Topic: Government's Responsibilities
Liberty for All The promotion of liberty in society.by Analysis
(Statist)
Saturday, April 5, 2008
Liberty is a beautiful thing. Yet it is not black and white. I decided to write about what liberty is and hopefully encourage thought and discussion among reasonable bloggers about who is promoting liberty.
Libertarians obviously enjoy discussing liberty. That is hardly controversial. I like to believe they promote "liberty as is." This is the ability to reasonably do whatever you wish (besides the obvious illegal acts such as murder and stealing). It stresses the importance of absolute individualism. Yet libertarians are not the only ones who promote a form of liberty.
I like to believe statism can also promote liberty. This might sound like Orwellian double think to you, but a centralized government can protect your right. It can support "liberty as is" and let the people do what they want. Yet, statism can also promote a different form of liberty. The state can promote "liberty of opportunity." This is when the government helps the struggling population of our society to get back on its feet and succeed in our free market system. After all, it is in the government's best interest that the working poor succeed. The more money they make, the more money the government will receive through taxes.
Let us say there is a mother with a couple kids. Her husband tragically died or left her leaving the mother to support herself and the children. Misfortune strikes twice and she lost her job because the economy has been blown to pieces. Without the income of her husband or her own job she needs to find the income to feed her family and find the time to raise the children.
In one society she is to rely on charity and compassionate people. In the other, the government will set up programs to help her. In the latter, the government is giving her liberty to succeed. They are giving her opportunity to join the people in society who can sustain themselves. With the new income she has the more liberty she has to choose what foods to eat, what schools to send her children to and the time to raise her children in a more stable environment.
I am not going to pretend that a statist government WILL do this. As history has shown, governments can oppress their working poor. The point I am trying to make is that statism doesn't necessarily mean "give up your liberty." I will let you decide which liberty is better.
Did you like this article? If you did, Thumb It! 3 thumbs so far
2008 Analysis, all rights reserved.
Published: Saturday, April 5, 2008
Last modified: Saturday, April 5, 2008
The views expressed in this
article are those of Analysis only and do not represent
the views of Nolan Chart, LLC or its affiliates. Analysis 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.
Well, let’s just see how successful the government, The State, has been with its programs for the poor and underprivileged in this country. You have touted the absolute wonders of the State in its efforts to lift the downtrodden citizens from their state, yet there is a failure in your argument to provide the facts behind such programs. Statistically, there is more poverty proportional to the population then there was before the State decided it was its responsibility to provide such relief. Not only that, but you will find generational poverty on a level that should make any person with half a conscience cringe with disgust. The State not only cannot provide “liberty of opportunity” but in most cases, just as most government social workers, the programs tend to diminish the possibility of reaching for such opportunities by those who usually become trapped in the “social net” of the State.
Of course, there are some successes, but proportionally those successes are miniscule in comparison to the overwhelming masses stuck in a system that, by its very nature, inhibits the ability to reach for a goal of personal responsibility and thus opportunity.
The argument that it is in the best interest of the State to assist those in poverty into a productive position in society is blatantly lacking in all the facts of the matter, especially when it concerns the coercion of taxation. It is first and foremost lacking in the knowledge of the reasons for taxation in the first place. While it is commonly understood, and therefore believed, that taxation is necessary for government revenues, quite the contrary is true. The proof of this can be found in the publications of one of the former Governors of the Federal Reserve, Ruml Beardsley who states that under a Fiat Monetary System, particularly for a “national” government, taxation is no longer necessary for revenue purposes. Shocking isn’t it? In fact, Mr. Beardsley states that there are only three reasons for income taxes, estate taxes and gift taxes; these include Wealth Redistribution, Social Control, and to force the use of the government’s Fiat Currency by the People. It is, in other words, a huge ruse.
Now, concerning charity, did you know that there has always been far more charity dollars raised then any government distribution programs? Not only that, but most charity organizations are far more efficient and far more productive in the way in which they assist those in need then the State has ever proved itself to be.
At one time in this country, the poor and destitute had a far greater advantage then they do today, thanks primarily to the State. There were, in every State in this country, charity hospitals that provided, at absolutely no costs, medical care to those in dire straits with no questions asked. Of course, all that ended when your beloved STATE implemented so many regulations, acts, laws, licenses and penalties that, if I am not mistaken, every single charity hospital in this country was FORCED to close the doors.
Now, let’s talk about “disaster relief”, who do you think provides the best and most efficient relief to those who suffer from natural disasters? I will give you clue, it is not the STATE. I can’t remember the actual town that was destroyed in floods back in the later part of the 1800s, but in response to this horrible disaster, people from all over the nation absolutely poured massive amounts of money into the town. In fact, so much money was given to the town that it was not only able to completely rebuild ever public and private building, but it did so within a year and after it was finished there was still well over a million dollars remaining in the charity fund. There are so many more examples of the charity of the American People, thankfully the State has not totally found a way to stop the people from giving from their heart in times of need, at least not yet.
I can provide you with many more examples, many more facts and the actual statistics about poverty in this country since the “Great Society” of LBJ.
Posted By: Ivan from Oregon
Date: 2008-04-05 23:21:43
To paraphrase Grover Cleveland, "It is not the function of government to relieve individual suffering - to do that would destroy the moral fabric of the nation."
The most stupid way to solve a problem is to put a bureaucracy in charge of it. The "problem" will not be solved, but will, instead, grow into an entire industry that perpetuates itself. I submit as prime examples the "wars" on poverty and drugs. The bureaucracy has no incentive to "solve" problems, because it would then be working to put itself out of existence.
Anytime you want more of something, all you have to do is fund it.
Posted By: Gary R. Carter
Date: 2008-04-06 00:14:13
Ah yes, but in the statist style of liberty, that liberty that is to be provided to the unfortunate widow must be extorted from somebody else's earned liberty.
Isn't it strange that when you offer something for free it is in the nature of people to flock to it like flies, no matter what it is when it is free it will never be enough.
That's why socialized medicine fails and must ultimately be rationed. The facts are that before the advent of unemployment benefits, employment was statistically higher because people knew they had to find a job, they had to support their families because there was no so-called "safety net".
This doesn't mean that, at times, there were not many people unemployed, but the time that people spent unemployed was far shorter then it is when there is an "entitlement" to benefits.
It is simply human nature. To grasp the extent of that nature read Mises: Human Action, it is an amazing expose into the nature of people and their natural reactions to economy expansions and then dislocations.
I am amazed that so many Statists, whether from the left or the right, utterly fail to seek to understand or factor in the nature of humanity when they propose their so-called political solutions from The State.
As always, I will use them to do further research into the subject and learn more.
Just one question to help me though, republicae:
When you say: "did you know that there has always been far more charity dollars raised then any government distribution programs?" Are you talking about all charities or just the ones that help the poor? I was under the impression that most charity dollars are given to religious institutes like churches. Granted, some do help the poor and needy, but it is miniscule compared the other uses they have for it.
I was also under the impression that 90% of charity revenue is used for covering administrative costs. If this is true then although you may give a lot of money, only a small fraction will see the needy people.
First, I will begin with a few statements regarding the application and distribution of “government charity”. Do you know how much money has been spent in the last 40 years on the war on poverty and ancillary programs? I believe the total figure is somewhere close to 30 TRILLION DOLLARS. Most of that money has gone to the administration of the programs intended on “helping the poor”. Amazing isn’t it, that so much money has done so little.
"a government which robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend on the support of Paul."
Rothbard pretty much summed it up when he said: "Somehow, the fact that more poor people are on welfare, receiving more generous payments, does not seem to have made this country a nice place to live—not even for the poor on welfare, whose condition seems not noticeably better than when they were poor and off welfare. Something appears to have gone wrong; a liberal and compassionate social policy has bred all sorts of unanticipated and perverse consequences."
Indeed, there have been all sorts of unanticipated and perverse consequences to the effort by the government to do what only one thing has been shown to do throughout history and that is production.
The problem now is that there have been two very distinct changes in the way this country sees itself and sees its people. To the government, the people are little more than commodities; it cares little about the actual well being of the people who consent to be governed.
Indeed, in his book For A New Liberty, Rothbard was correct when he stated "the aim of social workers used to be to help [people] get off the welfare rolls as quickly as possible. But now social workers have the opposite aim: to try to get as many people on welfare as possible, to advertise and proclaim their 'rights.'" The quota system, believe it or not, is still in effect in most, if not all government programs…after all; job security is one of the most important factors for the History’s Largest Employer in the world. The State eventually becomes a Self-Perpetuating System; benefiting The State becomes the determining factor in its own operations and expansion.
Ludwig von Mises stated in an essay: Facts About the Industrial Revolution: "The laissez-faire ideology and its offshoot, the 'Industrial Revolution,' blasted the ideological and institutional barriers to progress and welfare. They demolished the social order in which a constantly increasing number of people were doomed to abject need and destitution. The processing trades of earlier ages had almost exclusively catered to the wants of the well to do.... But now a different principle came into operation.... Cheap things for the many was the objective of the factory system.”
Now, because of certain government programs and incentives to corporations to move their production facilities overseas, instead of mass production, we have a growing system where State welfare on all levels from poverty to even corporate welfare involves very specific attempts to redistribute existing property and capital instead of allowing markets to be free of government influence and coercion to increase wealth and capital that can be both reapplied into the production of goods and services to assist in the market increase of the standard of living for all the people of this country. I mean there are literally thousands of programs and agencies within this government, many of which are completely redundant and the majority of which are completely useless and ineffective based upon the stated goals of their creation and purpose.
The only way to create, and therefore spread wealth is through production. It has been proven, time and time again throughout history that The State, whether it was Ancient Rome or Modern Day America, can not redistribute the wealth without eventually facing the serious consequences of economic and social decay.
If you look at The State, particularly the government of these United States, then you will see something amazing and that is uncontrolled, unbridled exponential growth. Yet for all the spending of these borrowed funds in a myriad of programs, agencies and causes, there has been devolution within our society and not an evolution to a higher, more sustainable life-style among the people.
I haven’t worked on the actual figures for 2008, but the sums from 2006 will or should suffice to show that to equate funds spent with actual results is far from efficient for any reason. Federal spending alone in fiscal year 2006 was over $2.7 trillion, which means the federal government spent $7.4 billion a day or $5.1 million in every minute of the year. This is 815 times the level of federal spending in 1930. Now, I know that this fiscal year the Bush Budget is something in the order of $5 Trillion, not counting the offline budget items of the war efforts in Iraq, Afghanistan and that non-descript “war on terror”. Remember, Peace is the Enemy of the State, it doesn't allow for the perpetuation of the ruse that it is absolutely necessary. The waste of war keeps it healthy and well-fed.
Is it any wonder why this country became the envy of the world back in the early 1800s? When sound monetary policies and limited government allowed the expansion of economic freedom the wealth in this country expanded 5 fold. When you study and therefore think in economic terms, you begin to realize that wealth is not a given, nor is it merely an accident of history that just happened. It is a direct result of human creativity in a very free economic environment of personal Liberty and with that Liberty, the pressure of personal responsibility.
At one time in this country we had the freedom to own, to make voluntary contracts without any government interference, to save because our money was actual property and belonged to us instead of being a government issued IOU that could be tracked, regulated and controlled. At one time our investments were also real property with allodial title and we were free to associate based on our own decisions and desires in order to create voluntary contracts to increase our ability to produce and trade without the oversight and interference of The State…and what followed was prosperity. It was not the prosperity that we have today that is based solely upon positioning and influences, but it was the type of prosperity that came from a market that regulated and maintained itself without centralized economic controls or a fiat currency that drained away our wealth and the fruit of our labors faster than we could produce it.
Now there are so many avenues that need to be explored here, not only about private charity, but also about how the government thwarts its own efforts on just about every level in just about every quarter of our society. The effective rate of savings in this country is now at or below zero and why not, the so-called money has no inherent value and each Federal Reserve Note represents nothing more than a legal notification of a debt obligation, in other words an IOU. Now since each one of those Federal Reserve Notes must be borrowed into existence, the underlying debt obligation is immense and multiplying exponentially to the point that it is irreversible. In fact, under a Fiat System the debt can never be paid down because then the economy will suffer contraction and dislocation from the withdrawal of currency from circulation. You see, in a fiat system each time a debt is paid off and equal amount of “money” or Federal Reserve Notes are taken out of circulation until it is borrowed again by either individuals, corporations or in many cases our own government. The problem that we are now facing is that since every Fiat Monetary System fails from insoluble debt, everything, including all government programs and operations dependent on Fiat Currency, all investments, 401ks, insurances, etc. will also meet the same fate as the currency itself. We are now rapidly approaching the maximum possible life-span of the Fiat Monetary System...hold on to your hats!
Now the government has, through the years, has assisted in taking away the primary foundation of all charity in this country and that is the Family. Programs like TANF ("Temporary Assistance for Needy Families"), Social Security, and unemployment insurance take away our responsibility to the family and place it in the hands of the state. They crowd out our sense of moral responsibility. The family was integral to caring for individuals throughout history and the family did a very good job. Think about this: How many people over the age of 65 died from starvation prior to the advent of Social Security in the 1930s? I dare say that you will find that the numbers are not only extremely low, but extraordinarily low; the reason was that families took care of their own. In fact, the ground-rock principle in this country was that of the family, having children was, in a very real sense: social security. Now this one principle created a host of incentives, the least of which was to produce and maintain a healthy family and instill solid principles of responsibility in those children.
Perhaps inadvertently, but the government in an attempt to solve every problem, to smooth over every mistake in life and to take responsibility for ones life off a person’s shoulder and place it in the hands of The State has created a whole host of other incentives that are not only counterproductive, but in many cases extremely harmful to individuals, families and to society as a whole, because government rarely takes human nature or the history of such government interventions into account. The government loves a good idea, if it sounds good, it is politically expedient and can get votes…they are ready make promises and to propose legislation.
As I stated before, the levels of unemployment in this country was far less when there was no unemployment insurance. At one time, before unemployment insurance actually undermined a portion of the work ethic in the population, people found work and found it quickly, even in the Great Depression with high levels of unemployment, people were willing to move to find work. If they heard about a job in another city, then they packed up despite the hardship and when to that city to get a job. It is however very different now, with the “safety-net” of unemployment insurance and welfare, most people tend to ride it out for as long as they can, they stay put and do as little as possible to find a job until they have no other choice when their “benefits” expire. Did millions die from starvation without welfare or unemployment benefits? Absolutely not, read about the Great Depression; sure there was no doubt it was tough, but the fact is that government subsidizes have not improved the lives of people on those subsidizes, it has only changed the way and manner in which people view personal responsibility.
Now, let’s take a short look at private charities. While there are instances where abuses have taken place with the charity of people, for the most part that is the exception to the rule. For instance, did you know that almost every single dollar collected by The Salvation Army goes to the poor, and there are numerous other examples of large charities like The Salvation Army, but there are also numerous examples of smaller charities, all of which administer their organizations so efficiently that their administration costs are held to a minimum.
Now, consider this fact, contrary to the way that private charities work, very little of the wealth appropriated [stolen] by the Welfare State actually reaches the needy, going instead toward the funding of a metastasizing bureaucracy. The typical Western social democracy [including the good ole U.S. of A.] now spends on the federal, state, and local levels, approximately 50 percent of the national income. Most of the booty goes for administration.
I have a feeling that the more you research the more you will change your views of The State.
And here, really, you have the two branches of statism displayed for all to see.
I am an elitist, neo-aristocratic statist, who believes in "personal liberty" (i.e, no income taxes, no pork, no welfare(, local control of local issues) and little public aid, but strong government in the Public Sphere (stronger government control of schools, corporations, the economy, etc). My brand of statism doesn't belive much in welfare because it caters to the Masses. It's a waste of money much better spent on educating the top 10% of this country.
Analysis, on the other hand, is a more social equality statist. Some of you will call that doublespeak for "socialist", and you may have a point, but socialism also advocates control by the people, and I'm not sure where Analysis stands on that. Analysis is a strong believer in the government to do "good works" if properly led.
Both Analysis and I agree that any form of corruption in government is simply untentable. I disagree with him on certian socialistic elements and I would expect he disagrees wtih me on my disdain for the common touch.
I'm sort of hoping a hardcore corporate-control statist (or as you call them,fascists) shows up on the site to get all three viewpoints represented.
An interesting article that casts the decision in the light of "but think of all the people you can help". After years in government service, I'm not seeing the help being done...but I'm not in the best position to see it, truthfully.
Posted By: patrick henry
Date: 2008-04-07 11:33:28
I often like how statist degrade Jefferson for his dichatomy of views, yet they often offer the same dichatomies. Most notably that the people are stupid ignorant mobs, yet they propose that we should all give up our liberty to those same stupid ignorant elites. To infer a Natural Aristocracy or any Aristocracy is in direct conflict with the ideals of the Republic.
As a tactical medic for over the last 2 decades (three years in the middle east and south west asia)I have seen the dichatomy of reality first hand. I have seen the absolute best and worst of man at the same time. When a strong man faces adversity he almost always rises to the challenge of greatness. I believe in the best of man even when faced with the worst of man. This should be our goal to rise to greatness, not stiffle it so the slow can catch up. Man will only do this when free and faced with challenges. When man has no challenges nor need to change he will remain idle.
"My brand of statism doesn't belive much in welfare because it caters to the Masses. It's a waste of money much better spent on educating the top 10% of this country." excuse me while I puke. " Iam an elitsit" and you say that LIBERTARIANS are self absorbed and arrogant, again more doublespeak. At least you are direct enough to assimilate yourself out of the stupid masses, while the rest of us try and get the masses to assimilate to FREEDOM and personal RESPONSIBILITY, way to go, thanks for doin your part.
I am not a very religious man but I do know some quaint ltiile passages. I seem to remember reading something about "Hey brother you got a speck of wood in your eye while I have a plank sticking out of mine" (paraphrased). In other words when your house is out of order it is up to you to fix your house before you try and fix mine. I will help you fix your house if you ask, but you have to fix it. "Give a man a fish he eats for a night, teach a man to fish and he eats for life".
REPUBLICanism equates to FREEDOM for all, staism equates to the forced will of the few on the many.
Posted By: patrick henry
Date: 2008-04-07 12:20:07
LIBERTY is black and white, I equate it (being free) to pregnancy either you are or your arent.
What most fail to realize is that LIBERTY is all or nothing, being kinda free is like being kinda pregnant, no state exists no matter how hard you wish it.
If you look at the chart of LIBERTY and TYRANNY you will find that there are direct and inverse relations at play.
As LIBERTY increases so does RESPONSIBILITY. So at the very top, maximum LIBERTY maximum RESPONSIBILITY, zero tyranny and dependance.
As LIBERTY starts to decrease, Tyrranny has an inverse (equal and opposite) reaction and increases.
As tyranny increases and LIBERTY decreases so does the need for personal RESPONSIBILITY (decrease).
A decrease in personal responsibility inversely leads to an increase in dependancy.
Dependancy is the tool of tyrannts all packaged nice and neat with a bunch of altruistic feel good propaganda. (like throwin bread to bribe the masses)
Very interesting! Let me ask you some very common sense questions, in addition to more technical ones concerning such government controls.
Perhaps the most significant quote of yours is: “I am an elitist, neo-aristocratic Statist”; what qualifications do you have within your heritage or current social status to provides you with the ability to make such a statement? I mean if you, as you say, are an “Elitist” then there are very particular qualities that display such characteristics in a person making such claims, it is not just a inward character, but one that affects your life and the lives of others around you. Additionally, in order to be, in reality rather than ideology, a “neo-aristocrat” there would have to be some degree of heritage that you can lay claim to that would give or bestow an entitlement to a degree of aristocracy, otherwise it is little more than pretense, or at the very least a mere posed affectation, is it not?
Now on to the other issues that you raised concerning your particular brand of supposed “Statism”. It is virtually impossible, actually it is impossible, for a State Mechanism to operate under the conditions which you advocate. The State, in order to maintain social control and its own viability must rely upon the production of the population in order to provide both sustenance and operational facility. The mechanism of The State must, by its own nature, grow through siphoning off of the productivity of the population since The State is not, nor can it be, a self-perpetuating system without such production of revenues of some sort. Even a Republic must rely upon a certain degree of revenue raising measures, whether those measures are through tariffs, corporate income taxes or proportional taxation.
So, in your system how will you accomplish this? What will be the mechanism for your idea of The State?
Now, you say that your particular brand of “Statism” would primarily focus on three seemingly distinct and important areas. How to you propose imposing more control by The State in the school systems? What do you see that would be any different by what you are proposing then what The State is and has already imposed on our school system? I mean certainly you have a plan since you have built a particular political ideology around such proposals.
In corporations, the same questions apply?
Now, in the economy, which by its nature must include the effects of your proposals on corporations as well, your proposals would have to take numerous connective issues into consideration since the economy deals with more than simply regulatory processes, but it also heavily depends upon human nature and reactions.
You proposals would demand an extremely novel approach to all three areas, since the display of the strength of The State within three specific areas that have proved to wrecked each sector by the intervention of The State.
Schools, Corporations and the Economy have seen a massive degree of government controls, regulations and interventions over the last 97 years and all of which suffer as a consequence. How would your proposals be any different then what we have witnessed thus far? Surely, you must already have a plan due to the fact that you have built a particular form of what you consider “Statism” in your mind.
Corporations, with cross-influences from and in conjunction with the government have fallen into such a state of corruption from without and within that they seek other less restrained regions in which to operate. Many recent regulations have caused more and more corporations to flee from the public securities markets and many more to avoid entering such markets. When such interventions happen there is a corresponding effect on employment which filters throughout the economy. How will you avoid such dislocations by even more government intervention?
The economy is indeed a marvel to behold, since it is perhaps one of the most managed and regulated economies in the world. The scope of government involvement, through the quasi-government agency of the Federal Reserve has manipulated the economy in ways that would astound even the most adamant “Statist” or at least it should.
So, please enlighten us? Tell us what basis do you have for your economic theory, indeed tell us what that economic theory is and how it explains a system of economic health and the promotion of prosperity?
Perhaps the most significant quote of yours is: “I am an elitist, neo-aristocratic Statist”; what qualifications do you have within your heritage or current social status to provides you with the ability to make such a statement? I mean if you, as you say, are an “Elitist” then there are very particular qualities that display such characteristics in a person making such claims, it is not just a inward character, but one that affects your life and the lives of others around you. Additionally, in order to be, in reality rather than ideology, a “neo-aristocrat” there would have to be some degree of heritage that you can lay claim to that would give or bestow an entitlement to a degree of aristocracy, otherwise it is little more than pretense, or at the very least a mere posed affectation, is it not?
I have a very high IQ (157), I was educated at Harvard, my father retired fairly wealthy, I am fairly wealthy. On my fathers side I am realted to two comtes, a Duke, and very distantly related to the Bourbon line of France. On my mother's side, I'm very very distantly realted to the Roosevelts and a cousin of the Kempers, who had a worldwide financial and insurance empire. I've run two businesses and sold one for a large sum of money, I live in an expensive house and I make six figure money.
I do not think it is an affectation. When I was younger I despised it. Being older now, and perhaps wiser (or more foolish?) I embrace it.
Now on to the other issues that you raised concerning your particular brand of supposed “Statism”. It is virtually impossible, actually it is impossible, for a State Mechanism to operate under the conditions which you advocate. The State, in order to maintain social control and its own viability must rely upon the production of the population in order to provide both sustenance and operational facility. The mechanism of The State must, by its own nature, grow through siphoning off of the productivity of the population since The State is not, nor can it be, a self-perpetuating system without such production of revenues of some sort. Even a Republic must rely upon a certain degree of revenue raising measures, whether those measures are through tariffs, corporate income taxes or proportional taxation.
I dislike INCOME taxes, and since I worked for the IRS I know a LOT more about them , and the mechanism, than you do. I would support sales taxes, excise taxes, even corporate profit taxes. But taxing income is not only stupidly unfair to the poor but isn't even HANDLED properly by the IRS.
I'm fully aware the administration -- ANY adminstration of ANYTHING -- is always a money losing deal. That doesn't nullify the need for such a thing.
Now, you say that your particular brand of “Statism” would primarily focus on three seemingly distinct and important areas. How to you propose imposing more control by The State in the school systems? What do you see that would be any different by what you are proposing then what The State is and has already imposed on our school system? I mean certainly you have a plan since you have built a particular political ideology around such proposals.
Schooling should be provided as a mandated neutral balanced set of criteria. Unions should be abolished , teachers who fail to produce a quality level of education should be barred from teaching until they recertify and serve as an assistant to a qualified teacher. Schools must educate core principles -- hard math, science, the ARTS -- and not this disgusting multicutural pap about gays and lesbians and the Indians shoved down throats. (Leave that to college). I think property taxes as they stand should be removed and a straight fee based on acreage apply. Lotteries should be enacted, as well as the sale of local bonds and allowing cities to participate in bond funds and the stock market. The federal government should provide a certain level of funding and the city / local district make up the rest.
Standaratized testing would be spot level and be focused on assessing education levels, not the student. The focus would be producing good communicators, analytical thinkers, scientists, engineers, artists, writers, and vocational workers.
Currently, the State is mandating a pile of crap , pushed by a useless test, and bullied by an abusive union, the only alternatives to which are voucher schools which recently have been shown to overstate enrollment to make more money, and Catholic Schools, which have limited avaialblity to poor people. I think we need to fix what is being messed up.
In corporations, the same questions apply?
Corporations need to be both regulated AND protected by the government. Outsourcing must be stopped, but taxes on corporations must be lowered. Malfeasance should beceome a criminal proces. Shareholders rights come SECOND to the public trust -- a company that pollutes / defrauds customers should be punished even if it made money for it's shareholders.
Less crap like Sarbanes Oxley, which is a boondoggle, and more low-cost watchdog groups would help. More working WITH the government, less unions, and less stupid minimum wage crap.
Now, in the economy, which by its nature must include the effects of your proposals on corporations as well, your proposals would have to take numerous connective issues into consideration since the economy deals with more than simply regulatory processes, but it also heavily depends upon human nature and reactions.
You proposals would demand an extremely novel approach to all three areas, since the display of the strength of The State within three specific areas that have proved to wrecked each sector by the intervention of The State.
Schools, Corporations and the Economy have seen a massive degree of government controls, regulations and interventions over the last 97 years and all of which suffer as a consequence. How would your proposals be any different then what we have witnessed thus far? Surely, you must already have a plan due to the fact that you have built a particular form of what you consider “Statism” in your mind.
Big Government is just bit, that doesn't make it statist. Removing the pork, the lobbying, and the idea that corporations are more important than people would be a start. IF we can't have good education, and IF we can't have honest companies and a solid economy, HOW can we ever hope to build anything else?
The fact that I think a strong government could produce these is NOT to say I think a strong government HAS done so yet. That's a weakness. One I freely admit.
Corporations, with cross-influences from and in conjunction with the government have fallen into such a state of corruption from without and within that they seek other less restrained regions in which to operate. Many recent regulations have caused more and more corporations to flee from the public securities markets and many more to avoid entering such markets. When such interventions happen there is a corresponding effect on employment which filters throughout the economy. How will you avoid such dislocations by even more government intervention?
Corporations are corrupt because the government that supposedly regulates them is corrupt. Now that a few people have started demanding answers, the resulting corporate mix is so flawed that they can't stand the light of day and flee.
Any company that does business in America should be happy to pay a tax on profits, and have clear and open records, and provide our citizens jobs. The government is the servant of the public population, not corporations, and the government as it now exists has forgotten that.
The economy is indeed a marvel to behold, since it is perhaps one of the most managed and regulated economies in the world.
HA. You, my friend, have not seen France. Or , God help us, Germany.
The scope of government involvement, through the quasi-government agency of the Federal Reserve has manipulated the economy in ways that would astound even the most adamant “Statist” or at least it should.
Federal Reserve should be a bank and nothing more. Playing with the fiscal values is always asking for trouble. I think the original power of the "Bank of the US" was much better than the overweight, unelected abomination we have now, and if needs to be torn down and replaced with something more accountable.
So, please enlighten us? Tell us what basis do you have for your economic theory, indeed tell us what that economic theory is and how it explains a system of economic health and the promotion of prosperity?
It's based on the same principles as yours: you can't be sure it won't work until you try.
If I were running for president, I'd have a 25 page blueprint for change ready to go and a slick speech. I'm just some guy.
Posted By: patrick henry
Date: 2008-04-09 09:57:48
So if all the people are idiots, how did you manage a high IQ?
How did you get through HARVARD?
Did the state start your businesses?
Did the state provide you with a big house?
How about a six figure income?
NO you were born with the IQ and others have been too so you hold no dynasty in intelligence, even though your score is much higher than my proletariot self, I rank in the freak, kooky freedom loving range of 130 (I guess I am religated to the outer circle)
HARVARD! Impressed did your aristocrat roots get you those grades or did you earn them?
Did the government or the state help you start your business? Maybe so you once stated you were a black man even though you are heralded to many prominant white aristocratic families. I started two businesses in my life and got nothing for help even from the SBA because I was a WHITE MALE, but that is a different story.
Is Bear and Stearns paying for your big house for you?
The hypocracy kills me. All people but me are idiots and no one can make their own way even though I did, the government should serve the people, but who cares what the people think or want as they dont matter, only the State.
And to think Jefferson was confused in his own dillusional intellecutal dichatomies of thought. Interesting!
Actually, your ideas are similar to my own concerning education however, there is one huge difference and that is I don’t think there is either the expertise nor the wisdom within any government agency to administer the necessary elements within the educational sector to exact a successful outcome. Such success has been proven to be far more effective through a privatization process, which is based on decentralization. Even public education, when it was localized, and financed more through State revenues that were always spent far more judiciously, tended to lend itself to both individual and collective results that were far better then have been since the growth of government intervention and centralization. To depend on a solution from the government for education, or anything else, especially since you have already admitted that the government itself needs a massive overhaul itself, is an example of mere naïveté and ignores many fundamental problems that cannot be solved by the government, especially as expressed in its present form.
Concerning Corporations, much of the current regulatory process that directly and indirectly effects the operations, functions, future expectations [especially the time/value of money] drains numerous levels of resources and places demands on Corporations that would otherwise not be present except for the stress placed upon them by the government and its regulatory processes.
Let’s consider, for a moment, the effects of inflationary pressures, while it is impossible to exclude the effect of inflation on individual consumers, at the moment let us limit our present concern to that of Corporations suffering from the effects of monetary inflation. What happens to corporate profits based on projections when inflation is a factor in the monetary system? I’m quite sure that you must know this since, after all, you do have a substantial IQ, which by the way, is no indicator of effective intelligence.
What happens when a Corporation calculates both expenses and profits under pressure from inflation? Even minor percentages can have a massive effect on the projections of a company, creating percentages of profits that are illusionary; additionally it has the effect of distorting economic calculations and the actual costs of capital improvements. The effects of inflation effectively suspends the ability of the market to filter out the inefficient and mismanaged while it also filters out those companies which actually are efficient and should be rewarded from such efficiencies in operations and management. There is a distortion in the entire corporate market place and this distortion tends to filter through the entire economy, especially government reports. I could easily delve into the effects on the consumer and the consumer market, however space here is limited and volumes could and have been devoted to the subject.
Sarbanes-Oxley is indeed a boondoggle that has proven detrimental to good Corporate management and growth. History has proven your premise wrong when it comes to Government/Corporate interactions, especially when the government tends, in just about every case; overstep the boundaries of what it considers oversight. The PCAOB, which was effectively created and empowered by Sarbanes Oxley, spends more than half its budget and over 500 employees just on inspections. As with all government interventions, this bill provides for no incentives for corrective action by a Corporation. In fact, due to the nature of government, the PCAOB has no incentives itself to control costs or prevent possible abuses in its ability and scope of inspections.
If you look at the last, what 70 or so years, you will see that no matter what the government has done, there are always, without exception, unintended consequences to its actions. Since that is the case, the government seems to be working solely upon a “hunch” that the legislation being placed into law and effect will be successful in its professed goals. Anyone, with half a mind, should be able to see that the more government intervenes into the market the more the market becomes distorted and thus the economy suffers from some degree of dislocation based upon those unintended or at times, intended consequences.
You mentioned the “minimum wage”, what an interesting subject. There is but one real reason behind the “minimum wage” and that is the debasement of the currency. The highest “minimum wage” in the country is currently found in the State of Massachusetts at $8.00 per hour, however the vast majority of “minimum wage” earners find their effect rate at $5.85. For example sake let us take the purchasing power of 1970 and compare the actual average “minimum wage” with the 1970 purchasing power of the dollar. A person making $5.85 “minimum wage” per hour today has the effective hourly wage of $1.07 in 1970 purchasing power. Today, a person on “minimum wage” working 40 hours per week has the effective purchasing power of $42.80 in 1970 dollars. As you can see, that is meager at best, and should confront anyone who has placed their faith in either the government or the Federal Reserve to “regulate” economy and monetary policy. It totally ignores basic principles of economic prosperity and market viscosity.
To take this inflationary example to the next level, let us say a person earns an annual salary of say $250,000.00; just in terms of 1970 purchasing power that person has an effective income of only $45,821.07 annual salary. What has happened to the wealth of our labor and our creativity? It has been effectively siphoned off from our remuneration making our labor considerably cheaper through the decades. Now consider the fact that today over $22,0000.00 are required to make a 1913 purchase of $1,000.00. This means that if you take the same $250,000.00 present salary and factor inflationary pressure from 1913, then that same $250,000.00 has a 1913 effective purchase power of, get this: $11,691.46 annual income. Our wealth and the ability to create it has been effectively “stolen” from all of us by none other than The State and their cohorts in the Federal Reserve.
Actually, I have lived in several countries over the last 60 some-odd years and experienced/studied first hand economic models, foreign banking policies and various economic dislocations. I can say with confidence, therefore, that our economy is the most regulated and managed among them. I am of this opinion based on several factors, the least of which is the functionary interventions of the Federal Reserve and the history of its policies.
Now, concerning the pretense of your character. Your IQ “score” is of no consequence since I judge intelligence based upon the content of a person’s ability to express himself in a way that is both logical, and a certain rationale based upon the facts he presents in relationship to the subject at hand. Also, while my own IQ is substantial I have no need or inclination to reveal a numerical score, which I find is little more than a need for self-aggrandizement in order to cover a potential issue with self-esteem. I too could provide you will a very impressive pedigree, as can many that too are a useless mental exercise that tends to evidence some deficiency in character and self-esteem more than anything of note or social efficacy. Aristocracy is little more than an ancient social construct that fulfilled a particular constructive need at one time, but is now little more a conversational novelty to be expressed at cocktail parties. Your youth still shines though, both the expressions of your character and, indeed, the construction of your articles and logic.
Lastly, you provided us with no real recommendations regarding the advantages of your particular Brand of Statism. In fact, you provided no rebuttal of substance that could offer us a sense that you could propose a solution to many of the issues raised. Now, can you give us both theoretical and exemplary solutions regarding economic, educational and businesses in their correlation to government intervention?
I am afraid I see no reason to waste a good hour doing so , to be honest. The very core of Libertarian thought is that only the individual matters, and that any form of outside influence or control is abhorrent.
Any fool can, of course, claim that their way is "better". The difference is that the philosophical and intellectual basis that you operate from does not care to listen to anything that does not agree with what it says. It talks of the side effects of government but never of the side effects of moving to your unproven, imaginary and wishfully naive system would entail. It talks of the hypocracy and blindness and stupidity of the masses on the one hand while claiming to be their champion on the other. You speak very smoothly and blithely about the "root causes", which can be laid easily at the feet of the Federal Reserve. But you offer no solutions -- your party offers no solutions -- no one of any influence, power, or consequence outside your own circle of incestuously reinforcing, mutually appreciative fellow "sons of Liberty" pays you much mind at all.
Yet I am expected to justify a far reaching program of what changes I would make an how they would affect society, including all the unintented consequences and what ifs? Spare me the supercilous tone, old man, and please, set aside -- just for a moment -- your Libertarian beliefs and your Austrian School and your Grasp of Liberty.
I deal in reality. Reality is that most people don't care, never have cared, and never will. Most people aren't highly educated and highly traveled. Most people don't want to understand market timing, or fiscal policy, or the ramifications of international trade agreements. Most people want, very simply, to be able to focus on living their lives and to know that "someone' is in charge.
Statists and Libertarians are alike in their disdain for living under authority. The key thing is that Statists believe they are best suited to EXERCISE such authority , for the good of those lesser capable. Libertarians believe they are best suited to DISMANTLE such authority to protect those who are too shortsighted to see the dangers.
The reality is that, ultimately, Libertarian thought will lose. Communication and travel makes the idea of the nation more and more outlandish. A one world, one race government, where no one is American or European or Spanish or Chinese, no one is white or black or hispanic. There will just be humanity Undivided. And the government we have at that point will not , I am sorry to say, be one that you envsion.
No, I don't think I'll spend a lot of time racking my brains trying to explain what I believe to you, becuase you aren't interested in thinking about it, or broadening your scope. Libertarians aren't interested in achieving anything, you want to educate the masses as to what you believe.
As for my heritage? I achieved a lot of what I have accomplished by drawing on aquantainces and distant relatives. My connections, PH, are what allowed me to thrive, and working for the government and providing services for the government, allow me to make my money today. The State gives me opportunities that, in your world, I simply wouldn't have.
I don't particularly want the socialist version of a handout, and I have nothing but disdain for the very idea of Affirmative Action. Republicae is very right in his idea of unintended consequences. But since no Libertarian ever thinks of the unintended consquences, or the costs, or the losses, or the people out of work and the lives destroyed by their desire for some dream-existance , then I don't see why I should care about the uninteneded consequences of the State to those who are too stubborn to take advantage of what it does offer.
The State, today, is not perfect by a long shot. Neither is what Libertarians propose. But why should I waste time going into how to change it and improve it and make it stronger to a group of people who want it destroyed?
Analysis, take careful note of how these people think and react. I am ... pretty tired of this place.
In other words Logical, you really have nothing of substance to offer us by way of a coherent, substantial rebuttal nor does it appear that you can offer a reasonable, logical explanation of your position based upon factual information, historical content or any theory that can substantiate your positions. Therefore, you are excusing yourself and any obligation that your political philosophy requires for a defense of those ideologies.
The fact is that, from all appearances and the content of your postings, that you are not really a "Statist" in the classical term nor do you adhere to any comprehensible ideology that can offer real solutions to real issues faced in this country.
You have made certain distinct assertions based upon several social constructs and presumptions, yet you cannot provide evidence or proofs to support any of them. You seem eager to place a degree of blame upon what you preceive as "how these people think and react" however, in such a statement you appear to exclude your own reactions and thinking processes from the conversation; of course, that is little more than a dodge that relieves you of pursuing further argument.
It is, of course, understandable when your argument has little substance on which to make a case.
LP:
Additionally, my experience and indeed my research has taken into account the potential for unintended consequences, both on social and economic fronts. I dare say, except for the most shallow of persons who lay claim to the title of "libertarian", most people who embrace the political and social philosohpy of libertarianism tend to be highly aware of such consequences, most indeed are very intelligent and well read. In contrast, the vast majority of "statist" that I have encountered over the years tend to follow a very 2 dimensional logic and adhere to a far more static view of life and the possibility of alternate solutions to the issues. It is that inability, that static view of life that tends to see their world from the most narrow of perspectives.
Posted By: patrick henry
Date: 2008-04-10 11:19:36
In a state, who decides who is best suited to exercise such authority and who is the lessor capable, but those who wish to be at the helm of such authority?
I can agree that some people, as Nock said, are uneducable ( to higher levels of intellect). These people make up the lower unskilled working class usually and are still needed members of society
. But if there is such an animal as a Natural Aristocracy, those enlightened few, why then do they not exercise their superior intellect and try and educate the masses instead of ruling them.
Adams stated, "Wisdom and knowledge as well as virtue, diffused generally among the body of the people, being necessary for the preservation of rights and liberties"
Teaching someone to rule themselves is always harder to achieve than ruling them by force. It would seem to me the true benevolent intellectuals would endeavor to educate the masses (which is harder) then rule them by force which takes no true thought?
Jefferson stated, "Pride of character, laudible ambition, and moral disposition are innate correctiveness of the indescretions of the lively age; and when strengthened by habitual appeal and exercise, have a happier effect on future character than the degrading motive of fear. Hardening them by disgrace, to corporal punishments, and servile humiliations cannot be a process for producing erect character" Better to try and teach virtue through education and societal reinforcement than oppress a free people to the states will.
I think a comment made to you by Republicae last week hits the very nature of the arguement for LIBERTARIAN ideals. We have practiced statism since John Q. Adams, with a few very short breaks. We are trying to argue that 184 years of staism got us this mess. We contend that we should try the Republican experience now that statism has been proven not to work concommonately with LIBERTY or within the frame work of the US Constitution.
Most realist LIBERTARIANS, dont disdain authority as we understand that as the social contract. But to say that Statist disdain living under authority has me a little confused (pardon my simpletoness). If living in a state means living under absoulte authority of the state regardless of your individual freedom, how can you disdain the system you advocate. You also state that LIBERTARIANS want to dismantle such authority is rediculous. Our arguement is that we are not following the law, it is the statist tha wants to dismantle the law, the statist in America is the anarchist, as they want none of the current government and will disregard the very constitution that makes up our laws.
LIBERTARIANS= Follow the Constitution.
Statist= Follow the what? Screw that I am smarter than that and know whats best for the dumb stupid masses.
The ignorant can easily be manipulated by lies and deceit, usually with an altruistic or security reason behind it. It is much harder for the state to subjigate the intellectuals.
Subjigation of a free intelligent people always leads to revolution, so wouldnt it be better for the state to acknowledge human nature and strive to bring the uneducable to the side of freedom vs. servitude.
I personally think it is a quiters mentality to give up on all people, except yourself, as morass. It is much easier to send a cop to enforce the states will than it is to change the state to the peoples will. Simply stated; easy wrong vs. hard right.
Alot of us dont have connections in life, yet it is up to us to make our own connections, our own way in life. I was raised by my grandparents, one of which was the financial VP of a very large food distrobution company, and my grandmother the first woman realestate broker in the Commonwealth of VA. This earned me nothing in life as it was their life, their work, their connections and not mine.
In life here you either earn it or it is given to you. To earn it makes it yours and yours alone (unless you choose to share your accomplishments) making it unalienable, to have it given to you cheapens the accomplishment as the success had to come from somewhere or someone else and gives others the ability to take it away. If someone gives you the proverbail leg up in life great. Wonderful! But recognize that people are capable of making it on their own. Shouldnt the goal be improving the human experience and not oppressing it?
Madison stated that " Knowledge will forever govern ignorance: And a people who mean to be their own governors, must arm themselves with the power which knowledge gives" Jefferson and Madison knew that in order for the state to rule the masses they had to be ignorant, so inorder to avoid the tyranny of the state the individual had to be educated.
As far as LIBERTARIANS going nowhere, that is left up to the sands of time to determine, but I would bet on the spirit and the intellect of those that are free to rise up and change things over the ability of those apathetic masses that are happy with the staus quo to effect tangible change.
Libertarian thought does offer solutions, its called the Constituion. Remeber the concept of Keep It Simple Stupid? LIFE, LIBERTY, and PROPERTY (oh that hurt my brain with all those complexities).
Want to comment on this
article? Leave your comment here. Your email address is
required to track your comment. However, we will neither
publish your email address nor distribute it to other
organizations or persons. The only reason we might use
it would be if we needed to contact you regarding your
comment. All comments are subject to our
terms of use policy.
2008 Analysis, all rights reserved.