Morning Joe 7/26/2012 -- Where is our Roosevelt or Reagan?

Morning Joe is a failure. Programs such as this that attempt to present political debate and intelligent discussion usually devolve into group think and mediocrity. It's a tall order to keep such a program fresh and maintain the tension necessary to present true intellectual depth on an ongoing basis. As part of MSNBC, Morning Joe is under pressure to present the Progressive argument and to support Democrats no matter what. The few guests from the Right who are on are mostly middling politicians who aren't intellectually prepared to defend an anti-statist/free market position.

This morning it became painfully obvious how out of touch, not just Morning Joe, but, all of the political class has become. Scarborough and the gang were bemoaning the fact that there's no Roosevelt or Reagan to provide the nation with a sweeping vision. This President/State-centered view of America is pathetic. The whole point of this election is that statism has failed and now America has to decide what role they want government to play in the their lives and in the economy. Both Romney and Obama have said what they can say, but there is no grand sweeping plan that the State can develope to save America. Romney has said it, although it's hard to tell whether or not he believes it -- government must get out of the way. This is more than a cliche or a sign at a rally. Government must get out of the way. The "plan" will develope when free men and women make free economic choices -- then the economy will stop its inefficient churning as capital flows to productive endeavors.

The USSR couldn't plan an economy -- Britain couldn't plan an economy -- China can't plan an economy. The idea that developed in Europe which claims that capitalism must be controlled by the State for the greater social good is a dead idea, and the sorry condition of the EU shows this. We don't need Roosevelt or  Reagan. We need a President who understands the need to rollback statist interventions and allow a free market to develope. Now, THAT would be courageous. And it won't matter if the President is grand, lovable, articulate, etc --it only matters that the President gets it. Even then, it will take much more than a President to turn back the statist gains. It's going to take a national effort.

Occupy and nullify

It's easy to dismiss OWS protesters as a collection of leftist/anarchist misfits with mushy public school/liberal university mindsets, but the progenitors of OWS have put much thought into the effort to dismantle property rights and destroy capitalism. Upfront we can dispense with the common grievances -- government/corporate enmeshment is a problem, and this problem can be alleviated by limiting government and establishing a free market, but the progenitors of OWS have no intention of limiting government or allowings a free market.

To speed this along, though, we can dismiss the mush-heads, and we can even do it with understanding -- they simply don't understand -- they are immature emotionally and intellectually, and they want a world they think is better suited for their sensibilities. The majority of people suffering the weather and conditions in the parks are used by the progenitors of the movement. If an OWS world came about, the flower children would be given duties and pushed to the side as the Big Boys and Girls get down to serious business.

The serious business is to nullify property rights. The charge that wealth is stolen by the 1% corporate thieves is only justification for a power grab, so this issue will be sidedlined. Limiting government power to provide favors and protection for corporate alliances takes care of the 1%'s illegitimate activity.

Why is "occupy" the operative term in the revolution? Because occupying private space is an act of defiance against the laws which protect private property. Once the idea of private property as an inalienable right is demythologized, the right is alienated, or the possibility of alienation is now made legitimate. Elizabeth Warren established the alienation by stating that no one gets wealthy alone, that society made it possible for the rich person to amass wealth -- the construction worker who built the roads -- the police who protect the property -- the government officials who make the city run -- the military who protect the borders -- all these in the 99% make it possible for the 1% to succeed and profit. The people in the parks probably haven't contributed much to the success of the 1%, but this is why 99% is so important, because it includes all the people who make infrastructure and institutions possible.

Why are banks the enemy? It's the Willie Sutton Explanation -- that's where the money is kept and protected by law. It's not enough to occupy private space -- this won't further the cause -- but if banks themselves are attacked and demonized we go to the heart of the matter. The very idea of money is brought into question. The movement is about how to dismantle the laws and institutions which protect private property so that comprehensive redistribution is possible. We're not talking about traditional redistribution through taxing the rich and providing welfare and entitlements. OWS has something bigger in mind, like a minimum living allowance, housing, assurance of food and clothing and transportation. OWS is talking about social justice. The capitalist system might be necessary for economic growth, but transforming the capitalist system allows the Movement to use wealth towards a more humane existence for those who don't have the interest or the capability to be the 1%. This is the tease to attract supporters in the Movement.

Is the Movement honest? Do they possess good intentions? I'm sure there are many intelligent people on the Left who believe western capitalism is characterized by priveleged white men who have rigged the game for centuries, have amassed the greatest part of collective wealth, have put our environment at risk, have profited from a military/industrial juggernaut which has oppressed many nations of the world who are not in the White Man's Club, have oppressed the people of the western nations not in the upper tiers of the capitalist system and have prevented progress toward social justice. But priveleged white men are not the only game-riggers. In Africa, South America and Asia there are regimes in which power is in the hands of a few at the top. A case can be made that western Super-Powers play at a higher level, but this is just a matter of degree. The problem rests in the different forms of tyranny, from soft to hard, from Left to Right, from forced and obvious to gradual and subtle. The lack of universal promotion of liberty, individual rights and limited government suggests that the Left in America is about gaining power with a new set of tyrants and a new set of rules. For all the talk about liberating the 99% from the control of the 1%, without true individual rights, a free market and strict limits on power, it's just a transition of rulers and new roles for the subjects. And this new tyranny doesn't even have a plan to create the wealth intended for distribution -- so, I imagine the new game will entail forced production at some point when it becomes obvious that producers will not voluntarily produce for the good of the collective, especially when many in the collective intend to live off the production without contributing.

The leaders of Movement will face the same needs present today -- food, housing, clothing, etc, so someone has to work. This is where it becomes a guessing game, because as far as I know, no one has laid out a plan for provisions of goods and services in the OWS world. Some simpletons in tents have recommended going primitive, but this isn't serious. Most of the protesters depend on their smart phones and laptops, and they must be produced and distributed. There's no point in rehashing the USSR's difficulties and failures with these issues after the Bolshevik Revolution. The point is not specifics of production and the provision of goods and services -- the point is the Left gaining power. The leaders of the Movement surely believe they can figure out the details once the capitalist sytem is dismantled and wealth is controlled by the people ("the people" means the leaders of the people).

It doesn't take much consideration to see the flaws in the OWS movement and to understand the motives at the top. Nothing much would change in the OWS world for the 99%, except they will have less opportunity to succeed if they decide they want to advance in life. The 1% now present will move on to different challenges, if they haven't been imprisoned, and then another 1% will run the show and enrich themselves, just disguised as fighters for social justice. Forced labor will likely become necessary, but the leaders might convince the collective that a better world is around the corner. It's unlikely that America would survive long enough to find out.

Michael Tanner on paternalism

http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/279178/paternalism-and-principle-michael-tanner

Paternalism is practiced with good intentions, yet the longer paternalism is allowed free reign the more it grows into something more dangerous and autocratic. First it's light bulbs to force people to not waste energy, then it's the cars we drive which might soon cover transportation in general.

Paternalism is not totalitarianism by any stretch of the imagination, but paternalism started in the USSR as something far less than totalitarianism. The danger arises when paternalism is institutionalized and government officials gain the power to direct our choices. The larger the bureaucracy becomes, more and more ideas develope which will be good for the collective, until thinking in collective terms is the only way government officials can think about the public. Individualism and individual rights become  hindrances to the collective's best interest, and resistance to control is seen as a threat to the collective. Iconoclastic individuals are enemies of the collective.

Paternalism in America should be stopped before it goes any further, but the changes happen so gradually that the public accepts small implementations until the public is either trained to obey the paternalistic State, or it's too late to easily make changes.

But, why is there no demand?

In the current debate over whether or not to implement another round of stimulus, supporters point to low demand, while the other side points to high debt and government intervention. Supporters of stimulus say that consumers don't have money and businesses will not expand and hire unless there's demand for their goods and services. Is it true that people don't have money? There are many Americans still employed, but they're not spending much, especially on big ticket items, except for the really rich, but even the rich are cutting back on spending.

The Keynesians say that government should spark demand by pumping more money into the economy and funding infrastructure projects to create jobs and therefore more spending and revenues to government. Some of us believe that government intervention in the economy, which has been going on forever, has finally reached a tipping point, and this might be because the stakes are now higher and the global economy is more of a reality for businesses than ever before. Many large businesses have the world as their market, and their money will flow where it gets the best return and where risks and regulations are lowest. American companies are doing well, but not so much through activity in the American market as in foreign markets.

History shows us that mixed forces acting on the economy causes confusion, inefficiency, stagnation and decline, and it doesn't matter which force was primary to begin with -- communist countries with central planning who mix in "free" market reforms, or "free" market economies who mix in central planning forces -- either way the result is decline and eventual collapse. But a pure central command economy leads to collapse quicker, thus, the attempts to try free market reforms, and we don't really know what a purely free market leads to because there has never been a purely free market. All the world has known is central planning to one degree or another. The countries with the least central planning do better long term than countries with the most central planning. America has done very well to the extent central planning was kept at a minimum, but the accumulative effect of central planning has now frozen our economy, and more central planning and intervention is hardly the solution.

In eastern Europe during the existence of the USSR, several countries implemented market reforms which resulted in some of the problems we've faced since we began implementing more central planning at the turn of the 20th century. The USSR realized that central planning and liberalization don't mix. In his book, Red Flag, David Priestland writes:

...in socialist economies -- even those with strong market elements, like Hungary's in the 1980s -- politics mattered more than money or profits. Successful managers were those who expanded their empires (whilst, of course, fulfilling plans), and that meant pleasing the political bosses who controlled the purse-strings.

Whether a nation adds market reforms to a command economy or central planning to a once relatively free market, politics is the disease which destroys all chances of long-term, healthy growth and increased prosperity for all who work and participate to the best of their abilities. Government intervention into the American economy has placed politics above economics, and this can't last. Uncertainty in the market is why demand is depressed -- very few Americans feels confident that businesses will invest in America and that the economy will grow or that housing prices won't collapse or that they will have a job in the near future or their wages won't be reduced. There is so much uncertainty that neither consumers nor companies have the confidence necessary to spend and invest.

Short term stimulus is not an answer -- consumers and companies have become smarter, and they won't be led by government carrots or fooled by short-term gimmicks. Only fundamental changes to the statist system will inspire confidence.

I understood Palin

The left is having a field day with Sarah Palin's comment that Sputnik led to the USSR collapse. She was talking in the context of government doing Big Things, and she said Obama failed to mention, after he brought up Sputnik, that a government doing these Big Things, if the market is not free and the nation depends on the State for Big Accomplishments, will eventually collapse as the USSR collapsed - Yes, the Russians did Big Things like Sputnik, but they didn't allow their economy to work freely, so these Big Things destroyed them. 

If the moderates and the Left were not so determined to destroy Sarah Palin, they might hear her warning that we are destroying our nation by looking to the State to do Big Things.