The almost impossible task

We can continue to piddle at the cusp of our problems in America, or we can begin facing our problems, identifying them for what they are, and then find solutions. The progressives are still hammering away at the narrative that the state is necessary to correct past injustices, and that the only way to do this is to transform capitalism into some form of socialization and central planning. There are those who look at government intervention then say that without intervention certain things wouldn't have happened: education, post office, roads, strong middle class, assistance for the poor, Medicare, Medicaide, food stamps, unemployment insurance, technology research, dams for energy, infrastructure of all sorts, public transit, safety, environmental protection, Social Security, de-segregation, women's rights, civil rights, building standards, food and drug standards, consumer protection of all sorts, financial regulations, on and on and on.

It's almost a hopeless case because we have given government so much power to control these areas of concern, that all people can see is what has happened due to government intervention. It would take a genius imagination to go back to the beginning and imagine other routes to the same results, or much better results. You would have to assess the effectiveness of all the areas of government intervention, then build a fictional alternative -- "fictional", because in most of these areas of concern the private sector was never allowed to, or never forced to, deal with the problems.

This would be a herculean task, although many libertarian writers have shown how some alternatives would work -- writers such as Rothbard and Friedman. But to address all government interventions would be a lifetime task, and even then people would have a difficult time understanding the alternative vision, because they are trained from childhood to accept government intervention as vital. Another herculean task is the one presented to libertarian-leaning policy makers who promote privatization for this or that -- for every area of concern which would be better off privatized, there are thousands of bureacrats dependent on a government program connected to the concern, politicians who are trying to save their power-base, and perhaps millions of dependent citizens who are afraid of change and don't want to risk losing something the government has provided.

I have no idea how government can ever be limited as it should be limited short of a collapse and rude national awakening. Our government is presently driving the country to financial disaster, and we can no loger pretend it's not an all-out attack on the free market -- between the energy efforts and healthcare reform we're talking long term, permanent costs, not just one or two time bailouts or a stimulus package here and there. Plus, with the attack on free enterprise, unemployment is likely to be high for a long time, costing us much more in benefits to support the out-of-work, with permanent unemployment rising. Safety net costs will go through the roof. It also appears we're politically stuck in two wars which will require long-term maintenance.

Baby boomers are retiring, so SS and Medicare will sink even further in the bog of unfunded liabilities. With government regulating the financial industry into stupor, lenders are going to be skittish and very conservative. Capitalism is being strangled and government spending is rising at record levels. This can't be sustained, and if government tries to soak the rich, money will flee even faster. The big question is -- Who is going to pay for all this? More and more young people are leaving high school with no marketable skills, barely able to read and write. It's incredible that small and medium size businesses are not organizing people to take to the streets -- but, so far, I don't hear any loud reaction.

I'm afraid people are stunned and hoping it will all go away, but from all the evidence it's only getting worse. More and more people are becoming dependent on government assistance and this is not good. We need another revolution, but most intelligent people are capitulating to power, playing the political game and burying their heads in the sand. A nation full of competent men and women, and we're being led by a handful of new age techno-fascists. The only ray of hope has been the Tea Party movement but it should be quadruple its size. This is no time for a replay of intellectuals slobbering over Stalin -- and, no, I'm not comparing Obama to Stalin, just weak intellectuals to weak intellectuals.

We're in a period where ordinary people are protesting, doing something they've never done before, participating in politics as free people should, and the intellectuals are trying to ridicule them into silence. Anyone who chooses the corrupt status quo of state power over people who want to limit the size of an over-reaching government are complicit in the destruction of liberty -- the media, Hollywood, representatives, big corporations, academics, unions, and every man and women who remains silent because they are afraid of losing some bauble from the gift-givers in D.C., they are all complicit.

Big corporations are hiding from competition behind the skirt of the state, comfortable in their international business, unconcerned with the damage done to the American economy, but when government gets desparate for money they will drain these sorry rent-seekers like hogs on a hook at the slaughter-house.

Just look at how Pelosi and Obama have strong-armed the insurance industry and shackled the finance industry, plus what they are in the process of doing with the auto-industry. Whatever company gets in their sights will be at risk. But, these companies asked for it -- when you make a deal with the devil you have to read the fine print.

The problem now is that it's doubtful we can stop this. One thing is for sure -- docility, capitulation and compromise will not help matters.

Why would anyone want the public option?

http://reason.com/blog/2009/10/29/new-at-reason-steve-chapman-on

What Steve Chapman writes is not surpising. Anyone who has paid attention to government run programs knows the inefficiencies, the manipulation, the hidden cost and the underlying goal to expand power.

What's surprising is that so many many people still support the public option. Surely the public knows by now that government programs aren't the answer. This just goes to prove how deeply ingrained is the dependence on government. You would also think that out of all the representatives in government there would be far more fighting against the public option on the Democrat side of the aisle. Because, even though there are many people who still don't get it, there are many, many more who are getting it, and this could be a political nightmare for many politicians with dreams of re-election.

If you're not a part of the solution, then...

A lot of people are worried about the extreme rhetoric coming from the right. They think it's even more extreme than false accusations of racism from the left against Rush Limbaugh, so it must be bad. I also keep hearing that the information from the right is false, but I don't see any proof, except the silly responses to hyperbole. Perhaps part of the problem is that the left understands hyperbole only when they use it, but not when it's used against them.

Those of us who don't consider ourselves either right or left have a choice in deciding who is most correct when evaluating all the rhetoric. I choose the right after much evaluation. I can find very little I agree with from the left these days, except maybe with the faction which wants to end the wars, but even then the reasons for ending the wars are likely different. I believe that politics have interfered with war efforts, and since that's the case, I say end the wars. Plus, I no longer trust the assessment from government regarding threats to our national interests. We haven't been attacked since 9/11, and since the enemy can no longer be found and eliminated, it puts our troops in a bad situation. I don't want our country to spend money and lose lives to rebuild and protect Afghanistan -- I don't think we have the support or cooperation of the Afghani people.

Everything else coming from the left seems counter-productive to a healthy, prosperous, vital and free America. From the pseudo-science of global warming to the healthcare reform, the left pushes policies and regulations which will violate individual rights and bankrupt the country.

If I have a problem with the right, it's that there's not enough resistance to the left's policies and regulations. It seems that one possibility is for the private sector to push the Republican Party back to sanity in order to avoid collapse and a long period of stagnation and high unemployment. The Democrat Party is unravelling, and it's obvious that they've pushed for changes which are destructive to our country, and will continue to do so -- now is the time for the Republican Party to develope a plan to turn it around -- it's now or never.

One of the first courses of actions should be to end all corporate welfare, so that small businesses are strengthened to compete in an open and free market. Then, offer tax breaks to small businesses so that they can grow and start hiring. Scrap the heathcare reform plans offered by the Democrats and institute free market solutions to healthcare -- scrap cap and trade. Rescind all irrational regulations regarding drilling for oil. Phase out Social Security with private retirement plans. Begin the transfer of public education to private education. We need a ten year plan to transfer the welfare state to private assistance organizations.

We need Constitutional amendments to close the loopholes dealing with public welfare and interstate commerce, clarifying the limitations of government. Make spending cuts a top priority and eliminate every government program which is useless and a drain on tax revenues -- give this money back to the people in the form of tax cuts, then implement a plan to end income taxes after the cuts take place.

This is a start, and it's necessary to do these things if our country is going to survive and thrive in the 21st century. So, for all those people worried about extreme criticism with no proposals for solutions -- these are mine. Anything less is piddling at the cusp. I have little faith the Republican Party will offer these changes, so, if I'm correct, it brings us to the only other solution -- a third party revolution.

Healthcare without government involvement

It's unimaginable, right? Oh, I don't know -- imagination is powerful, and surely if we tried hard enough we could imagine healthcare without government involvement.

What about government regulation of licensing? Hmmm, would the public put themselves at risk if the government didn't demand that doctors and nurses be licensed? No, they wouldn't. Either the medical professionals would, voluntarily, figure out a way to assure the public of competence, or the public would demand proof. How would this be accomplished? See? We're already back to planning. The point is that it would happen, and any reasonable person who thinks about it seriously would know this is true, and could likely think of a way to accomplish it.

Our big problem is the indoctrination through education, literature and the media that's created a mindset of distrust regarding the private sector. People will say "Yes, these libertarian ideas could be implemented if we lived in an ideal world, but we live in a world of self-centeredness and greed, therefore government regulation is necessary to force people to do the right things." Yet, we don't stop to reassess this mindset and to ask "why"? Why is this the way things are, and what if we had private, voluntary efforts which address the shortcomings of human beings? What if we regulated ourselves and others without state coercion?

Once we get past the block that keeps telling us it will never happen, a whole new world of possibilities opens up. Yet, people demand to know the the specifics before they admit it can be done, so we're stuck in the opposition against private answers. But, it's not like asking to have faith in unicorns -- what is being proposed can be grasped by reason and related to experience, related to knowledge about human nature, group interactions, motivations, the ability of humans to co-operate and accomplish small and grand things.

Rational plans are effective in their place, but the complexity of an economy such as the American economy is not amenable to such rational planning. We're coming to realize that, slowly, and government incompetence is revealed each day, like today listening to congress-people argue about the healthcare plan. They have no idea what they're doing, because the variables are too numerous. So, what if? What if the many decisions made each day were undisturbed by the bungling politicians?

It's time to begin asking this question in earnest.

Republican misunderstanding of libertarianism

http://www.newmajority.com/individual-mandate

David Frum writes:

That would be good sport. But question - sport aside, should Republicans oppose an individual mandate as a policy matter? (Actually not all Republicans do - the Healthy Americans Act sponsored by Utah Sen. Robert Bennett contains such a mandate.) There are two grounds for opposition: (1) the libertarian principle that people should not be required to do what they do not wish to do, and (2) the pragmatic concern that any mandate will likely imply higher subsidies to those Americans who cannot afford to pay the cost the law imposes on them.

As to (1), that battle was lost back in the 1980s, when hospitals were required to treat all comers, insured or not. It’s not very libertarian to say that you have a right to eat all you want at the buffet, but no duty to pay the bill.

It's this kind of jumbled thinking which blocks Republicans from understanding libertarians. Frum easily dismisses the libertarian position by holding a superficial view of libertarian thought which goes much deeper than Frum realizes. It is indeed very un-libertarian for a libertarian "to say that you have a right to eat all you want at the buffet, but no duty to pay the bill." This is why no serious libertarian would say such a thing.

The myopic, pragmatic Republican doesn't seem to have the vision or the creative imagination to see out of the trap set by progressive politics, much less the conviction to make a principled, and unpopular, stand. Republicans have failed because they play the game designed by progressives. We need a new game, although, sadly, it might be too late for a new game.

No, a serious libertarian society would never have established Medicaid, Medicare and the welfare state, which has led to a law that says people have to receive care if they show up at the emergency room, therefore avoiding the situation now which calls for insurance mandates to pay for it all.

Would a serious libertarian society have allowed people to die in the streets? We'll likely never know, but judging from the early charitable organizations which were a special American virtue and talent, and which were greatly admired by Alexis de Toqueville, the innovative spirit of the private realm would have designed private assistance to deal with the truly unfortunate, and private means would have developed for everyone else to understand the need to take care of their healthcare needs. Healthcare would likely not be in the mess it's in if a libertarian society had continued to exist as it was first designed.

The realist Republican will snicker, and patronizingly explain how we have to live in a real world not some imagined world that could have been -- then the Republican will capitulate, and we'll go further in debt, we'll lose more of our freedom, and the Republicans will become even more irrelevant. The idea that we're going in this progressive direction, so we must try to compromise and lessen the damaging the effects, or slow it down a tad, is never again going to inspire a majority. The only thing which will inspire a new movement is a new direction.

It's understandable that we can't throw away every progressive policy all at once, but we can change directions and move toward a freer society which releases the creative genius of the private realm. But this will require courage and conviction, neither of which many Republicans possess.