How about the Right?

As a follow up to my post regarding the ethos of the left, it's only fair to talk about the problems on the right. I agree with practically all the opposition to statism, and promote a limited government, but much of the protest on the right seems to miss some very salient points when it comes to classical liberal principles. The word "liberal" has been hi-jacked by the left who are anything but liberal, although there are still people on the left who have a good understanding of liberal democracy/republicanism as it developed from the Enlightenment, it's just that they have placed equality above liberty without searching for a synthesis -- it's easier to just gain political power and force a vision -- it just doesn't work, and ends up empowering the State and sacrificing liberty.

Still, the right has its problems with liberty and equality as well that haven't been worked out in a new vision and direction. For too long the right has allowed the modern narrative concerning the State's role in equality and safety nets to place to them in a defensive position. The right must develope its own ideas regarding the meaning of equality and provide a defense for the private sector's role in creating safety nets. The right has merely criticized the welfare state without addressing the underlying problems which have created the welfare state. The right has criticized affirmative action and regulations meant to achieve equality, while failing to address past injustices and to develope modern solutions.

The reason women and minorities have not supported the right in large numbers before now is that the right has left itself out of the moral arguments regarding security and equal rghts. Any issues this big require an intellectual response. The right has instead offered superficial criticisms of the left which make the right look anti-intellectual and hardened to the issues of equality. The good ideas on the right have not been gathered into a guiding political philosophy which addresses these concerns. 

The left's narrative needs to be debunked, and it takes better ideas to debunk old, ingrained ideas. The political leadership on the right has failed to raise the conversation in America to a higher level, and, instead, has criticized the left for overspending, yet, when the right had power, they spent too much and didn't convince the American people that we need drastic limitations on government power. If we're ever going to take power away from government something has to replace that power, and the right has been weak and split when it comes to creating a new vision and role for the private sector. Limited government rhetoric on the right gives the impression they would leave a vacuum, so, naturally this scares people who've become dependent on government -- people need to understand how they'll be better off without government intervention, and if the right can't make this case, then the left will win the argument and statism will continue. To deal with this dilemma, it will take honest, intellectual work and clear articulation.

The right also needs to take the lead in moving past partisan politics. The Tea Party is making this move, but this needs to a wide American movement -- no groupthink, no partisan maneuvering, no exclusionary religious movement, no special interest grouping for social isssues to be pushed along through by political power -- just an American movement to limit government and empower the private sector -- diverse, open-minded, inclusionary, liberty-focused, sensitive to present injustices, intellectualy solid and visionary.

Slogans won't get it done -- personal attacks won't get it done -- political power alone won't get it done -- religious intolerance won't get it done -- the right needs to place principles before personalities, before politics and before limited social issues which need to worked out in the marketplace of ideas among free adults. The right needs to win the arguments with better ideas, period.

The Progressive march to victory

The pragmatic political class will see nothing unusual about the administration's march across the country to sell the healthcare bill, or the administration's operatives increased efforts to marginalize the opposition. It's politics, and this is the way it's done. The administration will misrepresent the healthcare bill and exaggerate its benefits -- in other words, they will lie.

The operatives will exaggerate the danger of the opposition and misrepresent their intentions. In other words, they will lie. It's done by both parties -- it's the way the game is played.

However, if I'm correct, the intensity will be much greater this time, and the degree to which they marginalize the opposition will be to the point of opposition-destruction, using the most dishonest rhetoric and the power of the media to help them spread their propaganda. The goal will be to create the perception that the opposition is restricted to a small group of Republican-backed radicals who are on the verge of violence and destruction. The opposition will be framed as racist, homophobic, redneck, ignorant and out of touch. New polls will show that the public is clamoring for change, and that the public is now motivated and change-giddy since healthcare reform was passed. Finally, the Democrats broke the year long partisan log-jam, and now real change can materialize. The small group of radical protesters should be disdained for their tactics, their hateful rhetoric and their potential use of violence. This propaganda is already happening, but it will become much more intense.

Anyone associated with the small group of radical protesters will be pilloried. Intellectuals will be careful to avoid any sign of empathy with the protesters. The intellectuals who don't buy in to all of the progressive agenda will carefully take a middle path, urging some moderation, but agreeing that the over-heated rhetoric should end before unstable kooks become violent and do something tragic. There will be talk from the progressives that the reasonable voices of moderation are welcomed to help shape the coming regulation of banks, the energy industry and the implementation of immigration policy. The Republican representatives who refuse to go along with the progressive agenda will be branded as part of the small group of radicals bent on destroying government's ability to pass much-needed regulations and market reform.

The progressives are hoping to divide the country between rational, enlightened citizens who understand the need for change and those who are resisting all change to protect the white/rich-powered status quo. If the progressives can get the minority vote, the unions, the intellectuals, the portion of the middle class which wants more government benefits, and corporations dependent on corporate welfare, they can control government for years to come.

This leaves the opposition with those who want a self-reliant America, spontaneous order, charity, a free market and a limited government -- all of which will be characterized as harmful to minorities, unions and the middle class, plus harmful to industries which need help with the transition to a global economy -- and, of course, the intellectuals will find such libertarian positions simplistic and unrealistic in a complex modern society. From the progressives' point of view, the world of the private sector has to be a risky place in which ordinary people and oppressed minorities need a helping hand in order to catch up with the privileged in America who have had their turn and screwed it up. The progressives are merely leveling the playing field and assisting those who need a helping hand to fairly compete for limited resources and opportunities. Powerful business interests must be controlled or else they'll continue to enrich themselves while the rest suffer.

So, the choices are fairly clear -- now it depends on who you believe, and whether you believe government control is necessary for a better future, or whether you believe free people working together can create a better future. In the next few elections, we need a turnout of about 85% to determine who wins this battle -- that's assuming that those elected will do anything other than promote the advancement of statism. If the progressive march has reached the point of such momentum it can't be stopped, then we'll have to see where it leads.

But don't be kidded -- the average citizens might not understand poltical philosophy, but they understand simple concepts like there are no free lunches -- and they don't want to be controlled by government, but they don't care if the rich are controlled -- this is not about innocent citizens beng pulled one way then another. People know what they're doing when they give in to the desire to get something for nothing -- this is the main reason why the founders set up a limited government -- not because a perfect, innocent people living free would interact in a free market envirmonment in harmony, but because if tempted with power to gain advantage over others, too many would give into the temptation and this would break the country up into warring factions. I maintain that protecting our basic rights is all the government should be doing, but then I'm an oppressed minority.

The Failing State - 2

Spontaneous order is not a fringe, utopian proposition, it's a reality that deals with complexity, but it's not enough in itself in order to understand a free society such as  America under a limited government. Those who are concerned about poverty do have a moral point, and any free society should address the needs which the State ostensibly addresses with welfare.

I've already stated that I believe a vibrant, free market would alleviate poverty in ways the State can never achieve, and that creative private insurance/savings arrangements can replace the State safety net for everyone capable of working and taking care of themselves. But what about the unfortunate among us who do not have the capacity to take care of themselves and no family or friends who will support them? Does anyone in 2010 truly believe our society, without  involvement of the State, would allow unfortunate people to perish?

It's my belief that private assistance efforts would be far more generous and humanely administered than the welfare state efforts. America is a generous and compassionate nation. There are many people who lack a sense of purpose and meaning in their lives who would love the opportunity to make a difference. The welfare state has reduced the capacity for generosity and compassion by taking on the responsibilities that were once under the offerings of private charities. By returning the responsibility of assistance to the unfortunate to the private sector, people will feel more connected with their communities and with each other by voluntarily giving and helping rather than have the State take their money and create hugh, impersonal bureacracies -- the recipients of the care will benefit from the authenticity and community-spirit, as well.

I can attest from personal experience that voluntarily helping others with no expectation of reward is, nonetheless, rewarding. We don't need a large, wasteful, bureacracy between us and helping the truly needy. Efforts to help others are uplifting and we now miss out on that because of the idea that government is doing something about it. We've shifted it to government, or government shifted it to itself, and tis causes us to lack understanding of these needs, to lack understanding of how other people live and suffer.

Anyone who stubbornly insists that private sector assistance would not be sufficient to handle the needs of the unfortunate either doesn't understand the American people or purposefully denies the solution in favor of State power.

More later.

Paul Ryan doesn't go far enough

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=124637181&ft=1&f=1001

Funneling safety net money into a government run fund will lead to the same problems we now face. At some point we have to accept that safety nets can't be government controlled -- they must come from private arrangements made by responsible people to create relative security for their future.

We continue to go backwads and attempt to squeeze more out a system which is draining resources. I applaud Ryan for coming up with ideas that move us away from government dependence, but he doesn't go far enough. Ryan says we'll be forced to do something because we're headed for national bankruptcy, and this is true, but keeping ties with the government is not the answer.

Yes, we'll be forced to face reality, but how we respond will make all the difference. If we respond with even more statist control, we'll be lost to tyranny, and America will fall. Ryan certainly isn't talking about more statist control, but he's still suggesting government management, and this will never solve the problems.

The way out of the coming financial crisis is through wealth creation, and the private sector is the only place where wealth can be created. We have enough resource rich land right now under government ownership which under private ownership would create wealth for decades to come, nay, centuries to come. We have regulations on the books which if removed would create even more wealth. The point is that statist governance has blocked wealth creation and created high unemployment and underemployment - it has corroded our manufacturing efforts and severely reduced our production capabilities -- not to mention corporate welfare which has blocked the growth of small and medium size businesses.

Some will cry -- "This is not all about markets and industry! This is about social justice!"

Several generations, despite the criticism that America promotes individualism, achievement, heroism and greatness, have been taught the values of collectivism, egalitarianism and social justice above free markets, individualism and independence. These lessons have taken their toll so that a good portion of our society has fallen under the delusion that the State is the primary and vital force to guide us all to a fair distribution of wealth and to provide a cradle-to-grave safety net.

These State safety net ideas are so ingrained hardly anyone can imagine an alternative, so give Ryan credit for bringing the issue to the table. But even Ryan can't seem to imagine, or trust, that most people can create their own safety nets, given we have a robust free economy and no income tax. That's crazy, right? No, actually it's quite possible, and it would create a much wealthier future for people than a broken social security system which doles out peanuts in old age. With the baby boomers retiring and living much longer, SS is in big trouble -- so, are the healthy retirees who depend on it. Many of the elderly have never depended on SS, and it would be wise to go ahead and change the whole system for the coming new generation. This will take a great re-education effort and an innovative private insurance and savings market. 

The irony is that although insurance companies are being demonized, we need creative insurance arranements to avoid national, Greece-style, bankruptcy. As an aside, I'm not sure how much the demonization of insurance companies is merely a smokescreen for a new form of corporate welfare as some insurance companies are being co-opted into government partnership for healthcare reform reasons. The recent rate hikes were like a gift to the Democrats, inviting and practically assuring a true government/corporate partnership.

But the new, private arrangement I'm talking about will require an end to corporate welfare and the re-establsihment of true competition. It might require a new kind of insurance company, more comprehensive and flexible than what's been created. Most people will be able to design their own plans and pre-plans for their children before they are born, so they start out with a safety net. These plans can cover education, healthcare, unemployment and retirement.

Since the idea of State welfare is so ingrained, if we ever do transition safety net plans from the government to the private sector, and even though it's not optimal, we may have to have a government option for people who do not purchase a private plan -- if they opt for government protection, then they can pay out of their paychecks like they do now, but it won't be long before they realize the private opton is much more rewarding.

Then there will be the problem of those in poverty, and this should be viewed as a separate problem -- however, like I wrote above, in order to make this transition from State safety nets to private insurance/savings arrangements, we'll need a vibrant economic foundation and a drastic change in how government revenues are raised. If measures are taken to free our economy to work unburdened by high taxes and useless regulations, employment will be high -- this will reduce the safety net problem, because it will reduce the problem of poverty. Plus, if the income tax is done away with, people will have more money to fund private charity organziations designed to get people out of poverty rather than to trap them in a welfare system. To help those who can't help themselves will be easy, once all who can help themselves have the opportunity to do so.

Yes, it will take a major re-education process, and speaking of education -- that should be the next thing taken from government control and given to the private sector where it belongs. 

Will Tea Parties be enough

I have been encouraged by most of what I've seen from the Tea Party movement. If I understand it correctly, it's a movement to limit government. It doesn't matter if I agree with all the individual Tea Party participants, if they want to limit government, then that's good enough with me. People have different ways of looking at the world guided by different moral codes, but if we can all agree on the principle of non-coercion and allow our differences of outlook to play out in the market place of ideas, then we can stop the statist onslaught.

As I've said recently, I believe the income tax is responsible for government's transformation into statism, starting in earnest in 1916 with the passage of the 16th Amendment. Government can't be trusted to possess an unlimited power to tax our income, and we are seeing the awful results as the debt goes insanely higher and higher. But, what about the safety net, everyone always asks, what will we do in times of emergency if the government can't raise enough revenue?

We will take care of it ourselves. People have been trained to disbelieve that the private sector can provide a sufficient safety net, that only the State, with it's power to tax, can provide relief for those who are in need. I have come to understand that the private sector, and only the private sector, will be able to provide a better, more sustainable safety net in the future, and we should be working on it right now before government wastes all our wealth.

The Tea Party Movement would have more teeth if they crystallized their message in a few goals -- one being the repeal of the 16th Amendment -- another being Constitutional clarification of government limits regarding interstate commerce and government limitations regarding the "common welfare".

Unless there is a large movement to seriously limit government power, even if limiting government might hurt some personal special interest, it will not be inspirational and it will not be believed or trusted. Too many times limited government has been spoken of but not demanded. This will be a major change in society, if, indeed, it ever happens. Limiting government will require revolutionary energy, persistence and courage.

The biggest obstacle to limiting government has been the concern for a safety net, yet the American people have the resources to make private assistance more effective than government welfare, but it will require a commitment like we've never made before in our history. It will also require discriminating between people in need and malingerers. The present welfare system is being misused by too many people.

What is usually left out of the equation is that if the 16thAmendment could be repealed and the free market allowed to thrive, there would be economic growth like we've never seen. With strong economic activity and low taxes society can be compassionate, but it's about more than just giving people things they need in the short run  -- it's also about creating organizations which can guide people to self-responsibility and independence, training people as a benefit for industries looking for technologically proficient workers.

Furthermore, with freedom to innovate, insurance companies can develope safety net plans for people starting out on their own at a young age -- plans can be bought by parents for their children to start covering them for high dolloar needs in the future, like education, temporary unemployment, retirement, unexpected injuries or debilitating disease. With millions and millions of people in these plans starting coverage at birth, the risk can spread out, making it profitable for private insurance companies to provide catastrophic coverage, or innovative plans covering emergencies and lifetime needs for security.

If the amount of money going through the wasteful hands of government is returned to the people, there will be enough to meet safety net needs and also have that money working in the economy for the amount of time it's not used. I can't even begin to imagine the creative safety net plans private companies can develope if left alone by government. We are an industrious people and we'll figure out ways to help one another and to protect our own interests.

But this change is revolutionary change, and it will take courage. We can't keep going down the road of dependence and expect to maintain our freedom -- and, we can no longer afford government solutions.