, and without pitchforks, resist the State's well-intentioned intervention and meddling.

"I beg to differ, my good Sirs and Madams, but we most respectfully resist your plans."

No thank you is enough, then vote out the socializers and vote in the free-market/limited government proponents. This is America -- we're civilized and polite -- well, for the most part.

There seems to be a movement afoot to frame all opposition to socialization as wild-eyed fanatics and right-wing southern rednecks, but that's simply silly, dear Chaps. Seriously, the games should be ended so that we can get down to the business of making decisions regarding direction. I've heard so many mixed analyses regarding the half-socialization of Europe, who knows what's true, but we aren't Europe, and what Europe accepts might not be what we need and accept. I certainly don't see any overall European booming prosperity and wealth creation, or spiritual renaissance enlightening the rest of the world. I see puttering nations kept going to the extent they still allow capitalism to operate. Without the U.S. spending billions to protect them, they could be faced with defense expenses which would send them under, or place them in the hands of tyrants.

If all of a sudden the innovation necessary to progress and prosper were the sole responsibility of Europe, could they meet the challenge, or would they slowly disintegrate by draining their resources? I don't know, but capitalism has provided the environment for many great achievements in the U.S., which have benefitted the world, and it seems wrong to socialize even more now when the need for capitalistic growth and prosperity is so great. I wouldn't agree with it, but I could see modeling Europe in prosperous times, but I can't fathom modeling Europe during a financial crisis.

No ogliopy, just prosperity and jobs

I am so sick of people claiming that free markets lead to ogliopy, or something to that effect -- it's become so ingrained in the American mind that it's almost impossible to have an intelligent discussion regarding capitalism.

People, we're in serious trouble if the statists have convinced the great majority that the country needs central planning regulation and social engineering in order to function properly. You might say you simply support regulations which ameliorate the dangers of too much freedom in the markets, but what dangers are we trying to prevent?

How would a few companies arise in a free market to control an industry and control prices? No one ever explains how this would happen, they merely make the claim over and over as if it is authoritative and the final word. The truth is that in a free market there would be no evil-producing control by a few companies.

First of all, what do these people mean by ogliopy? Why is there the belief that a free market would result in a few sellers in each industry, unless the sellers had beaten out competition through excellence, service and price? If in some industries a few players become so good at meeting the needs of consumers that they run off most competition, what is wrong with this?

They will have to maintain this excellence or competition will arise to knock them down. Plus, it's highly unlikely any few companies can maintain control of a market for long. In a healthy free market the dynamism would be vital and the competition healthy -- plus substitution and innovation keeps everyone changing, improving and progressing, or they go out of business. With a free market, innovation would be energized -- investors would be comfortable knowing that government is not going to come along and make major changes, so small players with good ideas would be backed by investor money creating a vibrant and creative market.

If for some reason, due to the special nature of an industry, some company was able to gain a monopoly which was damaging to consumers, that could be looked at and solutions could be discussed, but this would be an exception to the rule, not the rule.

Why is everyone afraid of a free and vibrant market where small businesses don't have regulatory hurdles to jump over making it possibile to compete against the big guys? In a free market we'd have more competition than with a heavily regulated, centrally controlled market. Are we afraid of all the jobs that would be created?

Libertarian Preparation Part 4: The Art of Freedom

Libertarians have an opportunity to present the concept of freedom in a new light. As government intervenes more in our lives and the concept of freedom is brought to the forefront of the nation's consciousness, there needs to be an intelligent discussion describing what freedom means to us in the 21st century. America was founded on radical principles, liberty from tyranny being one of them. Before America, the idea a nation's citizens deciding what form of government they wanted to create was a foreign idea -- controllers of different forms established the rules and everyone within the country under that form of control obeyed the rules set for them.

We've moved a long way from that original idea of limited government, and libertarians believe the current statist interventions have bastardized the ideas of the original liberalism. The new liberalism bears little resemblance to the liberal ideas on which the country was founded, so that now "libertarianism" is substituted to differientiate classic liberalism from modern liberalism. Modern liberalism believes the world is too complex for the type of freedom we onced experienced and that positive rights are an appropriate  extension of negative rights. Most modern liberals believe that free markets and capitalism have failed, so the state must intervene to establish equality and justice. You can read Tibor Machan's book, The Promise of Liberty, to get a current libertarian response to these ideas and to understand the libertarian defense of classic liberal ideas -- it takes a book to discuss the ideas somewhat thoroughly, so I won't go into them here -- I will assume that most readers are familiar with the controversy and arguments.

What I want to say is that times have changed and the country has had a long discussion through the years regarding the split between state power and limited government, and that freedom today can be a reality only if there is a vigilant society attending the responsibilities which freedom demands. I won't say that all government is bad and that we need to live in anarchy -- there are too many situations in reality which require citizens to be protected from those who would force their way on others, and there are too many disagreements which need to be adjudicated, and there are too many dangerous people in the world who would do us harm if we had no deterent. How we arrange protection, or settle disputes, or protect the border, is open to different possibilities, but it seems some form of limited government is necessary. The problem is that most people can't envision what a free society under a strictly limted government would be like.

Critics of limited government, capitalism and economic freedom suggest that an interventionist state is necessary to provide welfare for those who can't make it in a free market -- a free society -- and this seems to be the major stumbling block to accepting the idea of an agreement which separates government from the economy and from business.

So, what would a society look like under a strictly limited government? Libertarians who can think past the legalization of marijuana and gun ownership will be useful in providing the vision to make up for the modern blindness, starting with a free market for money which affects everything. Financial and economic areas of concern can get complicated for the average person who hasn't studied these fields of knowledge, but that shouldn't prevent people from putting effort into thinking about a different way to live that's more conducive to a prosperous future. Prosperity and economic growth are important to support the basics in life which allow us to move to higher levels of concern, like how to deal with the unfortunates in society who can't help themselves and have no family and friends who can help, or how to deal with environmental concerns, or how to build a society which offers equal opportunity, or how to peacefully exist in the world of competing economic interests, cultures and beliefs.

Most of the regular concerns people have which supposedly justify a government safety net can be worked out in a free society without government intervention and control. Working out these concerns depends on a healthy economy which isn't hampered by government intervention, and it's almost certain that the myriad concerns we've placed in the lap of the state will eventually collapse government, so it's vital to begin envisioning a free society, and libertarians are in a good position to begin showing how this can be done. It's time to begin considering what can happen if we don't free up business to create the future foundation.

The rest of this multi-part post will be about that libertarian vision.

Update on Tuesday, July 21, 2009 at 08:19AM by Mike Farmer

To clarify where I'm coming from -- when I talk about "freedom" I'm speaking in relative terms -- compared to North Korea, we have oodles of freedom, but what I'm writing about is the gradual loss of freedom that's dangerous and unnecessary. Just because we aren't under the complete control of a tyrant doesn't mean we don't need to fight against soft tyranny and nannyism which although it seems harmless and helpful, can lead to something I doubt any of us really want. The recent proposals from government are enough to make any freedom-loving person pay attention and resist the trend.

Libertarian Preparation Part 2: Capitalism-Illiteracy

There's a capitalism-illiteracy in this country that's maddening. There are still those, likely smart in other areas, who ignorantly look at profits as an evil waste, something to be squeezed from the system. As I read the healthcare debates around the internet, the constant refrain relates to the evil profits made by insurance companies and healthcare providers and how a government plan should eliminate these profits.

Anyone who wants to understand why profit in business is not evil can read up on economics -- I don't have the patience to go through something anyone in the US over 16 years of age should understand. What I would like to address here is the fact that many people who are attempting to destroy capitalism, understand capitalism and profits, yet push for its demise. If I was feeling generous, I would give people like Barack Obama the benefit of the doubt and excuse their actions as attempts to create a state-run capitalism which they think is more equitable to all concerned, but I don't believe that Obama is that ignorant. I believe Obama and most of the people in power in the Democrat Party know that state-run capitalism is statism, not capitalism.

I also believe that most of the Democrats in power know that a free market will create more prosperity than statism, but their ideology leads them to prefer statism because their goal is not prosperity -- their goal is to prevent a certain part of society from generating great personal wealth which can't be controlled by government. I doubt Obama has any aversion to personal wealth, per se -- if he did, he would give away his wealth, and he would be urging all other wealthy Democrats who have amassed great fortunes to do the same. Actually, many of Democrats' proposals will create great wealth for many people who are favored in his plans, but this can all be controlled through the connections.

What statists don't like is pure capitalism, because it's not controlled and it threatens the power of the state. In a free market with a limited government, the government would be servants to the people, and the Democrat ideology doesn't allow for this reality -- the Republican ideology doesn't either, as a matter of fact, regardless what some may say in stump speeches.

It appears that a slight majority in the country can be labeled as "statists" -- they prefer government control of the economy rather than a capitalist system. When you include the number of people who are capitalism-illiterate, and when asked if they want the government to control the economy if they are helped by the control, the number of "statists" might be as high as 75%. This is, of course, just a guess based on observation, but I'll bet the numbers are very high. I can't find very many people who truly understand the basic principles of capitalism, and the public education system isn't helping -- neither are the universities or media.

Capitalism, wealth and profit have been dirty words for quite some time in the US and around the world. Any libertarian worth his/her salt will give a full-throated defense of capitalism, and that's about all anyone can do who understands the principles, short of revolution. I've written lately about the possibility that people in this country may wise-up and demand changes, but from what I'm gathering, too few people have an understanding of free markets, capitalism or basic libertarian ideas to make a principled, reasoned stand against statism. When their heartstrings are pulled with stories about Tiny Tim's surgery, old Uncle Harry eating dogfood so he can buy medicine and how rich people will control the world if not kept under tight reigns, the would-be proponents of a limited government begin capitulating and falling into the trap of trying to tinker with the present statist system to make it just a little less intrusive -- this is like trying to help an alcoholic by suggesting he just drink beer -- as long as the beverage has alcohol in it you're not solving the problem -- as long as the government has the power to intervene in the economy, it will.