Failed Western experiment

Regardless of which northern European countries that apologists cherry pick to praise the successful combination of interventionist government, social protection and reformed market principles, the fact that external protections, such as American military protection and protected markets, have propped up these countries and shielded them from certain economic realities, reveals a flaw in the greater European experiment which has been offered as an alternative to America's focus on profit and economic prosperity as the route to better living. Europe has maintained a cultural superiority which advertises a greater concern for social security, public funded culture, quality of life and intellectual pursuits over the race for riches. In many respects, the imagined "free market" of America has always been a red herring, as America has followed European practices of social security and a State managed economy, although America has allowed much greater zones of economic freedom.

For much of Europe, cultural superiority pertains to a small percentage of European elites. As a whole, there's just as much superficial pursuit of personal pleasures, attraction to commerical fashions and enjoyment of mind-numbing entertainment in Europe as there is in America. The nickle and dime snobbery, though, misses a much greater danger threatening western values which transcends some of our more superficial interests.

The leaders of the European Union are beginning to wake up to the expensive forms of social protection provided by different governments within the union, the lack of economic strength revealed in the recession, and, as America shows signs of Super-Power fatigue and dissolution of power, the individual European states necessarily realize the inability of the EU to protect Europe and the vulnerability of individual European States to deal with global threats, especially radical Islam.

In many respects, Europe feels the same pressure to free-up its markets and transition State power to the private sector, thus freeing up revenue to address national security issues. As Germany and France move economically closer to Russia, security concerns for eastern European countries with good memories become even greater, but expectations of American protection may not be well placed as we bog down deeper in Middle East concerns. Whether America does it or not, we've got many reasons to expect Europe to provide its own national security going foward. We simply can't afford to be the World Police. Once we get out of Iraq and Aghanistan, I doubt there will be much of an appetite for international military operations. Europe and America will do better in an equal partnership of shared values rather than a relationship of resentment regarding our military protection.

There's also pressure in Europe among individual States to regain identity. Whereas, before, the trend toward a New World Order was broadly, although cautiously, supported, now that the reality of this Order approaches and European countries have had a taste of the EU, there will likely be resistance in Europe as countries re-assert their unique identities.

Both Europe and America are at risk as Enlightenment values are threatened by new forms of tyranny and Theocracy. Classical liberal values almost dissapeared from Europe, and in America they've been slowly marginalized for decades. Intellectual emptiness has allowed the Western world to slide into a relativist apathy regarding the old battle of Domination and Freedom. Classical liberal values have been reduced to a meaningless pep-rally cry for "democracy" as recent events from "Cairo to Madison" have awakened at least a sense of purpose greater than maintaining a failed status quo of government/corporate enmeshment, and this loss of understanding of classical liberal principles allows a muddled-headed push for what is basically mob-rule. Democracy means nothing if Constitutional restrictions and supremacy of rule of law are not maintained.

Western, classical liberal values are in danger of being forgotten, and this puts whole nations and regions at risk of mob domination in the name of "democracy". The problem is that mobs never actually rule as democracy suggests -- Majority Rule means that people will be dominated by a few who "represent" the Majority. The individual and the individual's rights are being pushed aside as a coalition of loud and emotional groups fight for power. Intellectuals have a track record of failing to stand when they should stand, but if there has ever been time for those with the historical knowledge and communication skills to put things in perspective to stand and be heard, it's now. 

It's one thing to become passionate about causes, but certain principles of liberty and justice and individual rights are best expressed with calm reason, or else the most impassioned and strong will get their way, and what they demand will likely be something far removed from liberty, justice and individual rights. Europe and America are at a crossroads in Western history -- either we can defend our values, or we can expect to obey other values of which liberty and individual rights have never much mattered.

Laboring toward a peaceful free market

The world changed drastically at the turn of the 20th century, and, especially in America and Europe. Although the initial change was the creation of powerful States motivated by nationalism, now we're laboriously moving toward a free market and away from statism, sometimes retreating, but, overall, we're making advancements. Two world wars altered global conflict into regional wars which are steadily becoming unfortunate situations we'd rather avoid.

The powerful, modern State took form as Britain and France and Russia signed secret treaties to divide territory after WWI, which, after discovered and announced by the Bolsheviks following their takeover of Tsarist Russia, brought Woodrow Wilson into the reordering of the world. Wilson originally worked out a peace treaty with Germany, but the the British and French wrote a "Commentary" changng the parts of the agreement which Germany could live with -- then, without telling Germany, the new agreement was forced on Germany in a such a heavy-handed, oppressive way, it set the stage for WWII. Wilson was complicit in the double-dealing, and it put a non-interventionist America right in the middle of statist world ordering. This was the turning point in America from a relatively free market, although government was still intervening, as they had been doing from the beginning, to statist control which was deemed necessary due to the crises our government helped create.

Although States still have a hold on economic activity, and States still put the world in danger through saber-rattling and shows of nationalistic chest-thumping, the growth of technology, communications and global competition are outstripping the various States' abilities to maintain command and control. The knowledge and expertise required for modern enterprise is beyond the comprehension of government officials, and global needs are so great, real power is in the hands of producers, those with the skills and knowledge to provide for the demand. The complexity and interdependence of global enerprise is beyond the competency of centralized planning, causing governments around the world to scale back and release productive powers.

The power of enterprise is economic power, not political power. America's decades long suppression of productive power by the State in an attempt to prevent the realization of a free market has been defensive, a way for State power to prevent a loss of control. But now it's obvious that without production in an environment of freedom and stable rules, our nation will decine and eventually collapse. Europe appears to be waking up to the same reality. Statism cannot hold on much longer without causing serious financial damage and a loss of legitimacy. Government can still save its claim to legitmacy, but only if its powers are limited, and it ceases being the strongarm of the State. The State has to recede and transition into a another form or wither away, leaving only a limited government protection agency and courts to resolve disputes.

All countries will find the same pressure to move from political power to economic power, as China has realized with its partial economic liberalizaion, although it still denies civil liberty -- for economic liberty to be sustained, there must be property rights and civil liberty -- for there to be sustained economic growth and widespread prosperity there must be a free market -- all liberties are interdependent.

Political power exploits and creates wars, economic power creates wealth and equal opportunity, and requires peace.

If we step back and look at the larger picture, it becomes clearer that political means are failing and economic means are succeeding to the extent they are free from State control. State power and control are propped up and made possible by government interventions. Without this coercive protection of the State by an interventionist government, the State would transform or become irrelevant, opening the way for people to live and trade freely based on their needs and wants, their dreams and visions, their creativity and desires for something better. In many parts of the world, people are needlessly suffering because States are stubbornly resisting economic freedom. It's time for powerful States to stop the political exploitation and ordering of the world and allow all people the opportunity to create and produce and enjoy the fruits of their labor, however that manifests itself in diverse cultures.

With political motivations and the need for control out of the way, countries can cooperate and share knowledge, because in a world of free markets, it's best for everyone to prosper. Peace and free trade are much better for our health and happiness than statist power-mongers who don't produce - who only take by force.

Update on Saturday, November 13, 2010 at 09:12AM by M. Farmer

A pertinent article:

http://www.foxnews.com/world/2010/11/13/g-rancor-pac-rim-leaders-push-free-trade/

The Road to Freedom -- part VI

Perhaps another name can be given to a self-governing society, because State will not be appropriate. The State will forever be associated with political means, dominion and exploitation. Moving beyond State exploitation to a self-governing society, one which arranges protection against coercion in all its forms, a new society is born, not engineered and planned by a centralized government, but, rather, aways emerging from the interplay of free citizens. Communities will be more important than geographical boundaries. A limited government providing protection and dispute settlement will likely be necessary, but this is open to innovation. Perhaps regional protection agencies will be sufficient, with a unification of armed forces in case of a foreign attack. It's highly unlikely, though, that any country would think they can defeat and dominate free people in an area as large as America.

Some will worry about national unity and fear that without a powerful, unifying State, America will lose all sense of purpose and direction, but communications and travel will connect us as it does now, only in more comprehensive ways we cannot yet imagine. America is a set of ideas, not an area of land. Even if the rest of the world worries about boundaries, America has no boundaries -- America is freedom. Free travel and interaction in a world without walls of separation seems more likely in the future, rather than the same divisions which gradually make less and less sense as barriers are destroyed one by one.

Yes, I know you think I've gone mad, but what I'm writing is a vision -- one others have had, and one that could be accomplished in time. I undersand we are nowhere near what I'm describing, but it speaks to direction. These changes might not be the best world for some, but if we all begin imagining what a better world would look like, perhaps we can create an open environment which allows true progress. Centralized planning and nation-states are showing cracks -- world leaders planning the New World Order is a nightmare scenario, so we'd better gain control and free ourselves from dominion before our future is designed for us.

We have grown so accustomed to social engineering, following the plans of the State, free-thinking has been at a minimum. We're not born to be molded by the State, compliant and submissive, dependent on the wise rulers to guide our pitiful and needy lives, and we aren't experiments for technocrats to nudge and prod and shape in the image of the perfect progressive Social Being who eats the right foods, has the right thoughts, promotes the right causes, has no soul because it's merged with the Collective Soul as we're all collectively saved by the All-Giving, All-Knowing State.

We are born free, as the cliche goes -- then we either give it up or protect it. We either think freely, or allow others to think for us.

As the midterm elections approach, reevaluating the pupose of representatives is vital. Are we electing rulers who will write policies which favor special interests? Are we electing the best thieves who will bring riches back to the states? Are we electing polished politicians who can play the political games?

Or, are we electing representatives who represent free, self-governing people and will make sure government doesn't abuse power, and who will protect freedom, and who will create a business environment where industry is confident to invest, hire and create new wealth?

There are two different visions at stake and two different directions. One vision dismantles an exploitative State and gives power to the people, and the other vision continues State exploitation and protects the status quo. How do we see ourselves, as subjects guided by rulers or as free people acting in a free market? Which direction we choose in the next couple of elections sets the course for a long time to come -- we're at a tipping point.

Wonkish conservatism? I don't think so

http://trueslant.com/erikkain/2010/07/01/toward-a-positive-conservatism/

This idea of wonkish conservatism largely misses the point. E. D. Kain, in the above link, seems to be proposing one form of central planning for another. The problem with the Republican Party is not that they haven't done enough wonkish central planning, it's that they haven't attempted to change the basic structure of government and separate State and economy. We don't need 2000 page bills from Republicans presenting the conservative healthcare plan, we need to remove government from healthcare and allow the private sector to work. We don't need energy bills and finance bills and education bills -- we need the genius of the private sector to creatively move forward in progress -- spontaneous order with a moral energy, worked out in the marketplace among serious adults debating the best ways to live together in peace, to guide choices.

The complexity of the economy requires the freedom of supply and demand and the absence of social engineering regulations. This is the definition of a free market. If all the conservatives have to offer is another government plan, then we're screwed. E.D. says deconstructing the New Deal is unrealistic but this is centrist defeatism which plays into the hands of progressives. The purpose of deconstructing progressivism and modern liberal statism is not to demonize liberals or progressives, but to end the idea of statism altogether. Anything which can be constructed can be deconstructed.

No, it won't be easy, but then it wasn't easy building this monstrosity of corruption and power we call government. As long as conservatives take a fatalistic approach and believe all they can do is tweak what liberalism and progressivism have wrought in order to make it make work a little bit better, the statist direction will prevail and our sociey will lose it's ability to even envision a free market.

I've written here many times about the creation of a free market and how to substitute a private sector assistance effort for the welfare state. Through innovative insurance plans, healthcare, unemployment, education, retirement and all sorts of emrgency sitations can be worked out for the great majority of Americans, leaving the poor and disabled to worry about. In a free market which will draw investment from around the world, the great majority of Americans will be able to secure good jobs and security through the private sector. This is not Utopia, just the blessings of economic growth, innovation and productivity, meeting the demands of a growing global economy. A free market unburdened by government intervention has created growth before, and in the 21st century, with technology beng what it is, a free market will create growth like the world has never witnessed -- it will be a new golden age of economic prosperity.

We now know the societal problems which face us, and that there is always the risk of unscrupulous companies raping the environment or conning the public. In the Information Age, these companies can't survive in a free market with no government protection. The legal system needs to be streamlined to sync with a 21st century free market which will have no patience for fraud or gross negligence.

A much more prosperous population will also be even more charitable than they are now, which is quite significant even being held back by government intervention. Private assistance companies will be created which meet all the social needs government is now handling incompetently. These companies will be well funded and as the public takes ownership in helping others, the pride in following the results will create a new type of American citizen who grows spiritually from being a part of the solution. There's no need for politicians to get together and plan all this out in government programs -- government needs to simply get out of the way and do its job -- protect our rights, police the streets, protect the border and reform the courts. This is something conservatives can be positive about, along with liberals, libertarians and just plain old Americans who don't much like labels. What we need to do is begin coming up with ideas as private sector players who understand that the solutions to the future are not in government central planning and wonkish 2000 thousand page bills.

This is a new world.

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."