Loss of government credibility

Another problem with US military intervention is that we can no longer trust our government. The old jokes about dishonest politicians reflect an inbred distrust of government with many, but when it comes to military action the concern rises high above a joke about a double-dealing congress person.

From Reagan to Clinton to Bush to Obama, presidents and administrations and congress have lied about our military actions -- however, as the Information Age gains speed, the lies are revealed quicker and more comprehensively, when the media is doing its job. For all we know there may be an agreement with Qaddafi for some political motive, and in the next few days he makes a deal which solves all the problems --we just don't know, because no one will tell the truth. But even if he goes, what then? What is the plan and why did we really attack in the first place? Whatever it is, it will be revealed, so the lies are becoming insulting.

When government loses credibility it makes it difficult to support military action. Politics have poisoned every aspect of the State, especially international interactions. This is why Jefferson originally promoted a non-intervention policy regarding foreign relations -- his first instincts were right.

Piddling around the cusp

As an extension of the prior post, I believe it's time to start drilling down on the national political conversation. Too much time has been spent based on the premise that some degree of statism is necessary, so we debate policies and talk about compromise, slowing down the government, moderating extremes, fixing this or that, cost/benefit analysis, etc, rather than having an honest discussion about the dichotomy between a free market and statism of any degree. Too many people believe in the mixed economy approach with everyone trying to find the right mixture instead of considering a separation of State and economy.

Marx might have been wrong about the type of evolved society which could witness the withering away of the State -- there's a good possibility that type of society is a truly free market. Kevin Carson writes about a truly free market here. There's a huge difference between statism of varying degress and a truly free market.

The standard response is that a truly free market is impossible, a utopian idea which can never be implemented, but there's no conclusive evidence showing this to be true. It might be difficult and even unlikely, but there's no reason to think it's impossible. One of the biggest problems is that no one trusts the private sector to provide a safety net for the unfortunate like the State provides, but with a little imagination, freeing the mind from the idea of statist necessity, it's not difficult to imagine communities across the nation responding to social needs in a free market, with creative, sophisticated private associations arising to deal with poverty, unemployment, sickness and handicaps.

Considering the possibility of a free market requires imagination, taking our understanding of ourselves and others, human nature in general, and then micro-modeling a society in which the "government" doesn't intervene in the economy, but rather provides protection of rights and settles disputes. By "government" I mean any organization of protection and dispute resolution devised -- it could look much different from the government we have today -- it would look much different, I'm sure.

Until we can have a serious national discussion, with representatives proposing this in congress and national personalities bringing it to the forefront, grass-roots free markt movements and the media giving the ideas exposure, and intellectuals studying and analyzing the prospects, we can't can't say we've considered all options and solutions -- we've been stuck, piddling around the cusp of statism.

Update on Thursday, December 23, 2010 at 11:52AM by M. Farmer

Addendum:

Another criticism of a free market is that powerful capitalists will control everyone, but this type of thinking is stuck in crony capitalism -- the other crony in crony capitalism is government -- if government is prevented from rigging the game, business owners are forced to compete in the market, and with government not able to protect monied interests, there will be myriad ways to stop a few wealthy people from controlling the economy -- the economy is too complex, and if it's free, it will baffle the Fat Cats accustomed to succeeding through government protection .

Hegelian or modified Hegelian?

http://clubtroppo.com.au/2010/10/18/am-i-an-hegelian-hint-no/

Nicholas Kruen at Club Troppo has been wring about Hegel and how Hegel impressed him. Hegel was an impressive philosopher, and I was right there with him until he explained his ideas of the State as a synthesis of Particularity and Universality. During Hegel's time, though, it's understandable he had confidence in an intelligent State and his capacity to design the right balances of power so that absolute power would be used wisely. After all, he allowed for a free market in the Industrial class, sort of, although always vulnerable to State override for the good of the Universal. Hegel also saw the promise of America, although he believed his ideas of an intelligent State would need to be applied.

If Hegel had seen the long struggle between Master and Slave as dialectical process leading to the end of history where the State is separated from an interventionist government, and it was a State of true Freedom, with government simply protecting the Freedom, and an enlightened, sovereign public, then his philosophy would be more palatable. As much as Hegel saw Work from the Slaves as great progress, enough to establish equality with Masters, it's odd that his end of history realizes such a powerful State, even if he rationalized its operations as a true expression of the people universalized by the State's greater vision. Hegel was too impressed with Napoleon to see the futility of his goals.

Education and government

The collusion between government and the teachers' union, an enhancement of State power and control, is ruining education in America. The billions of dollars spent are not making matters better, and the tragedy is that the nation is depending on the education of their children to provide young people with the knowledge and skills necessary to become independent, well-rounded adults who are financially secure.

Most students are ill prepared to make it in the world when they graduate high school, and many are ill-prepared even after receiving a college degree. When the federal government created the Department of Education, it went beyond Constitutional limits, and now central planning has subjugated education to federal control.

One of the main concerns is the State having so much influence over what students are taught. When teachers are so dependent on government, they lose their objectivity and fall under the influence of politics and ideology. The link above leads to a Cato article, and Cato has gathered a lot of information on the state of public education. Search Cato's site for articles on public education.

The argument for public education would be stronger if the results justifed the defense, but the results, for the most part, are very poor. My position is to end public education and allow the private sector to offer educational choices for parents, so that parents have control. Society will not allow those children whose parents can't afford to pay for education to go without one. Private assistance will develope, but first we need to stop the State from draining money out of the private sector and blocking economic progress.

A free market will address education, and it will do so innovatively. The public education system is like the horse and buggy industry after cars were invented. Technology will allow creative educational offerings that meet our current need for effective education -- the status quo will house students and turn teachers into wardens while wasting valuable resouces and failing to produce successful results.

Just one more reason to get government out of areas of concern in which it has no competence and no Constitutional authority. 

Update on Thursday, October 7, 2010 at 04:38PM by M. Farmer

From Reason Magazine:

http://reason.com/blog/2010/10/07/reasontv-3-reasons-obamas-educ

Ideas have consequences

The Roman Empire collapsed in grand fashion as the ideas of the time led the world to collapse and reorganization. The ideas fueling absolutism ended in the totalitarian wholesale slaughter of millions of innocent lives, people simply caught up in power-madness gone terribly awry.

Now in the 21st century, although less dramatic, nations around the world are facing destruction as years of statism take its toll and the same historically familiar forces of domination prevent liberty from maximizing its forever latent potential as if no one has learned anything.

Clever political pundits talk about strategy, as if a better strategy would have enabled Stalin and Hitler to conquer the world with less damage, or as if the Roman Empire needed only to explain their programs to more people. Intellectuals look at the pending disaster and reflect on better alliances and a more propitious mixture of freedom and control as they ponder how softer more intelligent socialism can save the day.

The Republican Party plans a dull make-over of the modern State to make it look determined and energetic, amenable to a free market they know as much about as Democrats know about fighting poverty or providing education. Both parties block the end of two wars which have lasted past any reasonable or vital purpose. Both parties support the violation of popular sovereignty. Both parties manipulate to gain power and strengthen the control of their favorite special interests.

Nether party is seriously attempting to empower the private sector and limit government's duties to the basic responsibilities set out for them, yet smart observers are choosing sides as if the two arms of government aren't controlled by the twisted mind of the State.

As the old, worn-out ideas of one class exploiting all others are banded about, small and bewildered men and women in the media argue over minutiae and predict a universal solution as the technocratic machine churns out butchered legislation and desperate plans from central control. The salmagundi of hopelessly futile ideas to manage the nation which orginates in Washington DC is an offering of stupidity bolstered by arrogance and faux-elitism. Never has it been more clear to free-thinking men and women that the vapid ideas emanating from the State and all those clinging to it like leeches have very serious consequences for seriously real people.