The danger of the statist right

I've written a lot lately regarding the dangers of progressivism, but to be fair, and like I've stated many times before, there is just as much danger from the right when it violates individual rights and interferes with a free market.

The only reason I've been beating on the progressives lately is because they are the imminent danger. The right is being marginalized by the progressive media and abandoned by many independents, as far as the right is associated with the Republican Party, which is usually the case -- however a case can be made that a new right is forming which is conservative on some issues and liberal on others, not necessarily moderate, but maybe more libertarian.

When talking about the right, political thinkers usually distinguish between center-right, plain conservatives and more nationalistic, reactionary far-right. It seems the right has made the mistake of embracing conservatism as a static position, a desire to preserve social hierarchies, religious traditions and structures which are at odds with dynamic change and innovation. I think this position is unintentional in some cases due to jumbled thinking and creates a tension among many who are considered to be on the political right. This confusion has allowed progressives to be seen as the agents of change and progress. The problem is that both have used the state in the mistaken belief that central planning is necessary to implement either vision or combinations of both.

The progressives actually believe in the efficacy of the state and central planning, but the right has capitulated due to lack of imagination and the courage of their convictions, when the convictions, indeed, promote individual rights and free markets. In the right's attempt to deal with social problems such as poverty and environmental problems, they've used the state as a tired default, liberal-light, rather than go to the market for innovation. The right has come across as confused regarding goals and methods to achieve these goals, thus Bush was criticized as being too far right and also of being an out of control statist.

It's becoming obvious that neither left or right are sufficient for the American future. The far right becomes worrisome when there is talk of reactionary nationalism and religiosity. I have nothing against faith and spiritual growth, but using religion as a weapon to control society is as dangerous as a despotic regime controlling the nation. The problem is using the state to coerce people to live in ways that are against their wills, rather than simply protecting their basic rights and allowing the market place to be the competitive arena to decide moral and ethical guidance, individually chosen.

The right has failed to make a case for the private realm as the place where innovative approaches can develope to deal with the societal problems of poverty, environment concerns, human relationships, education, economic growth, etc.

It remains to be seen, but there might be a movement in America, and around the world, that can't be described as either left or right, a basically classically liberal approach which respects individual rights, welcomes dynamism, encourages innovation and moves away from statism and central planning. If those who have been on the right, and want to be a part of the dynamic future, are smart, they will promote this movement and reject the tired and incompetent methods of government power -- they will find the appropriate expression of faith, realize that there is a global melding of innovative efforts to live better and prosper, and they will root out all aristocratic tendencies in order to realize that freedom brings the low high and the power-hungry low.

In the spirit of libertarianism

Most political arguments are at the outer edges of fundamental issues, so that it's almost impossible to move toward solutions. We're yelling at each other across a great divide and can barely hear one another -- we just know that the enemy is on the other side and whatever they're yelling must be wrong. Libertarianism may be the necessary bridge to find solutions.

Although party loyalty is declining, government-centered thought seems to be on the rise. Government has infiltrated our lives to such an extent it's impossible to consider a world in which the public sphere would be the supreme realm for dealing with societal concerns. Every day on the news there is talk about political strategy, yet very little about the nature of governance in a society which aspires to freedom. Not only that, but there is very little news regarding what's going on outside government -- why is not important to hear about some of the latest technological advances, or how a private charity organization has achieved a certain goal. Perhaps it's not as exciting as political battles, and perhaps it wouldn't draw the same ratings, but how do we know if there is no effort to make news outside of government interesting? The majority of issues that make the news are related to government. I have a feeling that if there were more diverse news stories, many more people would tune in. It appears that news has become a proganda machine for the state.

But I didn't intend for this to be a critique of television news. I hear over and over that society needs a strong government to provide a safety net, and the news shows all the government attempts to help unemployed workers, to help the poor, to bail out struggling companies for the good of society -- the underlying message being that without government we would experience economic collapse in recessions like the one we're presently experiencing and people would be on the street with no assistance.

Yet, how much of this is surface compassion, an unexamined assumption that government programs are providing the safety net people have in mind? I wonder sometimes how many of the compassionate defenders of a welfare state have spent time in areas of the country where welfare recipients live, and what these compassionate defenders know about the welfare culture that has grown around these government programs.

If the majority of our society has decided that compassion is necessary in a civil society to care for the unfortunate, wouldn't it follow that these same people would want for our very best efforts to achieve the goals we desire? I propose that very few people consider the results -- they only know they are paying taxes and that government is providing assistance -- problem solved.

There has been plenty of criticism regarding the effects of the welfare state -- breakup of marriages, rational dependency which prohibits people from taking entry-level jobs, waste and fraud, etc., but this post is about the limited idea that the state is necessary to help individuals through hard times. If the interest in helping the unfortunate was genuine and not statist-centered, it seems people would be looking for the best means to accomplish the goal of helping others get on their feet. While it's true many people get on welfare for a short period of time, then get off, it's also true that many stay on welfare for years and play the system. So the question is -- why is society not concerned with innovation in this area?

The following few posts will address this question in the spirit of libertarianism.

Libertarianism's hook to be cool -- radical freedom and freely chosen social responsibility

Surfing around various libertarian, conservative and liberal blogs, I’m amazed at the widespread acceptance of government structure in this age of changes. It’s almost like a certain part of the brain has been programmed to accept an interventionist government as a reality, with the only controversy being how much freedom we give up to maintain the structure.

The political part of the human brain is not evolving as quickly as the part which deals with technology. In the world of technology, there’s a freedom and an innovative spirit which infuses the world with genius magic, and this is sorely lacking in the political realm. The political realm trudges on, building it’s restrictive structure, pushing people more to sameness, more to rule-following, more to mediocrity and obedience. Charles Taylor in his book, A Secular Age, writes about structure and anti-structure - the late fifties, the sixties and the early seventies were a time when society broke out of a restrictive political mindset and blossomed in creativity and expression, diversity, anti-structure, and now in 2009 it seems like another great opportunity for that same sort of expression – if it does happen, perhaps the expression will be better guided by maturity and reason and production – but the times seem ripe for creativity, courageous innovation and another round of life-magic, another push to throw off the shackles of government structuralists and busy-bodies who delight in building bureaucracies with myriad dumb rules to follow – who delight in controlling and engineering and getting all the kids to draw between the lines.

Charles Taylor is an unlikely writer to make my point, but if libertarianism needs a hook to be popular with all the cool kids, a look at structure/anti-structure is a good start. Except, we're talking about limited-structure, not anti-structure. The new breed is bravely going forward into the wonderful world of technology and social interaction -- their public education tells them that their success is not complete, though, unless they support an activist government to save the planet, support the welfare state and promote equality. These young people have been busy learning and creating new realities, so they are practically politically illiterate, but they will get smart when they realize Big Brother is going to cramp their style. When these men and women realize that the private sector can use the same genius-magic to deal with social problems as it has to create social-sites and new technologies, they'll look on government like the sluggish, stupid obstacle it is.

Did Obama say something about enchantment? How about private sector enchantment? Taylor says we've lost the enchantment -- perhaps it lies in genius magic -- not that everyone will be a genius, but the spirit is alive and the technological movement is mind-blowing. Peace, love, laptops and Twitter.

The power of innovation

We've come too far to turn back now. In spite of all the manipulations by government which make me at times want to move to an island and forget it all, I look past the MSM's portrayal of America's hot mess and the global crisis and I see the dynamic movement of creative people which will define the future and leave dullard statists wondering how it all passed them by. We've come too far. The future belongs to a new breed of geniuses and producers and artists and brain-workers and service providers and craftspeople, and, yes, laborers who have tools other generations couldn't imagine. It's always been that way, I suppose, except now we've reached a different level where changes will be mindblowing, quick and dramatic. The base for change is more complex and the accumulated knowledge is increasing like never before.

This buildup of technological knowledge and expertise is busting the seams of an old structure of power and control. I believe we're in a lull of doubt before an explosion of innovation which will render obsolete most of what we witness today from nation-states. We may be witnessing a dual movement of statist collapse and technological revolution, with the state delusionally writing the narrative as a government-led transformation. The silence regarding free enterprise's newest promise is deafening -- while the media covers and makes excuses for the latest tax-dodging government appointment and announces another government scheme to patch a hole in the dike.

The social scientist's bed-wetting concern over technology de-humanizing us all has failed to materialize as we cheerfully embrace innovations which move us further and further, cyber-wise and technology-wise, beyond the reach of a sluggish state. This last gasp of statism is making the best use it can of the economic lull in order to make a stand, but it's legs are as weak as its collective mind. State control of dying industries and daddy fat-cat banks is a desparate move to avoid the reality of failure.  The state defense of public education and the welfare state is a reactionary justification for its existence while potential change and innovative possibilities lie in wait -- and as the new breed of entrepreneurs wait for showtime, a nation absorbs the information flow which increases through growing channels. To many, the revelation of a state in conflict with its limitations and aspirations is an awakening to where we stand in history -- if the over-reaching state reveals itself to be the manipulative obstacle some of us know it to be, the rest will realize the emptiness of government's benevolent claims and the obstacles will be removed. We've come to far to allow a dying power structure to support dying industries and institutions at the expense of progress.

The state has done a grand job conflating government with America, but it's always been doomed to faliure, just as extreme failure keeps North Korea in darkness and, to a lesser degree of failure, keeps Europe in perpetual mediocrity and gradual decay. To the extent America has been different and more amenable to free enterprise and an open, free society, we've advanced a standard of living which no one 50 years ago could imagine, and we didn't come this far to tear it all down.