I believe that one's ideology should be based strictly on the facts and on what solutions are most likely to work. Hench, there can be no absolutes with regards to ideology. One of the biggest mistakes people make is to assume a "one size fits all" approach to politics.
The problem is that some people have a tendency to put their ideology ahead of everything else and twist the facts to fit their preconceptions and to justify what they already believe or already want to do. Much like what Bush Jr did when he insisted that there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, despite the lack of credible evidence for that. And, of course, none were ever found.
I am a Liberal now, but only because I feel strongly that at the present time, Liberalism is what America needs. As conditions evolve, I might consider moving to the Centrist part, or even up into the Libertarian part of the Nolan chart, but unfortunately there are societies in the world where the people largely are both uneducated and impoverished, and thus could not maintain a stable democracy or a capitalist economy. For them, only a Statist society can work. But they should not stay Statist forever, for that would limit their potential. To reform them and make them functioning democracies with free enterprise economies, the people must be provided with both education and wealth from the outside. But ironically, that would be denounced by some on the far right and the libertarians as opposing their beliefs, that every nation should be made to take care of itself. Me, I just brush aside such narrow visions and do what is best from a practical perspective, not a dogmatic one.
A society with a corrupted economy would be insane to adopt Libertarian or Conservative policies, which would most likely increase the corruption. It would need Liberal policies instead. But a society with a highly educated population and a economy cleansed of corruption functions best with Centrist or Libertarian policies and can dispense with Liberal policies.
The reason Statist societies like Nazi Germany and the Communist Soviet Union failed was because in Germany's case the population was ALREADY educated and never needed a Statist society (thus making the Statism there evil, even if the holocaust had not occured), while in the Soviet Union there was no serious attempt at democratic reform until the time of Gorbachev, when it should have been done in the time of Stalin. Instead, Stalin not only betrayed his own people, but Communism itself by continuing the Statist policies entirely for his own sake. Ironic, since Karl Marx called for the state to gradually disappear under pure Communism. Clearly, Marx underestimated the human potential for corruption in government, just as those who believe in lassez faire capitalism either underestimate the potential for human corruption in economics or think such corruption is something we just have to live with.
I have no patience for such ignorance.
©2008 Dale Husband, all rights reserved. You must have written permission from the author in order to republish this work.
Published: Friday, December 26, 2008
Last modified: Saturday, May 30, 2009
The views expressed in this article are those of Dale Husband only and do not represent the views of Nolan Chart, LLC or its affiliates. Dale Husband is solely responsible for the contents of this article and is not an employee or otherwise affiliated with Nolan Chart, LLC in his/her role as a columnist.
Report violation by Dale Husband of Nolan Chart LLC's terms of use policy.
| More Articles By Dale Husband |
Reader Comments:
Posted By: Jake, the champion of the constitution
Date: 2008-12-27 03:26:51
Dear Dale,
Thanks for the article and the thinking behind it - your byline certainly makes a lot sense.
First a question - how do you define Liberal? The reason I ask is that when I first started writing here, I knew jack squat about politics, and wrote the below article. The first 2 replies clarified quite a bit for me. Even though the NC classifies me as 100% libertarian, its just a survey, and I am glad Walt took away the capital L... Actually I view myself as being part of the liberal movement, defined as
"a broad array of related doctrines, ideologies, philosophical views, and political traditions which hold that individual liberty is the primary political value"
Simply put, I am for liberty. You wrote:
"there are societies in the world where the people largely are both uneducated and impoverished, and thus could not maintain a stable democracy or a capitalist economy"
I have a few comments. First of all, the USA is in theory a constitutional republic. Democracies or literally from the Latin, rule by majority, are inherently unstable since the minority will fight back when they see their liberties or whatever taken from them by the majority. Democracies typically dont last too long. Second, why are those countries both uneducated and impoverished? I've been fortunate to have traveled to a lot of countries, including places where people are literally dirt poor. People don't see so dumb to me, and the ideas of liberalism do make sense.
http://www.nolanchart.com/article2716.html
I have a related thought problem that has been vexing me for awhile - any ideas on what to look up would appreciate it - if you have a statist society - I suppose you could use Soviet Russia or could even argue a case for the modern US - but let's use the example of South Africa at the end of apartheid. All of the riches were in the hands of the racial elite, so what would be the best way to redistribute this without all hell breaking loose?
In the case of South Africa and Russia, all hell did break loose. I suppose you can understand my thinking on the matter - how do you destatize whatever we have after King-elect Obama is done dragging the Constitution (assuming he does so, from his cabinet picks and FDR-type "New Stupidity II" so far, I conclude he will) through the mud, just like King "Size 10" George II??
Posted By: Walt Thiessen
Date: 2008-12-27 05:43:40
You fail to ask some very basic questions of yourself. Here are just a few you need to consider:
You wrote: "...unfortunately there are societies in the world where the people largely are both uneducated and impoverished, and thus could not maintain a stable democracy or a capitalist economy. For them, only a Statist society can work."
The question you fail to consider is: why are those societies so impoverished? It never occurs to you that it's the statism which causes the condition.
You wrote: "To reform them and make them functioning democracies with free enterprise economies, the people must be provided with both education and wealth from the outside."
First, I disagree with the notion that societies need to become democracies. What they need is to be free. Democracy and freedom are adversaries much more than they are allies.
Nor do people need outside education and wealth in order to be prosperous. Each nation has plenty of both internally. What they need is an end to internal public plunder practices. Statism is what causes, directs, and executes such plunder. The state is the #1 plunderer in every society, and #2 is a distant second. So arguing for statism as a temporary solution is to argue that the problem should be continued, enhanced, and made worse.
In this case, the question you fail to answer is two-fold: (1) why do you falsely believe that poor societies lack education and wealth? and (2) why do you fail to recognize that the corruption in those countries is primarily internally generated in spite of internally available wealth and education?
You wrote: "A society with a corrupted economy would be insane to adopt Libertarian or Conservative policies, which would most likely increase the corruption."
First, as a libertarian, I am offended at the notion that what I advocate and what conservatives advocate are roughly the same thing. They are not. Conservatives advocate sounding like libertarians while behaving like liberals. Libertarians actually believe in real freedom for everyone.
Second, while I agree that conservative policies increase corruption, I disagree that libertarian policies would do the same. To the contrary, it's liberal policies that are the basis for such corruption, and conservative policies are merely liberal policies dressed in libertarian facades used to promote conservative causes. Libertarian policies are solutions to the mess that liberal policies have created in alliance with conservative "pragmatists."
So the question you fail to answer here is: why do conservatives and liberals routinely ally themselves with each other against real liberty?
You profess to have no patience for the ignorance of Hitler, Stalin, and Marx, yet the ideals they supported are the same ideals which liberals promote today. Indeed most of Mein Kampf has been enacted into law here in the U.S. at liberal insistence over the years.
I suggest that you need to take another look at your own house.
Posted By: Jake, the champion of the constitution
Date: 2008-12-27 06:16:02
Dear Dale -
I have to agree with Walt on the corruption thing - which is why I came back to comment again. I mean even now in the US, is it the anti-fraud laws that have problems? I dont believe it is. We have crony capitalism and that is corrupt, I mean check out the corporate lives of Donald Rumsfeld with his viral companies that he profited on madly while in office, Richard Armitage (comes to mind since I just wrote an article on him), Robert Rubin of Citibank, Paulson and that Kashgari from Goldman Sachs, the Bush family with oil, Cheney, the new SecTreas guy Obama picked from the FED, etc, etc. THAT IS CORRUPTION. It is a bloody corporatocracy is what it is. I suggest John Perkins Confessions of an Economic Hitman or Naomi Kleins The Shock Doctrine
libertarians - liberals (the way I defined it) are for personal and economic liberty and opposed to the initial use of forceand coercion.
Posted By: Dale Husband
Date: 2008-12-27 09:27:49
First, I recognize many definitions of "democracy", including the representative and constitutional democracy the United States is. The sort of absolute democracy some people refer to as the genuine kind is only possible in small local populations.
Second, I make a difference between being "dumb" and being "uneducated". Thinking with consistent logic is not something that occures naturally to most people, it must be taught. And people need to know as many facts as possible to make the right choices. Stupid people would be ones who are exposed to logic and facts and keep making the wrong choices anyway. Fortunately, they are not really that common. ALL peoples are intelligent and thus have the potential to produce great scientists and other intellectual leaders, but they are not equal in terms of education, which is why certain parts of the world continue to produce more scientists than others. We should fix that.
Third, corruption can exist in all forms of governments. Saying that Statism causes poverty puzzles me, since poverty is caused by extreme lack of wealth and that in turn is caused by a nation lacking resources. A north African nation like Chad or Niger is indeed resource poor compared to nations like Saudi Arabia, Brazil, or the United States, and no government, even a libertarian one, can magically make resources appear in a nation if they never existed in the first place. A Statist government can be either good or evil. I already gave an example of an evil kind of Statism, the Nazi regime of Hitler. The military thugs ruling over Burma are another example. But a good Statist government would seek to reform itself to grant more freedom to its people, and thus would welcome outside assistance. If I ever gave the impression that Statism for its own sake is acceptable, I never meant that at all! John F. Kennedy said, "If you make peaceful revolution impossible you make violent revolution inevitable." I agree with that. BTW, South Africa's move away from Apartheid is an example of a peaceful revolution. It could have been much worse. Spain after Franco's fascist regime ended to be replaced by a constitutional monarchy with democratic elements is another example of a statist society evolving naturally towards liberty. Hopefully Cuba will make a simular transition once the Castro brothers pass away.
Walt, the Nolan Chart depicts conservatives and libertarians as both favoring economic freedom, even while differing on issues of personal freedom. Certainly, libertarianism is better, because with personal freedom it would make it more likely for the people to change their government to stop the corruption of their economy....but that would mean pulling the government AWAY from libertarianism, ironically. If you define economic freedom as freedom for corporations to operate without government oversight, then I would see that as dangerous to the public welfare as a government without any checks and balances of its various branches as provided by the Constitution. Too much freedom for ANY part of society would result in loss of freedom for some other part, as illustrated by giant corporations beating out small businesses and taking over their markets. Restraint and moderation for ALL parts is better. The "freest" kind of society is an anarchy.......where there is no way to enforce human rights. Economic anarchy is no better than political anarchy, in my opinion.
Why do conservatives and liberals routinely ally themselves with each other against real liberty?
Wrong question! It should be "Why do Democrats and Republicans naturally prevent third parties, including the Libertarians, from having a fair chance at getting their members elected?" I do share your frustration about that. Answer: Because the framers of the Constitution never envisioned the sort of political parties that would come to dominate America politics. Indeed, the Constitution doesn't even mention political parties at all! That was a terrible oversight.
And how can you seriously claim that liberals in America are anything like the Nazis of Germany??? Are we racist or anti-Semetic? NO! Indeed, we fought to end such evils! And borrowing concepts from socialism that happen to be beneficial in no way endorses all the radical ideas of Karl Marx, which were indeed rediculous in their totality.
Posted By: Walt Thiessen
Date: 2008-12-27 12:43:02
You're creating straw men.
When I said that democracy is more often opposed to freedom, I wasn't limiting my comment to some form of "absolute" democracy. I was talking about all the various forms of democracy we have today. Go to any country where there is some form of democracy, and you'll find a country that routinely rules against freedom in many ways on a daily basis.
When I was responding about education, I was not talking about "being dumb." Nor do I agree that clear thinking has to be taught. In fact, the evidence is completely against that notion. I had to teach myself how to think after surviving traditional education. Moreover, as a co-founder of a Sudbury-model school, I can tell you from experience that students who are not "taught" how to think end up thinking better than the rest. This is because you can't teach someone else how to think, and when you try to "encourage" or "induce" someone to think you usually end up undermining their nascent ability! The most you can ever hope to do is to be available as a resource to someone who has decided they want to learn how to think...or indeed to do anything else. With that attitude, you maximize the chance that they'll learn most effectively.
You wrote: "Saying that Statism causes poverty puzzles me, since poverty is caused by extreme lack of wealth and that in turn is caused by a nation lacking resources." Then you need to study the history of Japan, which has almost zero "natural resources." It wasn't until they began to relax their statist tendencies that Japan started to climb out of abject poverty following WWII. The fact that you are puzzled by the idea that Statism causes poverty shows that you don't understand what causes poverty. Saying that poverty is caused by "lack of wealth" is like saying that war is caused by "lack of peace." Peace is what you get when you abandon the road of war. Wealth is what you get when you abandon the road to poverty.
You want to know what causes poverty? It's nearly always state manipulation of some kind. The most destructive of all statist manipulations is monetary system manipulation. Every country in the world is dominated by a fiat money supply, run by the government or by some monopoly franchise privately run on behalf of the government (i.e. the Federal Reserve system). None of them are constant and stable, but there are significant differences between how relatively stable vs relatively unstable they are in comparison to each other. The more unstable a money supply is, the greater the likelihood that poverty will be institutionalized. (Note...we're going to see a lot more poverty in this country in the next few years, due to monetary manipulations that have been going on over the past 15-20 years or more.)
However, monetary manipulation (as bad as it is) is only one small form of statism creating poverty. I'm sure you're aware of the French phrase, "laissez faire." Are you also aware of where it came from? The full phrase is "laissez-nous faire" which translates to "leave us alone." The story is that in 1680 the French finance minister, a mercantilist, asked some merchants how the French state could be of service to them. "Laissez-nous faire" was the reply, meaning "leave us be."
I can tell from your reply that you've never tried to go into business for yourself. Let me tell you...it's a trip! You start out with nothing, and you're trying to carve out a small living for yourself. But the state doesn't give a damn, and they'll regulate you and tax you and control you every which way. They don't give a damn whether your business survives. That's your problem. And if they happen to take half your income and a quarter of your time trying obey all their laws, they consider that to be "justice." You shouldn't be surprised that 95% of all new businesses fail within the first two years. Imagine what would happen if we were to remove the factors which cause that high failure rate!
You really want to help the poor in any given country? Remove all the laws that get in the way of creating legimitate microbusinesses (literally thousands of them in every country), give them a constant, stable money supply to work with, then get the hell out of their way. They'll have created prosperity within one generation. If we had ever done that anywhere in the world during our lifetimes, that place would now be rich beyond measure across the entire population.
The reason the Nolan Chart depicts libertarians (and to a small extent conservatives, although not nearly to the extent you're implying) as being pro-freedom on economic issues and liberals as not being pro-freedom on economic issues is that....it's true. Can you name me an economic issue where liberals are pro-freedom?
Regarding your changing of my question...you're wrong. My question is not about why third parties can't get elected (which is a separate question entirely). The question I raised is why do liberals and conservatives (including Republicans and Democrats) who are elected to office routinely vote against freedom of all kinds: economic, personal, religious, financial, etc.
You want to know what the comparison is between the tyrants of history and modern liberals? It's very simple. Both believe that the state has interests and rights that supersede the individual. Both want to mold society into their own, limited visions. Like other tyrants, liberals favor coercive public education, gun control, state enterprises over private enterprises, high taxes, virtually unlimited regulation, less and less personal freedom, and worst of all, they advocate it all for "noble purposes." Like the other tyrants, you guys believe that the state is better equipped to decide how to spend your money than you are. The state is smarter and wiser than anyone else in your view. The state is the solution to all problems, the great equalizer, the great righter of wrongs.
Then, when we compare all these grandiose claims to reality, we find out that they're all lies. State enterprises routinely do less well than private enterprises. State decisions are routinely more destructive than private ones. State "balancing" turns out to be nothing more than the creation of new forms of racism, sexism, religiousism, and virtually any other "ism" you can think of.
Liberals want to get rid of pollution of all kinds by using the government. Who is the #1 polluter in the world? The U.S. Government. When was the last time the liberals called for reducing government pollution? Hear that hollow, empty echo?
I can't possibly address all of the ways that government causes the very problems it claims to solve, because there are too many of them.
Posted By: Dale Husband
Date: 2008-12-27 14:18:15
Then you need to study the history of Japan, which has almost zero "natural resources." It wasn't until they began to relax their statist tendencies that Japan started to climb out of abject poverty following WWII.
Is this the same Japan that tried to get itself out of poverty by conquering other nations before and during World War II? Of course it failed, but only because the USA defeated it! Then what did the USA do? Provide vast amounts of economic aid to Japan so it would never have to wage imperialist wars again! The USA did the same to war-ravaged Europe with the Marshall Plan. That's exactly the sort of thing I called for above in my original essay. The best way to get rid of statism is international cooperation (which is a Liberal policy), rather than brutal economic competition between nations (a Conservative policy), which when taken to its inevitable conclusion causes wars. And statism thrives best during wars, of course.
Walt, how can you possible confuse my favoring regulation of giant corporations with all their economic power, and the unjust regulations of small businesses I would condemn as much as you, for they do hinder their ability to start and grow? I WANT small businesses to grow, prosper, and proliferate, so they should not be regulated so much. You know what ultimately stops most of them? GIANT CORPORATIONS TAKING OVER THE MARKETS! What enables those corporations to do that? Lack of government intervention! If freedom applies to all, then corporations really should not have as much power as they do. They are more like governments rather than individuals. Only individuals should be free.
Why do liberals and conservatives (including Republicans and Democrats) who are elected to office routinely vote against freedom of all kinds: economic, personal, religious, financial, etc.
Perhaps you say that because you assume that freedom = anarchy? What about speed limit signs on the roads? Shall we ditch them and watch the auto insurance rates skyrocket, the health care costs skyrocket, and the death rate rise, all due to accidents caused by drivers going 80 or 90 MPH instead of safer speeds? Maybe I'm misunderstanding you still, but the first impulse people have when faced with a tragic event that results from human stupidity is, "There ought to be a law against this!" And they push for that and often they succeed in government passing that law. Don't blame the politicians for passing laws people demand. If they didn't, they'd be voted out of office and replaced by those who would! That's what democracy does. Don't like it? Well, you could push for a one party Libertarian state......but that would be the ultimate oxymoron!
State enterprises routinely do less well than private enterprises. State decisions are routinely more destructive than private ones.
If that is true, why do we not have private military or private police forces already? Answer: Because defending our country or enforcing our laws is not a competitive enterprise that two or more agencies can deal with without trying to undermine and limit each other, which hinders the very thing they are trying to do.
State "balancing" turns out to be nothing more than the creation of new forms of racism, sexism, religiousism, and virtually any other "ism" you can think of.
If you are referring to affirmative action, yes, we can dispense with that now. It did do some good decades ago when most African-Americans still lived in dire poverty due to Jim Crow laws and policies (which by the way, the federal government under LIBERAL leadership helped end), but we don't need it anymore. Again, that is consistent with my essay above. Want to talk about straw men some more?
Liberals want to get rid of pollution of all kinds by using the government. Who is the #1 polluter in the world? The U.S. Government.
A government that has been under mostly Conservative or Centrist leadership rather than Liberal rule. The last great Liberal President I'm aware of was John F Kennedy (LBJ and Jimmy Carter were Liberal, but not so great, and Bill Clinton looked to me more Centrist than Liberal). Now, if Barack Obama does clean up America's environment using the goverment as his tool, maybe you will eat your words? Or are you going to trust in private enterprise to clean up that massive coal ash spill I just heard about in Tennessee? I would NOT! That costs money which would eat into corporate profits, of course.
Posted By: Walt Thiessen
Date: 2008-12-27 15:56:49
If you think that the reason Japan prospered after WWII was "vast amounts of economic aid" then you are ignorant of Japanese history after WWII. Yes, America did deposit massive amounts of money into Japan, but for a long time Japanese products were considered junk. All the aid in the world did nothing for them, just as it has done nothing for the other countries of the world where America has wasted American tax dollars (except perhaps the tremendous benefits that accrued to the leaders of those countries who use the tax dollars to fortify their control over their respective governments).
What made the difference was in the 1950s when certain Japanese manufacturers asked some American experts on quality control and productivity to visit them and teach them how to succeed in competing in world markets. That's the point when Japanese manufacture started to become competitive. Your analysis that it was American aid which made the difference is just plain inaccurate.
You say you want small business to succeed? That's great! I hear the same thing from many other liberals. Too bad they never back what they say with actual solutions that would remove barriers. Instead, they propose ways to provide tax incentives, special programs, etc. In other words, they decide that the small businesses themselves can't succeed without the government. Once again, the track record is abysmal.
I also can't take the liberal claim that they want to prevent giant corporations from taking over seriously. As many others have reminded me here at the 'Chart, it was the liberal Democrats who gleeful bailed out the biggest banks and who are trying their damndest to bail out Detroit, all at taxpayer expense. I try to remind them that they got a lot of support from conservative Republicans, but I have to admit that there was more Democratic support than Republican support. The liberals were also wholly in favor of nationalizing Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, rather than letting them go belly up the way they deserved. These are not the actions of people who want to take power away from giant corporations.
The truth is that liberals want to appear to be against giant corporations, except when they can make hay with their constituents by siding with them (which is most of the time). If liberals really opposed giant corporate control, they would call (among other things) for an end to liability limitations for corporations and more importantly would call for hard money (gold/silver) instead of soft money (fiat), which benefits giant corporations much more than anyone else. They would also call for copyright law revision to prevent corporations from using copyright and patent law to retain perpetual legalized corners on their respective markets.
Regarding military and police...the reason we don't have private forces is that the government has been granted a legal monopoly in those areas. Besides, I wasn't talking about military and police, and you know it. I was talking about the hubris involved in such things as assuming that the government is more qualified to run a bank or a mortgage company than a bank or a mortgage company, for example. There are endless examples of government overtly or covertly running industries that are well outside of government's realm of defending the country. So don't give me junk answers like that. We both know better.
Regarding Jim Crow, etc. If liberals really wanted to get rid of them, they would have repealed those disciminatory laws. They didn't bother with that. Equal protection under the law was never a liberal goal. Favoritism is their goal, just as it is with any political power brokers who want to enhance their own position.
Regarding JFK being the last liberal president...that's a joke. Actually, there's really very little difference between conservatives and liberals. They both favor government expansion for their own purposes. The only real difference is that they want to distribute the spoils differently. That's the history of all presidents since JFK, including JFK.
Posted By: Dale Husband
Date: 2008-12-27 19:38:51
What made the difference was in the 1950s when certain Japanese manufacturers asked some American experts on quality control and productivity to visit them and teach them how to succeed in competing in world markets. That's the point when Japanese manufacture started to become competitive. Your analysis that it was American aid which made the difference is just plain inaccurate.
Oh, my head is spinning! Remember what I said in the original essay?
"To reform [backward states] and make them functioning democracies with free enterprise economies, the people must be provided with both education and wealth from the outside."
So what are you arguing about here? Merely throwing wealth at a corrupted or primitive state is pointless. Teaching them how best to handle wealth is needed too. And wouldn't you consider education about how to build and maintain a free enterprise system a form of economic aid?
You say you want small business to succeed? That's great! I hear the same thing from many other liberals. Too bad they never back what they say with actual solutions that would remove barriers. Instead, they propose ways to provide tax incentives, special programs, etc. In other words, they decide that the small businesses themselves can't succeed without the government.
Putting the cart before the horse? Small businesses probably wouldn't need such help if corporations already didn't have so much of the market, making it extremely difficult for small businesses to have a place there.
I also can't take the liberal claim that they want to prevent giant corporations from taking over seriously. As many others have reminded me here at the 'Chart, it was the liberal Democrats who gleeful bailed out the biggest banks and who are trying their damndest to bail out Detroit, all at taxpayer expense. I try to remind them that they got a lot of support from conservative Republicans, but I have to admit that there was more Democratic support than Republican support.
I would agree with you about corporations deserving to get their butts kicked for their own stupidity, if it were not for the fact that so many workers with families to support would be thrown out of work by the corporations' failures, thus making the economic problems even worse. If those corporations had not been allowed to get so damned big and powerful in the first place.......heck, even the Roman Empire fell and when it did, the result was a disaster that affected the whole Mediterranian area. NO empire, corporation, or organization is too big to fail! In fact, the bigger they are the HARDER THEY FALL! So what's worse, bailing out the corporations now, or providing welfare to the unemployed workers a few months later? In terms of economic productivity, the answer should be obvious. I'd rather keep the people working so they could both produce more, buy more, and pay taxes to support the government next year.
Besides, I wasn't talking about military and police, and you know it......So don't give me junk answers like that. We both know better.
Well, now I know better. Please don't presume to be able to read my mind. And who is to say that members of the government cannot also be trained in managing a bank or a morgage company, at least temporarily, until it can be sold back to private investors to make a profit for the government? Are you saying that if one becomes a government employee he automatically loses any financial knowledge he gained from college (I'd expect the Secretary of Commerce to have a Bachlor's degree in Business management, along with actual previous experience in being a business owner, at least)? Here's exactly what should have been done to those failing banks and auto companies instead of bailing them out: Let the government BUY THEM OUT and then resell them at auction to others (American citizens only) a few months later once they were restructured to make them more profitable (including dealing firmly with the labor unions, if they were confirmed to be at least partly at fault for the companies losing money). One thing I definitely fear is foreign investors from powerful potential adversaries like China buying out those companies and thus gaining a greater foothold on our economy.
Regarding Jim Crow, etc. If liberals really wanted to get rid of them, they would have repealed those disciminatory laws. They didn't bother with that. Equal protection under the law was never a liberal goal. Favoritism is their goal, just as it is with any political power brokers who want to enhance their own position.
Were there any Liberals in the governments of the Southern states that could have repealed those evil laws? No, they were shut out by the very policies that limited African-Americans from voting and by a culture that constantly reinforced white supremacy. Depending on the good will of the southern state governments to come to their senses eventually would have only meant several more generations of African-Americans living under segregation. Sorry, but even as a white person, I don't buy that! And how can you claim that efforts to grant equal rights to African-Americans was favoritism?! Even if affirmative action was, it was still intended to overcome previous generations of economic and political discrimination, which is today no longer a problem like it was a century ago. Like I already said, we can repeal that now because it has served its purpose.
Regarding JFK being the last liberal president...that's a joke. Actually, there's really very little difference between conservatives and liberals. They both favor government expansion for their own purposes. The only real difference is that they want to distribute the spoils differently. That's the history of all presidents since JFK, including JFK.
I'll bet you hate FDR too, eh? Gee, why even bother with a Nolan Chart then, if you paint ALL government intervention or control with the same brush? That's how Objectivists of the Ayn Rand school see things, and I despise them even more than I do most "Conservatives" of the Religious Right.
You seem to have mistaken me for a hard-core "Looney Left" Liberal, Walt. Perhaps if you had taken off your libertarian colored glasses before reading the essay I wrote, you would have seen that I am a moderate and a pragmatist. Jake got my meaning much better, it seems.
Posted By: Dale Husband
Date: 2008-12-27 20:04:50
First a question - how do you define Liberal?
I just read your essay here, Jake:
http://www.nolanchart.com/article2716.html
Going by the dictionary, I'd say I am EXTREMELY Liberal, since I am very open to change, as the essay above makes clear, I favor individual liberty, plus I am tolerant of different kinds of economies, governments, peoples, and ways of life. I judge all people strictly as individuals, never painting all members of a group with the same brush. I used to brand all vegans as extremists until I actually got to know some tolerant and loving ones who didn\'t hate me just because I still ate meat. So my fear of them faded away, replaced by respect. I still have problems with arrogant people of either vegetarian or meat eating views, though.
But going by the standards of the Nolan chart, I am clearly not an extremist. My little yellow star is not even at the far left corner of the chart, because I do have some pro-business impulses in me, but only as far as making sure people are able to start their own small businesses as easily as possible and that as many people as possible who want to work be kept working. If the free market can do that on its own, great! But government oversight to make sure things are done honestly and fairly is also good, in my opinion.
Posted By: Walt Thiessen
Date: 2008-12-28 06:56:48
You keep twisting what happened historically to suit your position. Your article is headlined, "Ideology Should Be Based On Reality." How about sticking to that premise?
"We" (meaning the U.S. government and taxpayer) did not "educate" the Japanese. The Japanese educated themselves, and they did it without any U.S. government involvement at all. This is one of the things I loathe most about liberals. They take credit for what is done privately as if it was "us," the government-driven country which did it. Giving the U.S. credit for what the Japanese did is despicable.
Peter Drucker, the man whom the Japanese brought to their country, is known as the father of modern management because of the role he played in helping the Japanese. He had originally gained fame in this country primarily by his work with General Moters, which led to his initial work being published. However, none of the great corporations in this country, including GM, actually wanted to implement his ideas on a major scale. It wasn't until the Japanese invited him to their country that his ideas were actively put to widespread use. In fact, it was Drucker who argued for a belief in what he called "the sickness of government," his claim that government is often unable or unwilling to provide new services that people need or want.
Drucker was not sent to Japan by the U.S. government. There was no planned "education of Japan" that involved him, orchestrated by our noble liberal leadership. So all your claims about how the Japanese (or indeed anyone else) need to be educated (implying that "we" have to do the educating or else it won't happen) is simply hubris. Other people are perfectly capable of educating themselves without the mighty U.S. government doing it for them or indeed without any government of any kind being involved!
Your argument that small business can't survive because of big business deliberately ignores the points I raised. Get the government out of the way of small business, and it won't matter what big business does. Your view is one that excludes the idea that wealth can be independently produced outside of government and big business. Instead, you treat business as if it were a zero sum game, where either big business or small business has to lose. Nonsense! Wealth production is a positive sum game, not a zero sum game.
The excuses liberals use for propping up the very same corporations they claim to despise are disgusting. You are bound and determined to believe that workers are helpless pawns and that this condition must always be true. How blind you are! You don't even admit that by propping up big business in order to preserve jobs you are ensuring the continued dependence of the American worker on a system which you claim to abhor. It never occurs to you that we'd all be better off if companies that fail were allowed to fail all the way. Your blind pursuit of the idea that jobs must be preserved at all costs perpetuates the dependence of the American worker.
You wrote: "And who is to say that members of the government cannot also be trained in managing a bank or a morgage company, at least temporarily, until it can be sold back to private investors to make a profit for the government?"
That statement speaks volumes about your ignorance regarding what it takes to succeed in business. Business succees does not depend upon training or finance degrees. Did it never occur to you that the companies which fail (or more accurately which set themselves up to fail before the government steps in to rescue them) are heavily manned by MBAs and financial "experts"? Heck, most of the famous business successes in American history had no more than a 12th grade education (and often less)!
Regarding the South: liberals used the Federal government for change, not the states. They could just as easily have used Federal influence to declare state Jim Crow laws unconstitutional. They didn't do that, but they should have. Instead, they twisted everything out of proportion by engaging in their "balancing" schemes. We continue to suffer the negative consequences of that approach today.
I'm no Objectivist, and I'm no fan of FDR. I don't hate FDR, contrary to your attempt to turn this into an emotional argument. I do think that FDR's actions were primarily harmful. I also think that Rand was a sick person who also managed to put forth some very good ideas anyway. But I'm no raving extremist like you're trying to paint me. But really, all this is beside the point.
I've come out hard against your views because you are arguing what you consider to be the liberal point of view, while I argue what I consider to be the libertarian point of view. I think that liberals are just as harmful as conservatives, but in different ways. And yes, I do think that the government is primarily harmful. It needs to be reduced down to its minimum, justifiable functions in order to minimize the harm it does.
Posted By: Dale Husband
Date: 2008-12-28 13:35:59
Thank you for the clarification about how the Japanese were educated after World War II. I was not aware of those details. Still, if not for the American government conquering Japan via its military, the Japanese would not have been willing to accept help from any American teachers, whether later sent by the government or not. Was General Douglas MacArthur an employee of the government, or a private contractor? If private agencies can do the job of education and economic aid to other nations, I have no problem with that. But a privately run MILITARY will never be acceptable to me.
Get the government out of the way of small business, and it won't matter what big business does. Your view is one that excludes the idea that wealth can be independently produced outside of government and big business.
Not exactly. One of the first lessons I learned in high school economics class was about the scarcity of resources, that the fulfilment of human needs and wants would always be limited by the available resources. Quite simply, resources are not infinite, but they are the source of all wealth. Since giant corporations already have access to more funds and resources than small businesses, they will always have a natural advantage in getting more money and resources. As the old saying goes, "You must have money to make money."
Business succees does not depend upon training or finance degrees. Did it never occur to you that the companies which fail (or more accurately which set themselves up to fail before the government steps in to rescue them) are heavily manned by MBAs and financial "experts"? Heck, most of the famous business successes in American history had no more than a 12th grade education (and often less)!
Then why do so many colleges and universities bother to grant degrees in business? It stands to reason that highly educated executives are better off than less educated ones, even if some less educated ones happen to be successful. But even the most educated of people make mistakes. Plus, the ruthless competition between corporations makes even well run ones fail simply by others beating it out and then buying it out. No doubt, the Big Three in the Detroit area wanted to avoid being bought out by Japanese or European auto makers. So would most American citizens, including me!
I've come out hard against your views because you are arguing what you consider to be the liberal point of view, while I argue what I consider to be the libertarian point of view. I think that liberals are just as harmful as conservatives, but in different ways.
It's EXTREMISM that's harmful, not just either Liberal or Conservative policies (though I freely admit to hating Conservatism after having to endure it for eight years under President Bush Jr). I am wary even of Libertarian extremism, which is the same as anarchy. An inventive and flexible society that moves easily from one ideology and set of policies to another via a multi party election system is the best sort of society.
You've been a tough opponent, Walt, and I salute you for letting me exchange blows with you.
Posted By: Jake, the champion of the constitution
Date: 2008-12-29 03:59:43
Dear Dale -
Yeah, by the dictionary, I am extremely liberal (as in for change) as well.
On the Japan (and Korea), I had my stereotypical happy-go-lucky-American/Marshall Plan vision of them (which from your comments seems similar to yours) quite rudely interrupted, then destroyed by both a book called BLOWBACK by Chalmers Johnson from 2000, and my journeys to and talks with people from these countries.
Its pretty short, and I think its one of the books Ron Paul recommended Guiliani take a look at after the SC debate.
Posted By: The Plagiarist
Date: 2008-12-31 08:00:00
Resource scarcity though is one of the driving forces for more competitive people to market new resource alternatives. This provides more opportunities for people who create and provide legitimate value to enter in small markets where the competition is small.
This kind of capitalism also forces those in power to constantly provide better products or lose their spot. This battle to gain a place in the market is what drives up creativity to compete in the market.
The instant effect may be horrible. Especially in these times where people's perceptions revolve around getting jobs, getting paid and not really providing value. The lasting effect though is that this prevents a gridlock of progress from gov't trying to maintain a certain product who's public demand is starting to wane.
No matter how noble the cause some people in the gov't may have, the bureaucracy of it's systems guarantees that it's a loophole to corrupt market manipulation. Also, if the product is certainly needed than there is no true necessity for gov't to try to give bias to this supply. People will eventually come back or demand it when the alternative turns out to be worse. This creates new opportunities to start new businesses and better customer knowledge in which product they want to support.
Lack of market manipulation also gives people confidence to take more risks and be more productive rather than be lazy and uncaring for the value of the supply in favor of the salary they are getting. Additionally for the 3rd world countries, lack of market manipulation gives them confidence to find new ways of building their economy on a competitive structure rather than be based on which product is favored by artificial wealth distribution which often has biases towards the current popular trends where many businesses already have a foothold on.
When a product becomes so profitable that the demand is so huge. Wealth distribution happens naturally in some form or the other that new markets arise and no large enough business can control the supply without angering their customers thus reducing the demand from supplies coming from them and gives an opportunity for a better customer serving company to fill that need in the market.
The reality becomes a case where cheaper and newer products constantly arrive and consumers become potential business starters in that it is to their benefit to test current products which will help them suggest new things to the company they are currently employed in and since there's less barrier of entry if the company wants to go another road, there is less reason for them not to start a small business to take advantage of a new niche.
This effect also helps provide for more secure jobs where companies out of fear of losing a potential money maker are less apt to ignore employee suggestions and treat them as replaceable pieces.
The reality is that at the current mindset of most people in the world, this will seem difficult but only because this old layer of competition that was once disregarded has now arisen again thus forcing not the one with the better resume to get the most benefit but the one with the most passion and skill to stay competitive to gain opportunities they duly deserve.
An over-simplistic analogy to this would be to replace a level-up grinding system of a videogame to that of an ever challenging puzzle game. In the former the one that can be the best slave to the game gets ahead over the more skilled players. The latter on the other hand though can feel like there's no clear ladder to improve until you get a break through but at the same time the ones who have the most desire and passion to get ahead, gets ahead.
Another thing that would make it feel difficult is because people would be coming out of the ideology that the reality of businesses they used to think was fair turns out to be a big multiple people mommy called government that's been favoring their children's team all along and few people feel comfortable with having their blissful ignorance shattered. Even today those people who realized this becomes cynical in their efforts to start a business so they become less productive contributors to the general masses.
Also remember that the most flexible system often is not the one that benefits a certain nationality like America but the overall market in general. This means that any kind of ineffective business will risk getting eliminated. It is in fact the failure of artificial market manipulation that the powers have been delegated to big businesses who due to many people feeling compassion for the loads of workers they have under them, would prop them out while few would shed the same benefit to the small businesses they gobble up. The irony is that those big businesses due to gobbling up more companies would consistently become too big that no matter how you bail out the people working under them, they would still continue to add more people. Sure they will lay off some people that due to their size seems many but it's often really just miniscule compared to the actual size of the company.
It's like continuing to evacuate a sinking ship that continually pulls more people aboard. Sooner or later, it will only cause more people to suffer worse.
The sad part is that these sufferings don't happen in the beginning but around the peak of a flawed system that if it were ever to be allowed to happen, it's already too late and the people believing in the flawed system would rather be trying to salvage it than scrap it due to their reasoning that now there are many people that will be affected so the flaw of such Government manipulated systems is that you're not only screwed at the beginning but you are screwed worse on it's downturn
Posted By: Dale Husband
Date: 2008-12-31 19:54:06
The Plagiarist, you can always make excuses for a corrupt economic system. That doesn't make the system right, nor does it really fix the problems that made the system corrupt in the first place. Having absolute faith in the free market system is no better than absolute faith in religion: both do good in moderation, but taken to extremes can be destructive.
Goverment inaction allowed corporations to grow too big and powerful, both in the 19th Century and today, producing economic tyranny rather than economic freedom. Now government is being asked to bail out those same corporations when they fail, because of the massive unemployment and fall in GDP that would result. But if we had no giant corporations, and thus no risk of their failure, bailouts wouldn't be an issue. We could afford to just let small businesses compete with each other, and some of them fail, and new small businesses start later to replace the ones that failed. Giant corporations growing, consuming each other along with small businesses, and then failing is a disaster no matter how you look at it.
It is rediculous to apply the same lassez faire principles to giant corporations (which are organized like governments) as you would to small businesses that have individual owners. It is both irrational and unjust!
Posted By: The Plagiarist
Date: 2009-01-01 14:57:39
Exactly.
You got the first part right:
"You can always make excuses for a corrupt economic system. That doesn't make the system right, nor does it really fix the problems that made the system corrupt in the first place."
Then you miss the mark:
"Having absolute faith in the free market system is no better than absolute faith in religion: both do good in moderation, but taken to extremes can be destructive."
The thing is: NO ONE has had enough faith in the free market system to the point of successfully implementing and testing it in this modern age.
That's always been the dilemma with people accusing anyone of having absolute faith with the free market system. You're ignoring the fact that no developing country HAS a "true" free market system and yet you're throwing the baby out of the bath water already just because there are a few people arguing for it while ignoring the fact that there are loads of other people arguing for other systems and most of those tweaks are what lead to the corruption and decay of government.
Worse there are actually people like you that think government DIDN'T do anything EVER when the reality is if government didn't do anything, most free market enthusiasts wouldn't be pushing for the free market because they would already HAVE the free market. They'd be arguing to retain it, not have it.
It WAS moderation of the free market that got America here. It WAS people making excuses for anything BUT a free market that led to this corruption. It WAS people suggesting other ways to fix the problem that led to this current economic times.
The difference between religion and the free market system is that people actually have seen the effects of fundamentalists... in reality!
Most people arguing against the free market system are all arguing against it's ideology and it's most faithful ideologists. Tell me, where's the sense in that?
Posted By: Dale Husband
Date: 2009-01-20 22:35:45
The thing is: NO ONE has had enough faith in the free market system to the point of successfully implementing and testing it in this modern age.
LIE! An absolute free market system WAS attempted in the 19th Century of America as well as Europe, and it proved a disasterous failure on both sides of the Atlantic. That's exactly why the Communist and Socialist movements began in Europe and why the progressive movement began in the United States, as a reaction to the absolute abusive power of giant corporations. What, you never heard of trust-busting? That was a MAJOR political issue a century ago and I think it should be once more. We need LESS of a "free market", not more, and you are DELUSIONAL to think otherwise.
DO NOT INSULT MY INTELLIGENCE AGAIN!