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.

Will 2010 backlash cause 2012 arrogance?

Ron Brownstein, on This Week with George Stephanopulous, reiterated his theory that limited government backlash in the 2010 elections could cause a misreading of young voter sentiment in the 2012 presidental election. The theory is that older, more conservative voters vote in mid-term elections, while younger, more diverse voters vote in presidential elections, so, if the limited government, conservative base voters find success in 2010, the Republican Party might become overconfident and fail to build a big tent coalition, welcoming moderates, and face failure in 2012.

I believe Brownstein is rationalizing the need for moderate influence in the Republican Party and minimizing the current indicators in New Jersy, Virginia and New York elections where limited government candidates are making a statement. An alternative theory is that limited government sentiment is more widespread than Brownstein is willing to accept, and that a major backlash in 2010 could cause moderate Democrats to distance themselves from progressives in the Democrat Party -- progressives who are more and more being associated with Obama -- and that when 2012 rolls around, the momentum will be in favor of limited government. The moderate Democrats who begin sounding more like Republicans will cause the public to concede that progressivism is too risky to support, and that the safest route is to vote Republican rather than hope the Democrat Party will control the progressive influence.

More about moderates -- Part 5

Since the subject is moderates, and it seems like the one thing moderates hate most is extremes, one wonders why the reaction to the progressives is not forceful and clear. But even talking about extemes, one must not fall into the trap of simplistic thinking, making "extreme' out to be evil in all cases. I guess one reason the progressives, Obama and co. plus the progressives in congress, aren't deemed as extreme as Limbaugh or Beck, or the townhall protesters, is that progressives are dressing up their extremism is PC clothing. The moderates can fault them for unwise policies, but still admire their compassion. This is the way smart, compassionate people look at things -- you can admire the qualities of your opponent while still having policy differences.

I don't have any problem with respect and courteous disagreement, but the moderates don't extend that same niceness to Limbaugh and Beck, and it's not because the Limbaugh and Beck are meaner than the progressives. To be consistent, the moderates would have to acknowledge the meanness and pettiness of the progressives. The progressives are presently maligning decent people who disagree with their agenda. The protesters have been called a mob, neanderthals, un-american, and it's been suggested more than once that many of them are ignorant and racist.

It's difficult for me to respect some of the moderate bloggers when they are inconsistent in their indignation and ethical outrage. Some have justified their one-way outrage at the conservative base by saying they expect more from their own kind, and just because someone else is misbehaving, this doesn't give you the right to misbehave. Well, this is a good parental response to children, and it implies that the progressives are acting out just as much as the conservative base, but when pushed to explictly denounce the progressive behavior, these moderates avoid a front on attack. Also, it's sort of like preaching tolerance and understanding in general, but failing to practice tolerance and understanding in your family, so pardon me if i don't buy that rationalization.

 For some reason it's important to these moderates, like Frum and Brooks, to appear respectful toward the Democrats -- probably because they have lectured the base so much about extreme opposition and stubborn resistance -- but you can see the ethical bind in which they've tied themselves. The base is left with the dirty work of fighting, while the moderates can look peaceful and reasonable. They are asking the conservative base to be respectful and cooperative while not making the same demand of the progressives. Would this not make the conservative base something closely resembling doormats? Or is that all conservatives should rise above the fray and act with class, be understanding and tolerant in the face of vicious attacks? 

If this is the case, then the moderates should rise above it all and be respectful to everyone, including the conservative base -- they should lead their less principled brothers and sisters by example, rather than call them dumb hicks, clowns and carnival barkers. The moderates certainly show no respect toward Limbaugh and Beck.

But, getting back to extremes and equating the extremes of resistance with the extremes of the progressive agenda -- it confuses me to consider how the moderates can't acknowledge that the extreme agenda of statism is far worse than the extremes of free market principles, individual rights and limited government. How do you compromise with progressives who are anti-capitalist? In order to compromise, the moderate must admit that a free market, individual rights and limited government are not essentials. If this is their stand, then fine, it can be debated. So, what would a compromise regarding a free market look like?

In a free market, failing banks fail, so in order to compromise, the moderate has to decide that exceptions can be made in tough economic times, or if the bank is too big, but how are the decisions made? What if it is impossible to bailout all the banks and some have to be allowed to fail. What if the decision is between 4 banks of equal size and importance -- two can be bailed out, but two have to fail. Who decides the winners and losers, and is it fair to the losers. We all know which banks will be bailed out -- the ones with the most political clout. Then, what about the  successful banks which could have taken business from the failing banks as a reward for winning in competition -- it isn't fair to them -- they are punished for succeeding and being efficient. Why can't a medium size bank win in competition and become a big bank -- why the importance of saving the big bank? because it would create panic? And a bailout doesn't say something about the weakness of the bank -- I'd rather know a strong medium size bank was taking over, a bank more efficient and safe. You can see the problems inherent in interfering in the free market and you understand why free market principles are important. So how do you compromise on this principle if you believe allowing competition to take its course is the best route in the long run? If a free market adherent compromises on free market prinicples, the progressives win and we move further into statism.

 

So, what about individual rights -- how do you compromise on individual rights? There is no such thing as equal, individual rights if you sacrifice the rights of some for the good of others -- then there are only group rights. The moderate might compromise by saying that anyone making over $250,000 doesn't have the same rights as those making below this amount, but what gives them the power to make this compromise? What happens when the ambition to make over $250,000 is quelled and production drops? What happens when producers begin moving their businesses overseas, or begin hiding their wealth, or just cash out and quit producing? Once the door is open for some to take from others, backed by the barrell of a gun, then it continues as situations deteriorate -- and as there is less to take, everyone begins to suffer until the quality of living is reduced for a whole nation. The bottom line is that it is immoral to violate the rights of anyone. So we begin to see why individual rights are important -- so we don't allow the majority to oppress the minority -- so that everyone has equal rights. How do you compromise on individual rights?

 

How do you compromise on limited government? If you believe government should be limited, then there has to a limit that government can not pass. In order for the moderate to compromise on this principle then they have to admit that the limit is flexible according to the situation. But how are these decisions made, and once the limits are pushed back, what prevents the limits from being pushed back further, once flexibility has priority?

If government is not strictly limited and is susceptible to differing interpretaions of what the limits are, then there is a gradual increase in the power of the state, until the state has removed, or manipulated around, most limits. So we see how limits are important. How do you compromise on limited government?

 

Within constitutional limits placed on government, abiding by the principle of individual rights, without violating the principles of free markets, there is plenty of room for compromise, but when the basic principles that keep America strong and free are compromised, it's not so much a win-win compromise as it is capitulation to statism. So, when we talk of extremes, an extreme approach to the protection of basic prinicples is not equal in nature to the extreme movement to violate these principles. So, moderate when moderation can reach needed agreement to move society forward, but moderation has no value regarding the protection of basic principles, which when violated moves society backwards toward authoritarianism and decay.

Sophism -- both left and right

I know it's unfashionable to simplify conflicts these days -- everyone wants to hide their committments behind a fog of nuance and conditions and just plain obfuscation so raw intent is not revealed, but I think it's helpful to understanding to boil conflicts to the essence.

Let's look past the specious arguments and get to direction. The progressives are proposing plans which involve more and more government intervention. The conservatives are rediscovering free market principles -- a day late and a trillion dollars short.

The important question is -- which direction should the U.S. be headed?

The libertarian direction is toward a limited government which doesn't interfere with the economy, civil liberties, or the affairs of sovereign countries. The libertarian end-goal is no state, if the libertarian is serious about principles.

The progressive goals appear to be state marketism, redistribution of wealth, and international central planning for a new world order.

The conservative goals appear to be a smaller government, somewhat less intrusive government, fiscal responsibility, law and order, adherence to the Constitution as written, rights to the unborn, and an interventionist policy regarding terrorist states.

Liberals who haven't crossed the progressive line appear to support a strong state, a safety net, abortion on demand (with some restrictions in late-term), environmental protection, regulated market that stops short of government control, and military involvement based on stabilization and assistance for undeveloped nations suffering internal conflict.

These are all broad strokes and there are, of course, plenty of overlaps and nuances -- just ask any sophisticated blogger. So, moving past labels, factions, hyphenated combos, fusions, etc., do we want to go in the direction of a new world order controlled by the major states, or toward a stronger welfare state more concerned with domestic/economic protection of the poor and middle-class at the expense of the wealthy, or toward less government involvement and a slightly less regulated, more traditional market, or toward a libertarian society where the state plays a minimal role or no role at all, and the private sphere directs its own course?

Most people reading this will be scrambling to pick bits and pieces from each to build the perfect mongrel compromise, with the caveat that they can change their minds tomorrow.

However, when you boil each of these down, there are fundamental beliefs which if not committed to or rejected leave us in a swirl of competing directions. With a government which is growing more powerful, all these competing fundamental beliefs are in war with one another fought at the government trough, no matter how individuals try to find peaceful compromises through inclusive philosophizing.

If we don't soon limit the government's ability to choose which fundamental beliefs are enforced on others, the strongest alliance will win -- liberty for all and individual rights will be a thing of the past. All these ideas can be debated in the free market of ideas, so that persuasion and reason are the only weapons, or we can all try to choose the winning side, hope our side wins and damn the losers -- they'll get used to it. If we don't get back to rule of law and Consititutional adherence, moving away from state power, we're in for one huge, destructive battle in America.

Libertarian Preparation Part 9 (and The End): The Failure of Central Planning

The Roundtable panelists on This Week briefly discussed whether Obama is over-exposed. George Will was the only panelist who thought so -- the others, David Brooks, Paul Krugman, Donna Brazile and Ariana Huffington, all thought that he is not over-exposed and is the best salesperson for statism -- they didn't actually call it "statism", but let's call it like it is for the sake of intellectual honesty. As an aside, I find it interesting that many liberals and moderate conservatives are irritated with the word "statism" -- it's one of those words many people would prefer to be softened into something like "progressive" -- but that's ridiculous considering the  progressive agenda at the beginning of the 20th century, which was radically statist. It's like preferring to be called a dolt rather than a dumbass. 

But, getting back to the image-machine which has placed Obama everywhere, weighing in on local police matters, baseball games, and anything else that pops up for consideration -- is Obama over-exposed and will it lead to ennui and diminishing returns on his national lecturing proclivities? The media is so intent on presenting Obama as the national oracle, the wise President who can lead his American subjects out of the darkness of ignorance, they're glossing over the fact that he's not qualified for the task (no one is). Basically they've given good marketing to a popular president, and even though his most loyal followers are eager to be led, this is a small number of people compared to the great majority who might like him as a person and wish him well, but who have no intention of following his lead and who will likely grow very tired of the transparent effort to build him into something he isn't.

The worst thing Obama can do is believe his own press and attempt to become what the press is marketing -- he will be laughed at and become a caricature set up for serious deconstruction. The media is not going to be able to find popular characters like Obama very often, and once the shine is off his crown, I don't see anyone in politics right now who can even temporarily fool the public into thinking they are special and that government has the answers. We might have to endure the Obama dog and pony show for a while longer, but soon it will get down to the incompetence of central planning as the main concern.

Obama might be the last hoorah for statists, and this why there is such urgency to get all the grand statist plans, such as healthcare and energy, passed as soon as possible -- they know it's all smoke and mirrors, and that soon people will see past the illusion. I hate to be cynical, but I can't believe that everyone doesn't know that all these grand plans will cost our country far more than they pretend it will -- it's just that many people  no longer care as long as someone else is paying for it -- mainly evil business people, who, as we know, have an endless supply of money.

As unemployment goes up and the real consequences are felt in the economy, all those people who encouraged the president and Democrats will turn on them, but it will be too late. Obama's image will fall apart, and the statists will look for another savior, but they are unlikely to find one. The realm of politics has degenerated into a group of representatives out of touch with the majority of the country -- the Obama phenomenon will go only so far, then there is the reality of corruption, incompetence and the failure of central planning. People out of work want jobs -- jobs are created by industry expansion, by economic progress, and this will become clear at some point -- an unemployment check is a temporary solution not a long term solution. Families can't make long term plans, and won't spend, if they don't have secure jobs.

The government trend to continue punishing businesses with higher taxes and regulations might satisfy those who are protected by government favors, but the majority of people will want businesses to feel confident enough to hire and expand -- this means small businesses must be given a break, must be allowed to act freely, must be allowed to compete fairly, and this means central planning must be seen as the main obstacle to growth and job creation, and libertarian ideas as a starting point for a transformation.

This is not just about Obama overdose, it's about statist overdose and the impotence of central planning. On a deeper level it's about liberty over democracy -- first we need a limited government within which democracy works, not a majority of politically active citizens voting themselves goodies which we can't afford and shouldn't be forced to pay for, and which violates the liberty of individuals, rich, middle-class and poor. This is also not just about economics. The statists claim they are helping the unfortunates, but at bottom it's about buying political power, because none of the plans will ultimately help anyone - they will harm the whole nation. No, this is a about libertarian-inspired freedom -- about free people working together to build a future which creates equal opportunity and a chance for all people to pursue their own ideas of happiness and spiritual fulfillment.

Of couse, according to the polls, the 30% true believers will strongly disagree, and most of the remaining 70% will insist that libertarianism doesn't describe their resistance to a powerful, over-reaching state, yet, broad libertarian ideas taken to create a general distinction between freedom and more government intervention gives us a fair indication that the direction of the country could change if government becomes even more bloated and unsustainable, and if the people grow weary of economic stagnation and nannyism. The point of these series is that libertarian ideas should be kept alive and considered as an alternative in case the present course continues to its logical conclusion. The probability that the Information Age will require more flexibility and freedom than central planning allows is a good reason to imagine a different route to the future, and the moral considerations are not insignificant. It's not as if anyone is asking society to cut loose and hope for the best in a naive frenzy of anarchy. We have the history of relative freedom in America to show us what's best for human flourishing, and the history of statist schemes to show the dangers of central planning. Whatever route we take, the path of freedom is best suited for everyone concerned, and the concept of spontaneous order is not a simple justification for capitalist power -- it's a sophisticated understanding of human nature, the economy and the limitations of control and intervention in complex human interactions on a humongous scale such as American society.

The few areas of limited success which can be shown by statists as justification for central planning are not proof that had a libetarian route been maintained from the start that greater, more substantial, successes wouldn't have been the result. Taking what we know about the successes of freedom and the failures of statism, it's smart to suspect we're quickly heading toward yet another deadend of central planning -- when this happens, hopefully those who care about the future will take libertarian ideas to heart and trust our power to make things happen without the soul-shrinking interventions of an over-bearing, paternalistic state.