Why we have to end government control of the economy

The Left always has plenty of reasons why government must regualte and control the economy. There are many justifications for the Fed -- just ask practically anyone in the political class. Hardly anyone in America can imagine an economy not controlled by government, yet government control of the economy through political means has created stagnation and threatens to lead to decline. The negative consequences have piled up through the years, and the Keynesian long run no one was worried about is here.

The amazing diversity and strength of our economy has so far overcome government interventions. Now that China and India and new emerging economic powers have implemented enough capitalist principles to become competitive, America's advantage has waned, and our government's expansion of control through Obamacare and Dodd-Frank places obstacles in the way of companies and prevents them from competing through business done in America.

Our industries are going over-seas to make money, and small business in the US are suffering from regulatory burdens and business taxes and just too much  government intervention. As a nation we must come to the realization that statism is killing us like it's killed European countries like Greece and Portugal, and could kill the entire EU. This is no longer a matter of attempting to keep government from gaining complete control -- it's about making extreme changes which create a truly free market.

We can't place our hope on a presidential candidate to come along with a better government plan -- it's government plans, per se, that are the problem. We need an entire government which is limited in power. The American people have to stand up and demand that government remove itself from the economy. I don't know how this demand can be delivered -- I don't what kind of organized effort it would take to send this message and make this demand -- all I know is it needs to be done.

In the next post I will write about innovation in business oversight.

Articulating free market principles

Why is it so hard for Republicans to articulate free market principles? Every day I listen to pundits explain how Obama's approval ratings are high because the public perceives that recovery is on the way. Is it that media itself doesn't give an opportunity to those on the Right who can explain the principles? Is it because the subject is too difficult? Or, is it because the Right, for the most part, don't understand or really embrace the principles?

Surely there are wordsmiths on the Right who can articulate free market principles in a fashion that inspires the public to search even further for understanding. Glenn Beck does a fairly good job, although lately he's lost his mind over Rick Santorum. George Will has the ability to explain the principles, but I don't see Will on any outlets except ABC's This Week, and I don't know how many people actually watch that program. Plus, is Will a free market advocate -- I mean a real advocate?

Marco Rubio has done a fairly good job, but I don't know if he understands the concepts well enough to simplify the subject for public consumption. Newt Gingrich has the skills to make the case, but Gingrich, for some reason, talks in generalities about a free market, never going into a full explanation with examples and contrasts with statism. I'm not sure how much of Hayek and Mises Gingrich has really studied. I don't think any of the Republican candidates, except for Ron Paul, have read the literature on free market philosophy/economics. That's strange seeing as how they use the words economic and freedom quite often. You would think they'd at least have read Thomas E. Woods, but I don't hear any of them quoting him or referring to him.

The only way the Right is going to make progress against progressivism is to debunk the ideology and to explain why statism doesn't work and can't work. Reagan made progress because he could talk about socialism and capitalism, but none of the candidates, aside from Paul, seem to have the ability to articulate what they believe in -- do they believe in a free market? I mean really. This, I think, is the problem. Santorum and Gingrich don't believe in a free market, and I don't know about Romney. What they mean by freeing up our economy and stopping government over-reach is that they would not regulate as much as Obama, and their focus wouldn''t be to redistribute income. But they don't mean that they will fight to roll back regulations on the books to create a truly free market.

Deep down, most in the Republican Party don't believe a truly free market will work -- they think government has to prevent the jungle of a free market from hurting people and creating chaos for large corporations -- they just don't focus on statist plans to create even more government control. There are enough laws and regulations on the book for government to control any area of economic activity it wishes to control, so Republicans can talk big without revealing how they will go about rolling back decades of regulations. Paul has a plan, but this is why Republicans attempt to marginalize Paul -- they are afraid that Paul will gain enough influence to pressure Republicans to walk like they talk.

The reason we don't have anyone standing before audiences and explaining free market principles is because only Ron Paul  believes in the principles -- maybe Gary Johnson, and perhaps a few of the New Republicans -- but Republicans with influence have no intention of creating a free market.

Orwell and Oil Wells

It's become cliche to talk about the Orwellian nature of modern government, but only because there are so many similarities between Orwell's fictional account in his book, 1984, and the way government and media twist the truth, demonize opponents and butcher language. Mind control is important to a powerful State, and our government does all it can to control the minds and opinions of the public. A big State machine has been created to 24/7 manipulate information and form public opinion.

The gulf oil spill is the latest example of government mind control. BP, which has had 760 safety violations in the last five years, as compared to single digit violations by other oil companies, was connected at the hip to politicians and regulators until the oil started gushing into the gulf. Regulatory agencies, congressional oversight committees and the administration did practically nothing prior to the rig explosion to address all the concerns they're now revealing as safety shortcuts and neglect. 

Our Orwellian government is now portraying BP as an evil company that deliberately ignored problems and ruined the gulf. It's been revealed that many politicians have investments in oil companies, and have received large campaign donations from oil companies, but this news is drowned by the constant drumbeat of BP the evil, capitalist oil company destroying the gulf and the people who make their living off the gulf. Government's complicity is conveniently placed in the past, on the previous adminsitration, while the present administration is portrayed as taking immediate control of the situation doing everything it can to stop the leak and help those who have been harmed. Even though it's obvious the government has relied on BP so far to fix the leak and pay for damages, the State machine is working diligently to twist this truth to fit their narrative.

By Orwellian magic, the government is pinning all the negative aspects of the oil spill on BP and taking credit for any positive actions. Now, the govenrment has forced BP to give government control of 20 billion dollars of BP's money to pay damages. This was a strong arm tactic to place government in the role of savior and BP in the role of punished evil oil company. In reality, BP and the government are partners, but in the Orwellian world only BP is guilty. Now, the State machine is using the oil spill crisis as a reason to take more control of private industry and transform the energy sector into a State responsibility managed for the common good. First the auto industry, then healthcare, then the financial industry and now the energy industry. The State is gaining complete control of the American economy.

Will mind control work? It appears so. Orwell's warnings are being ignored. When a State becomes all-powerful, there's nowhere else to turn, nothing else to believe. Journalists are waiting in line with their hands out.

The Failing State -- 10

Finally, to end this series, the State is failing, not primarily due to insulation, arrogance and incompetence, but because it's corrupt. The statist system is so large, powerful and capable of providing favors to get what it wants, it's corrupt to the core. The State wants power and control, and they will trade whatever they have to trade to achieve their goals, and when they become more powerful, they will simply take what they want. This is already happening and it signals the end.

If healthcare reform passes tomorrow, we'll slowly discover what deals were made, and with the power to control all that falls under healthcare, statism will be firmly established to the point that government can take what it wants. This is not an overstatement, and it explains why progressives have fought irrationally for passage of the bill. This is just the beginning of their plans.

The bill will likely pass, and it's encumbent upon the American people to use this as the beginning of a private sector, peaceful revolution to limit government. We've now seen the ugliness and the corruption, so there should be no doubt in anyone's mind that government must be brought under control of the people -- to make it clear that government no longer possesses the consent of the people to govern.

There's no need for alarm, violence or anxiety, just a calm resolve to use the individual states to limit government. It will be a long, arduous process, but we brought this on ourselves. Not enough people were paying attention, and the public continued to elect statists who brought home the bacon. The bacon was never free and now we're paying for it. It's time to get to work, reform government and start creating the 21st century. Tomorrow is the beginning of the rest of our lives. I hope I'm wrong, that it doesn't pass, but my instincts tell me it will. But, even if it doesn't, until government is limited, the battle will continue. Let's pay attention this time.

This is not about debts and deficits, it's about freedom, individual rights and restoring the private sector and the Constitution to their proper places.

Libertarian hope (change will come later)

I'll begin a series a posts that HOPEfully will be be hopeful, because I refuse to be hopeless. Hopelessness is a dire state of mind. I'll drift around somewhat in these posts and try to bring it all together as I go along.

I see three sources of principles in the political realm, depending on the group, the God-revealed principles of some conservatives, the independent principles of the libertarians and the consensus principles of the liberals.

One thing is for sure, in the political realm there is a lack of guiding principles. Or, is there? But which principles should guide our actions? The conservatives are split, the libertarians are split; however although there is some disagreement among liberals, they seem to have found their consensus, their shared principles, even if it's a matter of making them up as they go along.

As I wrote in an earlier post, the real split in the political realm is between statists and those who believe in a limited government. I will call those who believe in limited government "libertarian" although this term is not sufficient to describe the differences among this group. There are people who uphold libertarian principles and understand the concepts, then there are those who don't understand the concepts, but have a libertarian spirit, nonetheless, and are suspicious of too much government control -- the reasons for resisting big government may be different, but the suspicion is shared.

The liberal political concepts are influencing how we are governed and many conservatives are accepting the statist view that our representatives need to set the course of the economy (and with it, justice), which now effects every area of our lives. There has been such a convoluted shift in mindsets that it's difficult to establish cause and effect, but a trail can be found that leads back to John Rawls.

I'm not sure how many people know anything about John Rawls, or how many have read his work, but ideas have a way of filtering down and creating an "overlapping consensus" in a pluralistic society, even though the source of the ideas are unknown -- thus, we see conservatives and liberals voting on great changes which seem to have no underlying basis for shared values, if you listen to rhetoric alone. But regarding the matter of government control, it appears a consensus has been established, so labels will need to be put aside, except for the two broad labels of statist and libertarian. Within each of these groups there are many differences according to "comprehensive world views" but in each there appears to be enough shared values for this purpose of considering a battle between government control and private freedom.

So the consensus of statists breeds a resistance which then searches for another synthesis, consensus, and this is how it's supposed to go, right? Have we reached a point where there are no set principles which we can agree are sufficient to apply to governance, except on a temporary basis? Does this mean the Constitution will morph according to an evolving consensus, and if so, evolve to what? Is there an end game?

This is what I'll be writing about for while.