Social issues are for the free market of ideas and value-judgements

I've been debating at another blog about social issues. The left appears to want to bring up social issues because they have no answers on economic issues.

Social issues don't need to be worked out in the political realm and through legislation -- this is an area in which government has no business intruding. The nation will work out these issues, and government intervention will only make it worse.

Both Democrats and Republicans are guilty of attempting to force value-judgements on the public, but social engineering is the most despicable endeavor that government can undertake. As long as individual behavior is not violating the rights of others, then it should be none of government's business.

This has been a hard lesson for the right to learn, and many on the right haven't learned the lesson yet. Neither has the left learned to keep social issues out of politics and legislation. The right doesn't need to take the social-issue bait from the left.

Most independents appear to be sick of arguing about social issues. I doubt if very many people worry too much if homosexuals bond and call this bond marriage. I doubt very many people want to be told what to eat, or nudged by technocrats to live their lives according to a government plan. Call me crazy, but I think most people want to be left alone by government, unless some situation which falls under the legitimate concern of a government calls for the person to deal with government officials.

But people are now inundated with government social engineering schemes and 24 hour government news, but the independents appear to be concerned mainly with the economy. The political party which sticks with the economy, cutting spending, lowering taxes and resolving the 2 wars will do good going forward. Maybe this momentum will be enough to face the challenges ahead 

Where did we go wrong?

This is the last of a series of posts this week about what's been called a Merchant-State which uses political means to order society according to the interests of powerful players who call the shots.

There's still hope that the modern liberal will wake up and acknowledge the fultility of statism. The State has done a thorough job of capturing the support of both left and right, but the right is beginning to show signs of awareness -- it remains to be seen if the right follows through, and if the new anti-statist movement has a deep and lasting effect. Maybe this will be more than posturing for limited government and Constitutional adherence, then when in power carry on with the same cronyism as before.

The main hope is the Information Age and the educational power of the internet. If the veil of respectability is removed and the naked corruption of the State is revealed, enough people might form an opposition force to the two-party hold on power and control. It would be much easier if liberals were helping in this resistance rather than supporting the statist status quo. This is no time for apologetics and sophistry and spinning -- it's time for principled action to transfer State power to social power and end the political means of organizing society.

There's plenty of room in the private sector to debate our cultural differences and come to terms with our racial and class differences, but social engineering by the State through political means is not the answer. Enough exploitation by rent-seekers and power-mongers has taken place, and it's time for a new direction. The principles laid down in the Declaration of Independence are not impotent words long put aside for the real purpose of elite control and mangement -- they are a motive force waiting for a people worthy to apply them. We can be such people, or we can cower before the captians of power hoping a few bones are tossed our way, if we are good and loyal serfs and supporters of the State. 

The untapped power in freedom awaits a people determined to make popular sovereignty a reality, a people capable of using economic means which can lead to the establishment of peace, prosperity, equal opportunity, justice and charity. We've been led like sheep for way too long.

No doubt, most liberal petitioning of the State to fix society's problems has not been for nefarious purposes, but the acquiescence to the State has formed a bond between modern liberals and the State as beneficient actor to right past wrongs, standing as a dependable protector of the powerless. The investment in the State by modern liberals is an emotional investment, not sufficiently evaluated by reason. Use of economic means to spontaneously and organically order society through the interplay of free actors in the private sector is associated with capitalism, yet capitalism has been perverted and corrupted by State interventions. It's no longer reasonable for modern liberals to associate the corruption of capitalism with the "other Party". It's clear that the State is the corrupting factor and that both parties are part of the corrupting system. It takes two to tango, but if one of them, the State, is not allowed to dance, then you have no tango, no matter how badly rent-seekers want a partner.

The division of left and right, each battling for control of the political means to push their respective agendas, ensures the survival of a powerful State and a subjugated private sector. The answer is not for left and right to hold hands and find a harmonious middle. The answer is the realization that the State is using both sides against one another for the aggrandizement of the State, to break free of State control, once and for all put an end to the political means, and to compete in the free market of ideas, adhering to natural rights and popular sovereignty. 

Gradualism vs revolutionary change

I'm not a gradualist. If I could snap my fingers and end statism, I would snap my fingers. The problem with conservatives and the Republican Party is that they have compromised and acted as if all they can do is slow the growth of statism, while even actively supportng some forms of statism. How can this be seen as intellectually honest or to have integrity -- how is it supposed to inspire intellectual interest in  conservative ideas?

Aside from the question whether it's even possible to limit government, or whether the State will always violate limitations, if the conservatives believe in limited government why haven't they called for radical changes while in power and diligently fought to limit the State and establish a free market, rather than defend themselves against charges of radicalism by supporting most of the welfare state and claiming they only want to make gradual, small changes to achieve a somewhat higher level of efficiency?

The left has been clear about what it wants and the current gang in power has made radical changes. Conservatives can never compete against this type of dedication to a cause if they aren't dedicated to anything but gradualism and tweaking the status quo. We'll see, if the conservatives take back the house, if they have changed and they mean what they say about repealing healthcare and fighting to limit government.

If the conservatives fail to follow through, I'll agree with the market anarchists that limited government is impossible, so we need to privatize all of it -- defense, courts, protection, all of it. I've, so far, agreed with libertarians like Robert Nozick and Tibor Machan that if we didn't have a minimal government for the purposes of police, courts and military, the evolution of private agencies would end up at minarchism, but I'm not as convinced as I once was. I'm beginning to believe the only arrangemet of society which speaks to the nature of humans and allows freedom and flourishing is private and voluntary.

Is the left becoming irrelevant?

I ask this question because I no longer believe the ideas on the left are resonating, and we're seeing example after example on the left of subterfuge and unified messaging bordering on propaganda which suggest the message is weak and has to be strengthened by lies, manipulation and media repetition.

Plus we're seeing the use of racial smears against the right and an attempt to demonize George Bush -- the message appears to be -- "We have no answers and our poicies are not working, but we aren't Bush and we aren't racists."

This is not a strong message. Then there's the messaging that claims we haven't given the statist plans long enough to take effect and that the economy is better than it would have been without the statist actions. Bush could claim that his tax cuts kept the country from collapsing under the weight of Katrina, 9/11 and two wars -- would the left believe this?

This claim of success was offered the other day regarding the auto-bailout, as if GM and Chrysler are booming, but, unless we forget, GM is still Government Motors. Through financial manipulation, the actual loan of 6 billion was paid back, but with government money. To hear the reports, you'd think GM is back on track -- they aren't. Plus, we still don't know what was behind the campaign to destroy Toyota, but it looks bad for the left.

Claiming that things would be far worse can't be known for certain and the American people know it. This continuing spin from the left is growing thin and the public will get to the point of not trustin any reports if all the reports are massaged and basically untrue or unknowable.

Just recently, Media Matters accused Glenn Beck's producers of something they didn't do by replaying a clip from the Beck radio show which was doctored -- there was no outrage from the left like there was against  Breitbart. Hypocrisy is also a main reason for the left's growing irrelevancy -- no matter how bad the right has become, if the left is as bad or wore, then the righteous criticisms don't resonate, they only signal hypocrisy.

The left is imploding and it's apparent that the Democrat Party is going down with the ship. With 15% real unemployment, with the Afghanistan quagmire, with businesses rebelling against heavy-handed intervention, with the left playing the race card and unnecessarily causing racial tension, with Rangel and Waters hanging over their heads, with civil rights violations still taking place -- you would think that powerful Democrats would stand up and call for reform and a re-evaluation of direction, but it appears they have opted for circling the wagons, plotting to smear and silence their critics and praising one another in an echo chamber.

The Bizarro World of the Left

Most modern liberals at least make a defense of Obama's agenda and performance by showng how deep we were in a financial hole and how badly the Afghanistan war was executed before 2008. No matter how badly Obama does in office, the modern liberal will show how wonderful he is in comparison to Bush -- even if the Democrat controlled congress was complicit in the economic damage going back to 2006. Obama is defended because he represents one of the highest achievements of the Democrat Party, and the Democrats in congress are defended because they represent party power. What's actually good for the nation takes a backseat to maintaining a strong defense of Obama and the Democrats in congress.

The major criticism from the left is not really a criticism, just a grouchy impatience that Obama and the Democrats in congress haven't done more to advance a progressive agenda. The problem of war and civil liberty violations also take a backseat -- if anything, the violations have become worse under Obama and the Democrat controlled congress, and we are more deeply entrenched in war, with Sec Gates saying today that the 2011 deadline is not an ending but a beginning of transition -- not withdrawal, necessarily, but transition.

The left is more concerned with protecting power than with the state of the nation, otherwise they would be protesting the war and the violations of civil liberties, and the fact that Guantanamo is still operational. Plus, there has been no comprehensive reform on immigration, so the administration is leaving immigrants to chance. The biggest banks in America, the left's favorite evil corporations, were enhanced by this administration, and the bonuses flowed. Hardly a peep of protest, except from a few who felt that ordinary people ought to have been enhanced instead -- but even these few critics couldn't be prompted to harsh criticism and protest. They were just disappointed Bush had created such a mess that Obama was forced to bail out the banks and prevent a universal financial collapse -- they were almost sure a collapse was imminent, but who knows? It was really bad, though.

Democrat corruption in congress is going along undisturbed, but Charlie Rangel is old, and everyone hopes he can leave with dignity -- he's done so much good that it would be a shame if he was dealt with like a common criminal -- it's true that he's no common criminal.

Unemployment is somewhere around 17%, but it's only because the stimulus was capped at close to a trillion dollars, besides, without the stimulus, unemployment could have reached 30% or so, who knows? Bush damaged the economy to an extent that it might take 3 or 4 trillion dollars to get back to 8% unemployment.

The Gulf oil spill was no Katrina, because after 2 months, Obama reacted promptly and even talked to the people who caused the leak -- at least we think they caused it, who knows? And now that Obama has gone into action, many more in the Gulf are out of work because he promptly shut down all drilling, but this was necessary because other oil rigs could suffer from incompetent regulatory oversight, who knows? The adminsitration has been too busy to check on the other rigs.

The healthcare plan was not going to raise anyone's taxes until the mandate to buy insurance was challenged, then the adminstration said the mandate might be a tax, who knows? It will be a tax if it's necessary to win the lawsuit. But the left is okay with this -- the only thing that bothers them is that it will take so long now to pass a public option and eventually get to single payer.

Obviously the Brits just didn't do it right, and this is why they are changing direction -- the left in America thinks we might get it right, but who knows? Things might be very, very bad, but thank goodness they're not Bush-bad, the worst bad of all.