Liberty or Security -- It's Your Choice

I've grown weary listening to the apologists for the progressive movement, and to the advocates for moderation and compromise, and to the well-intentioned, but misguided, bleeding hearts who say that although government is over-reaching, still, we must have a safety net, so the over-reach can be forgiven in order to accomplish such compassionate goals.

 

The ideology pushed by the progressive movement is statism, a modern brand of socialism, presentationally prepared for American consumption. But no matter how you present a duck and call it a dove, or woodpecker, or a fat-beaked chicken, it still quacks and walks, and is, a duck.

 

Anti-capitalism is the game and the free market is the target. Do I believe that a group of progressive conspirators sit around plotting the over-throw of the country? Well, if you don't consider the progressives in Congress, working hand in hand with the progressives in the administration to legislate complete control of the economy, a group of conspirators, then, no -- I don't think there is a secret group of conspirators plotting the overthrow of America, but I do believe that progressives are working within the political realm to shackle capitalism and institute a statist government much stronger than anything we've experienced so far.

 

Healthcare reform, cap and trade, bailouts, expanded financial regulations, environmental proposals, all of these are attempts to change the structure of our government so that the free market is thoroughly managed by social engineers through central planning. 

 

This has been building for a long time, and there's nothing new about a statist American government, but now we're reaching a critical stage, a place we've never been before. The debt is mind-blowing, so large that no one can imagine the amount in terms which are familiar. Images of stacking it up to the moon, or such, are no longer effective, since no one sees chaos in the streets or anarchy caused by a collapsed government. Many people know it's unwise to owe this much money, but hardly anyone has a personal connection with national debt, since they don't get a bill for their part each month. Hell, somebody'll pay it, right?

 

But the debt, while nothing to ignore, is a symptomatic problem which results from the fundamental problem of statism funded by the government's ability to confiscate wealth from the American people. This confiscation of wealth, coupled with increasing pressures to regulate every movement of practically every industry, is slowly killing capitalism, if you can say capitalism even exists anymore. I personally believe that capitalism no longer exists and the mixed economy we've labored under is now a State marketism which can't be correctly called capitalism. This doesn't stop the progressive proponents of statism from blaming "capitalism" for the all unintended consequences generated from their meddling. Capitalism is the symbolic whipping boy which rationalizes progressive efforts.

 

Global environmental efforts are designed to ensure capitalism is not resurrected. If a global cartel can control industry through enforcable international agreements to curb production, we'll settle in a controlled and managed global econony which levels out all incomes. Nationalization ( or, perhaps, internationalization, globalization) of industry will be next, because entrepreneurs have no place in an globally managed economy. A global standard of living will normalize incomes slightly above a subsistence level for most of the world's population, with most necessities provided by government. This is the necessary outcome of unchallenged statism which is universalized under global rules and regulations. The ruling elite will have their power, wealth and privilege - then, below will be a supporting class of enforcers and sycophants -- while everyone else will be required to produce to meet demands.

 

This won't happen if people resist it and turn back progressive achievements. One reason why it's so important for American citizens to resist healthcare reform, tax and trade, global warming agreements, etc, is not to ignore the problems to which they are addressed, but to find free market solutions and resurrect the capitalist system under a limited government. As information flows freely, government mystique disappears and people see the incompetence and power-hunger for what it is, along with the corporate enmeshment and media bias that supports the progressive schemes. The current movement is a base attempt for power organizations to consolidate control and weaken the uncontrollable effects of a free market, and the unpredictable creations of entrepreneurs and producers.

 

The progressive political class goes by the formula of politics over economy, but economic laws aren't amenable to political social engineering and central planning. Economics laws don't bend to the political will, and we are suffering the consequences of this reality. Progressives believe if a cartel of nations all apply the same willpower to create a manageable world where enlightened ideas of fairness and equality and stewardship can bring about egalitarianism and politically correct communities, then the uncertainies of capitalism will be alleviated so that steady progress will replace risk. Security is established for the price of freedom, but it's a bargain for those who aren't equipped for risk and uncertainty.

 

Rules and regulations for "society" may violate the individual rights of some individuals, but community and security are higher values in the progressive world, and once a reasonable consensus is formed, the "greater good" is established as the new form of fairness. Once people realize this is the progressive agenda, sides will form with those who fit the collectivist mold on one side and individualists on the other. We are witnessing this ongoing formation presently as sides are chosen and divisions are deepened. Moderates operate in the middle attempting to find a peaceful compromise, but we've gone too far for compromise. It's time to choose liberty or security. Some say liberty is an illusion, while others say security is an illusion -- can we have both? In reality we can be as secure as possible while maintaining liberty as the highest value, or we can be as free as possible while maintaining security as the highest value -- this seems to be choice. The problem with the second choice is that the more security we seek, the less freedom we have.

Repeal the 16th Amendment!

We can talk about healthcare, Palin, Iran, cap and trade, global warming cons, NY-23, national debt, tea parties, socialists in the White House, corruption, unemployment and a dozen other topics, but as long as government has the power to tax our income there is nothing more important than a national movement to repeal the 16th Amendment, but this needed effort doesn't look promising, even when viewed from the past:

Frank Chodorov writes, regarding the original Constitution and the subsequent 16th Amendment:

Certainly, no tax on incomes got into the Constitution. That was unthinkable. A people that had but recently kicked over the traces because of taxes far less onerous would hardly have countenanced an income tax. They knew their freedom.

The case for repeal rests on this tradition. If there are still enough Americans who are of the opinion that that government governs best which governs least, if there is among us a group willing to risk their fortunes, their lives, and their sacred honor for freedom, then repeal has a chance. If, on the other hand, the habits of mind acquired under income taxation have completely obliterated the American tradition, then any effort to restore citizen sovereignty is futile.

It is never too late to put up a fight for freedom.
Right now, even in America, the prospect for starting such a fight is unpromising. Not that the goal is unattainable, but that the interest in freedom is at so low an ebb. The great enthusiasm of the times is "security"; it is a mirage sprouting out of deep-rooted human yearning for something-for-nothing. Government, which lives and thrives on power, fosters belief in the "golden calf," so that it can surreptitiously rob the self-mesmerized worshipers of their wealth and their dignity. It requires no great acumen to realize that what trickles out of the government's cornucopia must be replaced by labor. But reflection is foreclosed by the madness that has come over us. The national passion is for handouts, no matter what the cost. Freedom, which puts a premium on self-reliance, is in short demand. Why put up a fight for it?

The rank and file, those whose principal preoccupation is with the problem of existence, are in no mood to argue with the beneficient State; they are for letting well enough alone. These Americans who have pretensions of over-average capacities are also quite willing to put their self-esteem on the barrellhead. The entrepreneur whose venture would not exist but for government loans or government contracts readily makes peace with government regulation. So long as government bonds pay interest, the banker will not quarrel with government intervention. The farmer does not object to the meddlesome federal agent who brings him a gratuity, and the professor who lives by subsidies will write books in praise of the subsidizing State.
  Who wants freedom?

First, there must be recognition that freedom is valuable and that statism is fed by the income tax -- then, there must be the willingness to sacrifice for liberty. It's not wild-eyed idealism that has to burn in the hearts of the American people, although that wouldn't be so bad -- but something deeper than economics must be at play. Perhaps no one cares about property, individual rights and liberty in modern America, but I find this difficult to believe. I believe Americans have been sold a bill of goods and the fraud must now be revealed, once again. Perhaps every so often the American people will have to re-evaluate where they are and what they want, and this is one of those times. There should be no queasiness about calling theft what it is -- theft.

Where are the people who will fight statism? Politics is a game of illusion, but the time has come for objectivity, honesty and reality. Grownups can no long afford to play the game of illusion. I will be writing daily through December about fighting statism. It's time to come out of denial and face responsibility.

The diversity of independents

It's a big mistake to look at events like Tuesday's's elections and see only a conservative faction at work, a group of automatons led by Dick Armey and Sarah Palin who all think alike and act in unison.

There are probably some broad divisions which can be made, like those who favor an interventionist government because of whatever benefit they're getting from government, and then those who don't really get any extra benefits (other than the normal government services that apply to everyone) from government who prefer that the state not interfere in our lives.

These divisions have existed for quite some time, and not all those who prefer less government intervention have been politically active -- they've simply cursed a little at times when the subject comes up, but mostly they go about their business and think very little about government - however, now that the progressives have power and they are intervening in major ways, and now that the Information Age is wide open, people are realizing just how nannyish and dangerous big government has become.

Yes, there is the radio talk-show group, although they are not monolithic, and, yes, there is a conservative base which has relatively similar ideas about politics, and, yes, there are white racists who blame minorities, although they are a fringe element, and the race element is manifested in different ways, not all a simple hatred of people of color, but rather a sense of reverse discrimination, plus there are independent people of color, and, yes, there are libertarians who, of course, want a limited government, but libertarians are varied and some lean left, and, yes, there are some who are rich businesspeople, but they don't think and act alike -- on and on. So, the independent movement is not so easy to buttonhole.

The independent movement, if you can really call it a movement at this stage, is beginning to coalesce around a few ideas -- out of control spending, too much government power, high taxation in many areas and fear of taxes going higher all over the country, unemployment, bailouts of big corporations and corruption.

I certainly wouldn't look at the increase in independents as just a conservative movement related to the Republican Party. There are political figures who would like to co-opt independents for their own purposes, but independents are too diverse to define as a political group, and it's best to see independents as representative of the private realm, not necessarily seeking power, but, rather, seeking to limit power by insisting on change in Washington D.C.

Many independents thought they were getting change with a new type of president in Barack Obama, but increased government power isn't what they had in mind. It speaks to the political naivette of many people that they thought Obama would clean up Washington and bring in a new style of responsible governance -- but people are quickly getting a lesson on politics and a refresher course on the Constitution. Many people don't like what America is becoming -- they had been asleep, and now they are waking up.

Those isolated in political intrigue in Washington D.C. don't understand the independent movement and see conspiracies behind every placard -- they are convinced that evil capitalist forces are at work putting forth an army of conservative soldiers to destroy Obama. The conservative movement makes up only a portion of the independents and they are not brain-dead foot-soldiers, just, for the most part, ordinary conservative Americans concerned about government over-reach, but it's a mistake to see this as a classical conservative/liberal, Republican/Democrat battle for political control. An apolitical movement is forming which transcends the old political divisions, and this movement makes up what used to be called the Silent Majority -- it's a diverse group with very few political demands, and very few special interests. This awakening has more to do with the private realm being left alone, a desire for a vibrant economy and the limitation of government power. Government is held responsible for unemployment and people are sick of big corporations being favored at the expense of small businesses and jobs.

It's also not traditional class warfare -- it's a war between the people and the government. Although the economy is the biggest concern, it's quickly becoming a moral issue of liberty vs domination.

The Private Sector Narrative -- Part II

In my previous post, I created two broad categories -- Statists and Libertarians. Libertarians are all those who believe the government should not have the power to violate individual rights or possess the ability to control the economy through central planning and policy -- this category can include conservatives, moderates or liberals, and it has nothing to do the Libertarian Party.

We are in dire need of universal principles to guide political philosophy so that the private sphere is protected from government intervention. The private sector story is a story of individualism and community. America was created as a reaction to domination. The story of freedom is a story of progress pushed forward by the creative tension between individuals and communities. How to live together in freedom was a problem our nation had to answer, and the answer was a Constitution which describes what type of government is necessary to protect basic, individual rights so that free people can live in community with respect for each other's rights to life, liberty, property and the pursuit of happiness. However, it could have been decided communities could contract with private protection agencies, a totally different arrangement than a federal government, and the principles would be the same.

Other political theories exist which deny the existence of individual rights and subjugate the individual to domination by the state -- the state decides which, if any, rights exist. In America the idea is, or was, that rights exist prior to the state, and government is instituted to protect these rights, and protection of rights is the only valid justification of government.

Libertarians, in my broad sense of the word, believe the private sector is capable of using universal principles as moral guidelines to live in community, to work together in cooperation and competition in order to live well and flourish. A morally just society does not use physical coercion -- the government (or a private protection agency) which is created to protect rights is given a monopoly on coercion to use only to prevent coercion in the private realm. In other words, an individual is protected from anyone, or any group, taking that individual's life, liberty or property or preventing that individual from pursuing happiness.

By "taking" it's meant through murder taking life, through enslavement taking liberty or through force or fraud taking property. Although, the protective entity has a monopoly on coercion, this entity is also limited in power and prevented by agreement from violating individual rights -- it only has the authority to protect individuals from rights violations and to punish the violators.

So, this is a simple outline of a free country, but it's a good place to start to see where we are today. Can the libertarian principles of our Founders be revived? Some of the Founders such as Hamilton had a different view of how we should be governed, giving the federal government a much more powerful role in central planning and control. There has been a conflict and a battle since the beginning between statists and libertarians. I suspect it was the intention of those like Jefferson for Americans to deal with the problems of domination and freedom on an ongoing basis so that rights are alway protected from would-be autocrats. Has American government become too powerful?

Between the two World Wars and the Great Depression, American government, as did states all over the world, took more control over the economy and society at large. Somewhere along the line the American story of limited government, liberty, individual rights and a free market became the story of a powerful state instituting laws, regulations and social programs based on what politicians and state officials thought was the best way for the economy to work and for society to interact, although the "moral space" of individuals in the private sector, as Nozick put it, was still greater than in most other countries.

In this story, it's less important what are the right or wrong ways for humans to live, there's always been disagreement along these lines, than the importance of being able to choose how to live as long as living that way doesn't violate the rights of others. Any argument from any country, in the west, east, middle-east, Africa, whatever, that their way of life is right and moral makes little sense unless there's freedom of choice. People living under tyranny, forced by authorities to act in certain ways, can't be said to be moral if they don't have the choice to act otherwise.

So, the question in the private sector narrative is not so much that America should be, or is, morally superior, it's if we are going to have the ability to choose what we think is moral, guided by universal principles which promote community respect by preventing violation of individual rights? We still have moral space, but it's shrinking. Is this the way we want to live? Are we going to choose universal principles which allow us freedom of choice, or are we going to be guided by statist directives regarding morality and the correct to live?

More later.

Meta-values

I've been involved in the start-up of four companies, and it's important to have good, qualified people to write clear and comprehensive policies and procedures, and good managers who achieve the goals of the company. One area that's overlooked when developing business plans is the meta-values of the company, the mission and purpose and clear understanding of the overriding meta-values and principles which cannot be violated.

Our nation is presently in the process of re-evaluating our meta-values, and it's about time. For too long we've been driven by the technocratic values of pragmatism and utilitarianism, after losing sight of the original meta-values of individual rights, limited government and liberty. The hard-nose pragmatist makes a good case, but ultimately pragmatism is insufficient for a great nation and ends up defiling the better angels of human nature, mainly because individual rights are inevitably violated for some greater cause, which could be valid -- we can all imagine certain emergency situations, although extremely rare, like, perhaps, an attack on our nation, where temporary measures are taken which violate individual rights.

 But, even in these emergency situations, other values should come into play to prevent a wholesale destruction of rights just for the sake of safety, so that the nation quickly returns to its meta-values once the extreme emergency ends. People can understand extreme cases where the nation as a whole is in immediate danger, and they would gladly temporarily sacrifice rights for the sake of survival. What we haven't guarded against is pragmatic violation of individual rights justified by any form of "crisis", such as a recession, so that pragmatism has over-ridden individual rights. As they say -- hard cases make bad law. But with the wrong politicians in power, operating in a system of intervention without strict limitations, the tendency is to manufacture crises out of every event in order to expand control. Tibor Machan has wrtten extensively about these issues.

We can't legislate or regulate or centrally plan our way to an excellent society, just as a company can't create excellence through policies and procedures and smart managers, no matter how well written the policies and procedures or how smart the managers.

Americans have been forced to ask themselves what type of country we want, and, also, what type of government. Those who frame meta-values as ideological extremism and paranoid reaction miss what's happening. It's not about narrow-minded ideologues or frightened people holding on to old values, it's about people with integrity standing for something and realizing that some values are universal and too important to compromise. Once integrity is compromised something vital is weakened and placed at risk.

Our nation has been morally negligent when it comes to government, failing to associate violation of individual rights with immorality. The idea that what's best for the greatest number should trump meta-values, if not immoral, is at least amoral and neglects human values which are vital to a just society. However, during this period of progressive transformation, or at least the attempt at transformation, people are forced to consider values at a deeper level, and as a people we're beginning to realize the failures of an interventionist State and our two party governmental system.

I think this is part of the evolution towards a libertarian society, a society that values choice, responsibiity and liberty. I have a feeling that in the next twenty years politics as we've known politics will drastically change, with ordinary people playing a much larger role in the creation of the 21st century society, and with government playing a much smaller role. If I'm right, the 2012 elections ought to be interesting, and those who have lost sight of meta-values, still lost in the remnants of moral relativism, will be removed from positions of State power.