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.

The Future of Liberalism -- Part Four

From Wikipedia: Social liberalism is also called new liberalism^[7][8] (as it was originally termed), contemporary liberalism^[9], welfare liberalism^[10], high liberalism,^[11] radical liberalism,^[12] modern liberalism,^[13]revisionist liberalism,^[14] left-liberalism^{[citation needed]}, or simply liberalism.

I prefer the "simply liberalism". Drilling down on Alan Wolfe's book, The Future of Liberalism, I have to wonder where the insistence on state coercion to institute equality orginates.

Even if the idea of the welfare state is accepted as necessary, why wouldn't intelligent thinkers consider all the possible means by which to help people in society achieve financial independence and a higher standard of living?

An objective look at the history of the US shows great economic achievements and great failures. Our mixed economy has produced mixed results, and sorting out cause and effect is difficult because many times the effects are far removed from the causes due to the time between and the complex chain of events connecting an original cause to an eventual effect. We wind up dealing with symptomatic problems, applying symptomatic solutions, thus creating a vicious cycle, and never getting to the fundamental causes of the effects in order to apply fundamental solutions to fundmental problems. Peter Senge wrote brilliantly about these systemic problems years ago in his book -- The Fifth Discipline. At the time I read Senge's book I was in management and it opened my eyes to many of the problems our organization was experiencing at the time -- his ideas can also be applied to the government/private sector conundrum. It would be smart for all the smart people studying this problem to follow the trail of the effects back to the causes.

If we want to go beyond liberal platitudes and actually accomplish a common national goal like, say, helping those in society who haven't been able to overcome disadvantages over which they've had little control, then we need to take an objective approach, not a politically-shackled, liberal procedural approach.

If liberalism dismisses private charity organizations with no compelling reasons for doing so, except for the weak and questionable reasons of undignified dependence and lack of proper funding, then I have to question the sincerity of their goal to establsih more equality. If liberalism resists every advance for freedom of choice in education, then I have to ask if the special interest of unions is more important than providing disadvantaged kids with the best foundation to succeed after graduation, or to even graduate from high school.

If someone like myself, who is not an expert in these matters, can envision the potential of private efforts overcoming political obstacles and providing fundamental solutions, such as insurance arrangements, private investment accounts for retirement and private education efforts, to these fundamental social problems, surely the liberal experts who study these matters for a living can see private efforts offer innovative possibilities that should be tried in light of government failures. At the very least, government ought to be doing everything within its power to remove all obstacles to private innovation so that all efforts are given a chance, then compare the results of the two.

I'll wrap up this weekend. Some interesting trends develop in Wolfe's book which cause concern.

Freedom, Insurance and Charity

From a libertarian perspective, simply put, it's not appropriate to force anyone to help anyone else. If you rob from someone who has money and give it to someone who has less or no money at all, it's still robbery, and there's no justification for such coercion. The state has no right to enforce obligations on citizens which violate property rights -- to me, this is a violation of property rights. The state has misused "public welfare" in order to steal from those who have in order to give to those who don't have.

On top of this robbery, the state has inefficiently used the money, created an unhealthy dependence and harmed more lives than it's helped by enslaving them to system of demeaning dependence.

However, the libertarian ideology doesn't suggest there's no alternative other than allowing the poor to suffer. The private sector is not impotent in the face of poverty and actually has good reasons to alleviate poverty to the extent possible. Wouldn't we all be better off with less poverty?

For the exigencies of life -- temporary unemployment, illness, loss of a bread winner in the home, or any such unforeseen change which causes financial hardship -- private insurance arrangements would be effective means of making up the shortfall in income until situations improve. These types of insurance arrangements wouldn't be difficult to create and would probably be profitable for the companies providing such services under competent, efficient management.

Would everyone pay for a policy? If they knew the government was no longer providing assistance, I think they would. It would become common knowledge that "social" insurance policies are a necessity in a world of uncertainties. With various levels of coverage, the costs could be set to fit into any budget according the estimated needs in emergency situations.

Whereas, now, government collects taxes then distributes assistance where supposedly needed --mostly in an inefficient, politically motivated fashion -- a private company collecting premiums would invest this money for much better returns, thus creating a profitable business. Private companies would also be better at eliminating manipulation of the system by malingerers. In an economy separated from the state, there would be less need for pay-outs because the economy would be in better shape with fewer ups and downs caused by government interference, and the much lower taxes would leave people with more of their money to buy policies for the periodic down-times. This would also be less demeaning than going to the government for assistance. Private company technology would provide the payouts more efficiently and timely and the threat of litigation would keep companies honest, especially with improved legal proceedings which don't favor the monetary power of big companies to roll over those with fewer resources. All this could be worked out to provide justice if we as a people insist on it. Competition would keep the cost of policies reasonable. Low cost subscriptions to information/watch dog associations could keep consumers informed of the best, most transparent companies which provide the best services.

There are so many better ways the private sector could handle unemployment and other temporary set-backs which individuals and businesses experience, it's incredible we haven't demanded this shift from state control. Regulation of unscrupulous business management would also be handled much more effectively in the private sector and a rational dispute-resolution system.

But what about the unfortunate in society? Would there be enough donations to charity to cover the many needs of society's most unfortunate -- those who can't help themselves or who need more assistance than most? I think there would be, especially when we all understand it's to our benefit as well as the recipients of charity. When charity is rightfully considered investment there could even be an actual return on investment when it comes to helping the ones who can eventually help themselves. There is the broad general return of making more people productive and growing the economy, and there could be arrangements where those who are helped to get a leg up repay a portion of the charity which is returned to donors. Smarter people than I could work out the plan, but it would go something like -- donor cards keeping account of donations, and when recipients become trained and secure employment a part of their pay is paid back to the charity organization and a portion returned to the donor and a portion is kept to offset charity given to those who can't help themselves. The more wealthy donors could decide to give with no return, but it would all be voluntary.

Whatever the final arrangement, or diverse arrangements competing for the best solutions, the point is to start going in the private sector direction and away from incompetent, wasteful state solutions.