Glenn Greenwald has a wonderful post from May 2010 concerning opinions labeled “crazy” and subsequently marginalized in political circles. A good summary of Ron Paul’s opinions and quirks, but more importantly, an analysis on why “intense, fixated mockery of marginalized, powerless people has the benefit of distracting attention from the actions of those who are actually in power. “
One of the favorite self-affirming pastimes of establishment Democratic and Republican pundits is to mock anyone and everyone outside of the two-party mainstream as crazy, sick lunatics. That serves to bolster the two political parties as the sole arbiters of what is acceptable: anyone who meaningfully deviates from their orthodoxies are, by definition, fringe, crazy losers. Ron Paul is one of those most frequently smeared in that fashion, and even someone like Howard Dean, during those times when he stepped outside of mainstream orthodoxy, was similarly smeared as literally insane, and still is.
Last night, the crazy, hateful, fringe lunatic Ron Paul voted to repeal the Clinton-era Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell policy (or, more accurately, he voted to allow the Pentagon to repeal it if and when it chooses to) – while 26 normal, sane, upstanding, mainstream House Democrats voted to retain that bigoted policy. Paul explained today that he changed his mind on DADT because gay constituents of his who were forced out of the military convinced him of the policy’s wrongness — how insane and evil he is!
In 2003, the crank lunatic-monster Ron Paul vehemently opposed the invasion of Iraq, while countless sane, normal, upstanding, good-hearted Democrats — including the current Vice President, Secretary of State, Secretary of Defense, Senate Majority Leader, House Majority Leader, the 2004 Democratic presidential nominee, and many of the progressivepundits who love to scorn Ron Paul as insane — supported the monstrous attack on that country.
In 2008, the sicko Ron Paul opposed the legalization of Bush’s warrantless eavesdropping program and the granting of retroactive immunity to lawbreaking telecoms, while the DemocraticCongress — led by the current U.S. President, his Chief of Staff, the Senate Majority Leader, the Speaker of the House, and the House Majority Leader — overwhelmingly voted it into law. Paul, who apparently belongs in a mental hospital, vehemently condemned America’s use of torture from the start, while many leading Democrats were silent (or even supportive), and mainstream, sane Progressive Newsweek and MSNBC pundit Jonathan Alter was explicitly calling for its use. Compare Paul’s February, 2010 emphatic condemnation of America’s denial of habeas corpus, lawless detentions and presidential assassinations of U.S. citizens to what the current U.S. Government is doing.
The crazed monster Ron Paul also opposes the war in Afghanistan, while the Democratic Congress continues to fund it and even to reject timetables for withdrawal. Paul is an outspoken opponent of the nation’s insane, devastating and oppressive “drug war” — that imprisons hundreds of thousands of Americans with a vastly disparate racial impact and continuously incinerates both billions of dollars and an array of basic liberties — while virtually no Democrat dares speak against it. Paul crusades against limitless corporate control of government and extreme Federal Reserve secrecy, while the current administration works to preserve it. He was warning of the collapsing dollar and housing bubble at a time when our Nation’s Bipartisan Cast of Geniuses were oblivious. In sum, behold the embodiment of clinical, certifiable insanity: anti-DADT, anti-Iraq-war, anti-illegal-domestic-surveillance, anti-drug-war, anti-secrecy, anti-corporatism, anti-telecom-immunity, anti-war-in-Afghanistan.
There’s no question that Ron Paul holds some views that are wrong, irrational and even odious. But that’s true for just about every single politician in both major political parties (just look at the condition of the U.S. if you doubt that; and note how Ron Paul’s anti-abortion views render him an Untouchable for progressives while Harry Reid’s anti-abortion views permit him to be a Progressive hero and even Senate Majority Leader). My point isn’t that Ron Paul is not crazy; it’s that those who self-righteously apply that label to him and to others invariably embrace positions and support politicians at least as “crazy.” Indeed, those who support countless insane policies and/or who support politicians in their own party who do — from the Iraq War to the Drug War, from warrantless eavesdropping and denial of habeas corpus to presidential assassinations and endless war in the Muslim world — love to spit the “crazy” label at anyone who falls outside of the two-party establishment.
* * * * *
This behavior is partially driven by the adolescent/high-school version of authoritarianism (anyone who deviates from the popular cliques — standard Democrats and Republicans — is a fringe loser who must be castigated by all those who wish to be perceived as normal), and is partially driven by the desire to preserve the power of the two political parties to monopolize all political debates and define the exclusive venues for Sanity and Mainstream Acceptability. But regardless of what drives this behavior, it’s irrational and nonsensical in the extreme.
I’ve been writing for several years about this destructive dynamic: whereby people who embrace clearly crazy ideas and crazy politicians anoint themselves the Arbiters of Sanity simply because they’re good mainstream Democrats and Republicans and because the objects of their scorn are not. For me, the issue has nothing to do with Ron Paul and everything to do with how the “crazy” smear is defined and applied as a weapon in our political culture. Perhaps the clearest and most harmful example was the way in which the anti-war view was marginalized, even suppressed, in the run-up to the attack on Iraq because the leadership of both parties supported the war, and the anti-war position was thus inherently the province of the Crazies. That’s what happens to any views not endorsed by either of the two parties.
Last week in Newsweek, in the wake of the national fixation on Rand Paul, Conor Friedersdorf wrote a superb article on this phenomenon. While acknowledging that Rand Paul’s questioning of the Civil Rights Act (and other positions Paul holds) are “wacky” and deeply wrong, Friedersdorf writes:
Forced to name the “craziest” policy favored by American politicians, I’d say the multibillion-dollar war on drugs, which no one thinks is winnable. Asked about the most “extreme,” I’d cite the invasion of Iraq, a war of choice that has cost many billions of dollars and countless innocent lives. The “kookiest” policy is arguably farm subsidies for corn, sugar, and tobacco — products that people ought to consume less, not more. . . .
If returning to the gold standard is unthinkable, is it not just as extreme that President Obama claims an unchecked power to assassinate, without due process, any American living abroad whom he designates as an enemy combatant? Or that Joe Lieberman wants to strip Americans of their citizenship not when they are convicted of terrorist activities, but upon their being accused and designated as enemy combatants?
He goes on to note that “these disparaging descriptors are never applied to America’s policy establishment, even when it is proved ruinously wrong, whereas politicians who don’t fit the mainstream Democratic or Republican mode, such as libertarians, are mocked almost reflexively in these terms, if they are covered at all.” Indeed, this is true of anyone who deviates at all — even in tone — from the two-party orthodoxy, as figures as disparate as Dennis Kucinich, Noam Chomsky, Howard Dean or even Alan Grayson will be happy to tell you.
* * * * *
The reason this is so significant — the reason I’m writing about it again — is because forced adherence to the two parties’ orthodoxies, forced allegiance to the two parties’ establishments, is the most potent weapon in status quo preservation. That’s how our political debates remain suffocatingly narrow, the permanent power factions in Washington remain firmly in control, the central political orthodoxies remain largely unchallenged. Neither party nor its loyalists are really willing to undermine the prevailing political system because that’s the source of their power. And neither parties’ loyalists are really willing to oppose serious expansions or abuses of government power when their side is in control, and no serious challenge is therefore ever mounted; the only ones who are willing to do so are the Crazies.
Thus, for the two parties to ensure that they, and only they, are recognized as Sane, Mainstream voices is to ensure, above all else, the perpetuation of status quo power. As Noah Millman insightfully pointed out this week, those on the Right and Left devoted to civil liberties and limitations on executive power find more common cause with each other than with either of the two parties’ establishments. The same is true on a wide array of issues, including limitations on corporate influence in Washington and opposition to the National Security State.
That’s why the greatest sin, the surest path to marginalized Unseriousness, is to stray from the safe confines of loyalty to the Democratic or Republican establishments. To our political class, Treason is defined as anyone who forms an alliance, even on a single issue, with someone in the Crazy Zone. That’s because breaking down those divisive barriers can be uniquely effective in enabling ideologically diverse citizens to join together to weaken power factions, as Alan Grayson proved when he teamed up with Ron Paul to force the uber-secret Fed to submit to at least some version of an audit (backed by several leading progressives joining with Grover Norquist and other Crazies to support it), or as Al Gore proved when he brought substantial attention to Bush’s war on the Constitution by forming an alliance with Bob Barr and other right-wing libertarians. Preventing (or at least minimizing) those types of ad hoc alliances through use of the Crazy smear ensures a divided and thus weakened citizenry against entrenched political power in the form of the two parties. Obviously, the more stigmatized it is to stray from two-party loyalty, the stronger the two parties (and those who most benefit from their dominance) will be.
If one wants to argue that Ron Paul and others like him hold specific views that are crazy, that’s certainly reasonable. But those who make that claim virtually always hold views at least as crazy, and devote themselves to one of the two political parties that has, over and over, embraced insane, destructive and warped policies of their own. The reason the U.S. is in the shape it’s in isn’t because Ron Paul and the rest of the so-called ”crazies” have been in charge; they haven’t been, at all. The policies that have prevailed are the ones which the two parties have endorsed. So where does the real craziness lie?
* * * * *
Just to preempt non sequiturs, this isn’t a discussion of Ron Paul, but of the irrational use of the “crazy” accusation in our political discourse and the effects of its application.
UPDATE: I’ll try this one more time: for those wanting to write about all the bad things Ron Paul believes, before going into the comment section, please read and then re-read these three sentences:
There’s no question that Ron Paul holds some views that are wrong, irrational and even odious. But that’s true for just about every single politician in both major political parties . . . My point isn’t that Ron Paul is not crazy; it’s that those who self-righteously apply that label to him and to others invariably embrace positions and support politicians at least as “crazy.”
This is a comparative assessment between (a) those routinely dismissed as Crazy and (b) the two party establishments and their Mainstream Loyalists who do the dismissing. Assessing (a) is completely nonresponsive and irrelevant without comparing it to (b).
UPDATE II: One other point: intense, fixated mockery of marginalized, powerless people has the benefit of distracting attention from the actions of those who are actually in power.
The search for an echo by Leonard E. Read
The Search for an Echo by Leonard E. Read is possibly my favorite article he’s ever written; unfortunately, no electronic form exists. I found the article in Essays on Liberty, Volume VI, a FEE series where they collected essays published over the course of a year (in The Freeman, pamphlets and other publications) and republished them in one volume. At least 12 volumes of Essays on Liberty were produced, the first volume published in 1952 (the twelfth in 1965). More may exist, but I cannot find any evidence of a 13th. The first two volumes can be found here and here.
Regardless, here is Read’s The Search for an Echo in its entirety. Enjoy and share, as this is by far the best essay Read penned on a theory of social change.
Tell me today what the philosopher thinks, the university professor expounds, the schoolmaster teaches, the scholar publishes in his treatises and textbooks, and I shall prophesy the conduct of individuals, the ethics of businessmen, the schemes of political leaders, the plans of economists, the pleadings of lawyers, the decisions of judges, the legislation of lawmakers, the treaties of diplomats, and the decisions of state a generation hence.
AUTHOR UNKNOWN
“Your educational work at FEE is sound enough and I concede its necessity in normal times. But, it’s too slow under present conditions. I want action, and quick. Time is running out. My efforts and money from now on will be devoted to putting the right men in public office.”
The above summarizes a substantial, and perhaps even a growing sentiment. It stems from impatience. The interventionists, it is observed, have “leaders” galore in the political arena. Why, inquire many anti-interventionists, should we tarry any longer? Why not find ourselves some political leaders who will represent our points of view? Plans are then proposed for the organization of citizens down to the precinct level, and likely personalities are sought among renowned generals, businessmen, academicians, and others who have, in their own specialized fields, arrived at acknowledged leadership. It is assumed that the nation will be saved should they be elected to public office.
If this were the road out of the socialistic wilderness and if these miracle persons were to be found, all of us might consider joining the political actionist parade. To take this route, however, is of no more avail than looking for the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow.
The reason that the interventionists have so many “leaders” is only because there is throughout our land a very substantial body of influential, interventionist opinion. The ones out front and who are popularly appraised as leaders are, in fact, not the real leaders. They are but echoes of the underlying opinion, and an echo implies an antecedent sound. They did not create the situation in which they find themselves; they are but the products or manifestations of the status quo. They, like actors in a play, merely move out front by reason of the fact that they can better articulate and dramatize the prevailing interventionist thought than can others. The real leaders of interventionism or any other movement, like playwrights, lie more under the surface, are a quieter breed, and not nearly as observable popularly.
Anti-interventionists lack “leaders” because there does not exist an influential libertarian opinion substantial enough to create the desired political response. What I wish to suggest here is the futility of attempting to build on a foundation that does not exist. One might as well look for an abundance of flowers where there has been a scarcity of seeds or listen for many echoes where there have been but few prior sounds. The out-front folks in political parties are but a thermometer—indicators of the political temperature. Change the temperature and there will be a change in what’s out front—naturally and spontaneously. The only purpose in keeping an eye on the thermometer is to know what the temperature is. If the underlying influential opinion—the temperature—is interventionist, we’ll have interventionists in public office regardless of the party labels they may choose for their adornment and public appeal.
If the underlying influential opinion—the temperature—is libertarian, we’ll have spokesmen for libertarianism in public office. Nor will all the king’s horses and all the king’s men be able to alter the reading of the political thermometer one whit.
It’s the influential opinion that counts, and nothing else. This is to be distinguished from “public opinion,” there being no such thing. Every significant movement in history—good or bad—has resulted from influential ideas held by comparatively few persons.
Here, then, is the key question: What constitutes an influential opinion? In the context of moral, social, economic, and political philosophy, influential opinion stems from or rests upon (1) depth of understanding, (2) strength of conviction, and (3) the power of attractive exposition. These are the ingredients of self-perfection as relating to a set of ideas. Persons who thus improve their understanding, dedication, and exposition are the leaders of men; the rest of us are followers, including the out-front political personalities.
To illustrate: How many persons today, or even in his own time of the early seventeenth century, ever heard of Hugo Grotius? Few, indeed, then or now! Yet, here is what the eminent historian, Andrew Dickson White, in the year 1910, wrote of this exceptionally important unknown:
“Into the very midst of all this welter of evil, at a point in time to all appearance hopeless, at a point in space apparently defenseless, in a nation of which every man, woman, and child was under sentence of death from its sovereign, was born a man who wrought as no other has ever done for a redemption of civilization from the main cause of all that misery; who thought out for Europe the precepts of right reason in international law; who made them heard; who gave a noble change to the course of human affairs; whose thoughts, reasonings, suggestions, and appeals produced an environment in which came an evolution of humanity that still continues.”
One man altered the ways of the world. He achieved a degree of perfection that caused others to follow his insights and understanding. He spawned ideas that politicians emphasized and glamorized for which they more than Grotius became widely known as “leaders.”
In this day of our need how are we to find ourselves a Grotius, a Sarpi, a Turgot, or a thousand and one others who have quietly but brilliantly modified the world into better ways? Those of us who would have any part in working out this answer have no recourse except to strive for an increasing perfection of ourselves, that is, conscious personal efforts to become such helpful individuals. It isn’t that you or I, specifically, will make the grade. It is that out of a fairly wide creative effort in which we participate some few will assuredly achieve the competence our time so sorely requires.
This is the educational, not the political, way to mankind’s improvement. True, it is slow in terms of one’s life span, but it has the distinct advantage of being the single practical way there is. Let us try this way and witness its fruits!
If we continue to exclaim—“I want action. Time is running out”—and persist in the error of trying to reverse cause and effect, the political echo will continue to confirm, “Time is running out.”
— — — — — — —
Mr. Read is Founder and President of the Foundation for Economic Education. Read more…
A Superfluous Man column aggregation
With my column for The Post ending soon with the quarter, I wanted to aggregate all of them for future reference.
Market must be free of government
General Electric, the largest corporation in America, paid no taxes for 2010. According to a recent New York Times article, General Electric claimed a tax benefit of $3.2 billion.
Conservatives might understand the problem as one of high taxation causing capital flight, while liberals might understand the problem as one of wealthy politicians benefiting wealthy friends. However, both miss the greater issue: the more power the government exerts within the economy, the more involved economic interests will be in the political system.
If economic interests can make a profit buying and selling political favors as opposed to buying and selling goods and services, it is only natural that the largest economic interests will focus on the political system, gaining some at the detriment to all.
Instead of demanding a greater tax burden or more regulation over corporations, eliminating the use of the political system for economic gain might be the most effective measure for the country, as well as the market.
Rather than burdensome and complicated regulations that corporations skirt — or write themselves — corporate influence might be lessened when the political system is separate from the economy.
As the General Electric example unfortunately illustrates, government intervention in the economy provides a foundation for corporate favoritism that insulates them against competitive pressures. A politically unconnected business must satisfy the demand of fickle market forces or fail; a politically connected corporation avoids the market for the certainty of government benefits.
The greatest protection and benefit for the individual does not derive from well-intentioned bureaucrats but market competition with the rule of law. When political protection — in the form of subsidies, tax exemptions and restricting competition — perpetuates politically connected economic interests, it eliminates market competition.
Decentralized actions and voluntary exchanges produce a spontaneous order that efficiently allocates resources to fulfill the supply and demand of an impersonal market order.
Our economic system is an institution that, in the words of Adam Ferguson, “is the result of human action, but not the execution of any human design.” In other words, the market order is a continually evolving institution that, when left free to develop, provides a coordinating structure to create wealth and satisfy desires.
Of course, such an analysis runs counter to the typical narrative; the narrative usually consists of greedy and selfish businessmen pitted against selfless and compassionate public servants — that is, an idealistic portrayal of government intervention against caricatures of market forces. To be sure, greedy and selfish businessmen exist.
However, three points are often overlooked: Government intervention does not perfectly translate from its theoretical effects, public servants can be just as greedy and selfish as businessmen, and the greedy and selfish businessmen must produce wealth for consumers if they want to stay in business.
The only way to avoid satisfying consumer demands is harnessing political power. If the political system remained relegated to its proper realm in the economy, economic interests could not exploit the system at the expense of society at large.
Demonizing the market while idealizing the government and extolling the virtues of non-markets may provide material for lofty and self-gratifying speeches, but it fails to mitigate the problem and presents only a red herring for the cure.
Government: Stay out of social debate
The only difference between a conservative and a liberal is how they spell their label.
The supposed disconnect between liberalism and conservatism evaporates when one point is recognized: Both take for granted the use of the political means to achieve their ends.
Sure, conservatism focuses on tradition as a guide for society to achieve virtue, while liberalism relies on rationality, reason and expert control to promote equality. However, rather than persuade and illustrate the merits of their respective philosophies, they presume their opinions superior enough to implement their ideas through the law.
The left/right spectrum presents a deceiving dichotomy that ignores philosophies that reject the idea that societal improvement comes through the political system.
By limiting popular and recognized choices to only those which advocate a stronger government, discussion has a tendency to gloss over any prospect of change through individual or communal action that is not encompassed within the law.
The libertarian idea that personal and economic liberties are indivisible or the socialist ideal that rejects private property cannot neatly fit in the traditional spectrum.
A concerning dependency inculcates itself when accepted and expected social change results only through the political system: Individuals are less likely to address a social problem themselves or within a local group when the government is expected to ameliorate the issue.
Localized groups that tighten communal bonds and aggregate intimate knowledge about an issue hardly spring up as much as they did in the 20th and 19th centuries. An increasingly globalized economy partly explains the shift to a centralized, national response rather than decentralized, local responses.
But the larger culprit remains the ever-expanding role of government in society.
When Ohio’s government acquires the responsibility of welfare, individual responsibility for the welfare of others disappears.
In addition, the role of government as problem-solver obscures the inherent nature of social change. Social change causes legislation; legislation does not cause social change.
Legislation and government action is inherently retroactive as public attitude spurs political action. When this reverse causation stands, it overlooks the importance of spontaneous human action to improve societal constructions.
The Civil Rights Act of 1964 didn’t improve the lives of black Americans and end racism; the spontaneous and concerted efforts of millions of Americans shifted a societal understanding of race and equality, symbolized in the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
In fact, because the political system intervened, it might have retarded racial advancement throughout society by crowding-out the effort and effectiveness of grassroots organization and effort. The government took action, what else must be done?
But I don’t want to be misunderstood. Government does not cause all problems, just as the market and society do not solve all problems. Simply, the government is not a terribly effective social construction to address social problems.
Its centralized, bureaucratic nature fails to address social problems in an experimental, constantly changing and decentralized way.
Using the political system to address social problems is akin to using a fork for tomato soup: It might look innovative at the first glance, but on closer inspection it’s incredibly silly.
US intervention in Libya not justified
The Libyan war — er, “kinetic military action”— has been a failed attempt at what George Will called humanitarian imperialism.
Of course the situation in Libya is terrible, however, this necessitates examining what the role the United States should be and how effective it can be.
Contradicting the claims of the Obama administration, humanitarian wars are neither beneficial nor effective.
The past half-century of foreign intervention proves to be a queer mix of amplifying harm and entrenching anti-American attitudes the world over.
Strangely, foreigners prefer private investment from the U.S. rather than rockets and regime change.
Experiences in Iraq, Afghanistan, Somalia, Yemen, Pakistan and others over the past decade develop resentment and cause blowback. Those citizens do not see good will and a desire for spreading democracy from the U.S., they see destroyed buildings and dead relatives.
The only way for Libya to progress and oust Mommar Gadhafi will come from Libyan society; no foreign intervention could possibly help.
Indeed, Gadhafi has received foreign aid from the U.S. and France in the past that perpetuated his brutal and totalitarian regime, just as tyrants the world over continue to receive U.S. aid.
Foreign aid is an inconsequential policy relative to the overall budget, but ending it would harm tyrants that ally with “the land of the free” while oppressing their citizens.
Ignoring the harm American intervention has wrought, the process of Libyan intervention has been appalling. Even George W. Bush, with his boondoggles in Afghanistan and Iraq, received Congressional authorization for military action.
President Obama intervened without any formal declaration from Congress.
Effectively, one individual decided whether or not the U.S. would employ military force in a foreign country that was not threatening the sovereignty or security of the nation. Such an action is a direct contradiction of the American political tradition in the name of humanitarianism.
The end goal of protecting citizens from their own government overrides any concern for the means utilized to achieve it. Tradition does not benefit us consistently. Upsetting the decentralization of power for expediency or decisive action which is unlikely to prove beneficial in the long-run, is foolish.
Libya also represents a hypocrisy in American action. Surely, if Libya requires humanitarian imperialism, North Korea much more so. And Syria. And Ivory Coast. And Yemen. Humanitarian aid does not attach itself to bombs, regardless of a Republican or Democrat ordering the bombs.
If the U.S. earnestly desires to advocate freedom throughout the globe, foreign policy must be revised.
End foreign aid to despotic regimes. End the bi-partisan policy of nation-building.
Encourage private investment in the third world to alleviate poverty by assisting in the development of a market economy and a stable political system that preserves individual rights.
Reduce the military budget to end our role as world police, which creates and antagonizes enemies and instead focus on national defense.
Budget problems deeper than tax rates
For all the hoopla about President Obama and Senator Paul Ryan’s budget proposals, the debate ignores two essential facts: Tax increases cannot save us, and spending reform is crucial.
Tax revenues correlate strongly with the size of the economy, not tax rates. Tax rates are subject to diminishing marginal returns; increase them too much, and the government receives less tax revenue than with a lower rate.
The idea that tax increases can balance the budget also relies on a weak foundation. It assumes the government sector is starving in favor of the economic sector. A review of tax receipts from only a decade ago renders such a claim laughable. The problem isn’t a lack of funding; it’s a problem of inefficiency and activity.
It also misses the elephant in the room: If the government spent only how much tax revenue it received, no budget problem would exist. The government budget is determined by the prevailing concept of what government should do rather than any budgetary restraint.
Since President Bush, budget deficits have been in excess of $1 trillion. Any increase in tax revenues will increase government activity, not decrease the budget deficit or national debt.
If the government desires more tax revenue to fiddle away, it should encourage economic growth because productivity gains increase tax revenue more than any arbitrary tax increases.
Taxation, however, proves irrelevant in the long run. Government spending is unsustainable at current levels. The United States cannot continue its military policy and entitlement programs with any semblance of reason.
Military spending must be drastically curbed and the interventionist foreign policy needs to be altered. Encourage private investment in Afghanistan and Iraq instead of bombing them, providing daily a reason to hate the United States.
Policy should be reformed to focus on national defense and strongly reject nation-building; at that point, we might notice success for once.
More than military policy, social security and Medicare reforms need to be implemented. A promising step would be to allow individuals to opt out of social security. The government cannot be a caretaker; it is an institution of force and law, not welfare and effectiveness.
When government is wielded as a paternalistic protector, liberty is curtailed and the paternalism is counter-productive. Any government failure, rather than being recognized as a limit of what government can accomplish, is heralded as evidence of the necessity of increased funding.
Obviously, dependents on social security and Medicare should not be cut off and left to fend for themselves. But the development of dependency on the political system should be extirpated. Healthy society inculcates self-reliance and charity, not dependence on a welfare system.
An atmosphere encouraging personal saving and investment that cares for the poor and indigent functions more smoothly and supports stronger communities than collective action implanted in politics.
Perhaps a stronger argument for entitlement reform: Not only is it inefficient and unstable, but it appears more likely that, when our generation retires, we won’t have any government program to rely upon.
Subsidies slow green energy growth
Every week it seems I hear about some event demanding a greater investment toward green energy, be it government subsidization of green technology or demanding the university adopt more green technology.
The proliferation of green technology would be great; I’m behind that one hundred percent. However, government investment in green technology produces nothing but waste and stifles innovation in the green industry.
Advocates for green energy investment gloss over a few important points: Job creation is not synonymous with wealth creation, government investment is another form of corporate welfare and government investment is usually, if not always, inefficient.
When the government subsidizes green energy projects, it’s rarely to the benefit of a small start-up with an innovative technique for the industry. More likely, the subsidies deposit in the bank accounts of billionaires and corporations such as T. Boone Pickens, General Motors and British Petroleum, to name a few.
These subsidies, to an extent, insulate companies from market conditions, giving them an advantage over competitors who must respond to market conditions.
As a result, green companies cannot stay competitive and innovate to create cheap and efficient alternative energy sources against large, subsidized companies.
The companies who respond quicker and better to market demand suffer while subsidized companies prosper at the expense of society.
As Tim P. Carney recently wrote, “Environmental policy is not driven by tree-hugging activists, earnest liberal bloggers or ecologically minded citizens.
Instead, it flows from the lobbyists and executives of well-connected multinational corporations and built-for-subsidy startups that see profit in the loan guarantees, handouts, mandates and tax credits Congress creates in the name of saving the planet.”For every dollar the government spends in green investment, it removes a dollar from private consumption and investment.
When individuals unwisely spend or invest a dollar, they have a strong incentive to correct their behaviors so as to get an efficient return; in other words, they have economic incentives to wisely allocate their resources.
However, when the government spends and invests, any economic incentive is secondary to a political incentive that encourages spending for the greatest political return.
For example, Jim F. Couch and William F. Shughart, in their book The Political Economy of the New Deal, analyze New Deal spending and found that a state’s support for FDR and its importance in his Electoral College strategy were consistently significant factors in its level of aid.
Some might say this is a benefit of political action: It isn’t chained to economic reality. Indeed. What such an opinion ignores is that malinvestment wastes resources — resources that could have been used to pay bills, invest in a new business or repair deteriorating infrastructure.
When the Pentagon wastes $70 billion, as a late March audit demonstrated, $70 billion isn’t financing a school system or invested in a child’s college education.
A government isn’t a social construction utilized to respond to strictly economic pressures. If it were, it would be a market. But, the desirability of something (sustainable, green energy) doesn’t obscure the fact that a political system isn’t efficient and might impede desirable economic growth.More than anything, the abolition of subsidies to coal and oil companies, coupled with lower entry costs into the green energy market by removing bureaucratic requirements and taxes, will spur innovation and a greener future.
Vote ‘yes’ on not voting, it’s better for us
Last Tuesday, Ron Paul announced he has formed an exploratory committee to decide whether or not to run for president. Now I have a reason to sit through the painfully laborious Republican debates. The only event that rivals the levels of irrelevance and philosophical vacuity is, of course, the Democratic debates.
With Paul effectively in the mix, we will be treated to a night of neo- and
Christian conservatives rejecting the Old Right, Goldwater wing of the Republican Party — the only wing, incidentally, that will hold any relevance in the foreseeable future.
This might produce the revelation that conservatives have long ago rejected individual liberty and limited government in favor of an overwhelming demand for power — not that they will ever stop using classical liberal rhetoric, of course.
Instead of the liberal vision of an expansive state, they will champion the conservative vision of an expansive state.
Paul (in his third presidential campaign, counting his 1988 Libertarian Party attempt) will provide a palpable contrast to the duopoly that is the two-party system. However, do not interpret this as an endorsement for Ron Paul.
I couldn’t care less if you vote for him. Any fantasy of Paul becoming president will be crushed by reality, though the education he provides throughout his campaigning is incredibly valuable.
In fact, not only do I urge everyone to abstain from voting for Paul, but also I urge — nay, implore — everyone to abstain from voting in toto. As for anyone who desires to instigate social change through voting, I encourage you to entirely re-examine how societal change occurs at all.
Voting is useless. Actually, that is misleading: Voting is not only useless but also absolutely harmful.
By marking a box (or however it is done, I have never been in a voting booth, nor do I desire to be. It could only damage my morality), the vote allows an individual to ignore and neglect any responsibility and duty to their community.
Approving a school levy does not improve intelligence. Only engaging students outside the classroom and providing a robust and diverse environment to acquire intelligence educates.
Schooling and educating are not synonyms. But I digress.
Responsibility and societal duty requires active engagement in improving a community; a ritual electing an individual to power every four years is not civic engagement, no matter what your high school teacher repeated.
If societal improvement is the goal, examining the accepted means to this end (voting) is necessitated. Part of the reason why a dearth of change exists among presidential administrations is that many individuals return to personal engagements, presuming their job is done. We have a Democrat in office after eight years of a Republican: Problem solved.
The president is not a superhero, nor is it desirable to forfeit superhero powers to the position.
A lone individual, taking a Saturday to clean up a local park, improves society more than a president ever has or ever will.
Elected officials are only figureheads — and shabby ones at that. They represent prevailing societal opinion on how a country should act or think.
Presidents do not create reformers; reformers create presidents.
As election season looms like a boulder over a peaceful town, try to avoid the pull of politics. Do not buy a bumper sticker, no matter how much the color complements your (already crowded) car.
Volunteer somewhere.
Be productive and increase your wealth.
Hug a tree.
Most importantly, develop your talents as an individual and benefit your community in that way.
If Ron Paul’s campaign will teach us anything, it is this: Education, not political office, is the only useful result of running a campaign, whether anyone votes or not.
College education isn’t for everyone
Peter Thiel is encouraging college students to drop out and actually do something societally productive.
Thiel, a venture capitalist and hedge fund manager, launched a fellowship program through his philanthropic organization The Thiel Foundation, which provides 20 individuals under 20 years old a $100,000 grant.
The only catch: Leave higher education to pursue innovative projects in scientific and technical ideas.
Criticism leveled at Thiel usually characterizes his effort as reckless and hypocritical because Thiel attended Stanford.
However, similar remarks fail to comprehend Thiel’s argument: We are experiencing a bubble in higher education, and college might not be the best option for everyone.
The importance of college is over-inflated. College isn’t necessarily a prerequisite (much less a guarantee) of success; in some instances, the debt incurred from higher education lowers the success rate. Graduating $80,000 in debt is rarely a prudent idea.
Instead of proclaiming every student has the right to a free college education, maybe the problem is a society that looks with derision or elitism at any career path missing a college education.
Of course, college isn’t a waste of time (well, maybe sociology classes). If students know what they want to study and have a way to keep expenses relatively low, college is great. Or, if a course of study justifies large debt with a high-paying career, debt isn’t too threatening.
Not every individual, though, learns or understands the world with a perspective that is conducive in a collegiate atmosphere.
The importance of the Thiel fellowship is that it recognizes college can harm learning and creativity. Instead of constantly encouraging college attendance, the Thiel fellowship wants to cultivate a different way of improving society and education. Whether his initiative fails or not is irrelevant.
I’d much rather watch a crazy billionaire challenge accepted wisdom than read another press release from a university about how fantastic their education programs are. Sparking a conversation about what education actually is, is more valuable than discovering the next Mark Zuckerberg.
Education is treated as a commodity obtained after graduation — it isn’t.
Education and schooling should never be synonymous; education is developed, not inculcated.
A college program has become more of a training program than an educational tool to develop critical thinking and personal growth.
To a certain extent, it’s understandable: Students want marketable skills to secure a job, and universities have been anything but loathe to fulfill that demand. More than that, however, is that the desire for education cannot be taught.
It is subjective to the individual; the assumption that everyone is educable is a democratic myth.
As Albert Jay Nock said, “There are practicable ranges of intellectual and spiritual experience which nature has opened to some and closed to others.”
This isn’t to say that only an elite circle should go to college, but that the democratic dream for every individual to be strongly educated is an inevitable impossibility, no matter how much wealth is concentrated on achieving the goal.
Superintendent nixes play over ‘n-word’
Editor’s Note: The following column contains a racial slur that might offend some readers.
Last week, the superintendent for Morgan Local School District in McConnelsville, Ohio, canceled a performance of To Kill a Mockingbird because of parental concerns over racial slurs contained in the play.
In an effort to avoid controversy and perform the play for students, the secretary for the Zane Trace Players, the theater troupe scheduled to perform, contacted the publishing company to receive permission to alter the offending passages, but the company denied the request.
Why? Chris Sergel, vice president of Dramatic Publishing, said, “Being uncomfortable with history is not means to change it. We’ve always denied these requests. People need to figure out how to confront issues.”
Sergel’s denial is admirable, but his need to issue it is deplorable. Canceling the performance is inimical to the fundamental basis of education. By avoiding the issue of racism and injustice in American history because of concerns about political correctness or mature themes, students are prevented from developing a critical understanding of history and comprehending the roots of hateful ideology.
The cancellation of To Kill a Mockingbird is an insult to the Morgan High School students involved. It is a presumption that not only can these students not understand the terribly obvious faults inherent in a racist ideology, but also their lack of intelligence prompts the prevention of a performance with racist ideas, even when said performance illustrates the inferiority of those ideas. Such paternalism inhibits the abilities and development of students while ignoring reality.
Racism still exists in American society, along with many other individual and social ills. To Kill a Mockingbird remains relevant; unbridled hatred remains much more offensive than hearing “nigger” in a play aimed at confronting that hatred.
If communities continue to avoid the issue because parents feel uncomfortable, any progress is stifled before it begins. Individuals should be offended by To Kill a Mockingbird, and they should feel terribly uncomfortable.
What should make us more offended and more uncomfortable, though, is that such idiotic and unthinking ideas were at one time so prominent in America as to be institutionalized and sanctioned by the ruling democracy.
The same individuals, who endlessly chanted Shibboleths and platitudes about freedom and equality, ignored — and in some cases engaged in — atrocities because the victim was in a despised minority.
To surpass hateful ideology and prevent future and present tragedy, we’re forced to learn about lynchings. We must study the Holocaust and comprehend how the Nazis accumulated power.
It is not simply a pedantic interest. It is an individual responsibility to confront evil in the world and prevent it from escaping punishment or to implicitly acquiesce because anything else may garner social scorn.
If the administration at Morgan Local School District considers themselves educators devoted to challenging students in an effort to develop critical thinkers, they’ll ignore cowardly phone calls from those offended at the content of a literary classic. Instead, they’ll try to circumvent parental influence that shies away from ugly realities.
How to advance liberty-Leonard Read
I’ll have Socialist Cliché #3 written in a few days, God willing. In the meantime, here is a fantastic lecture by Leonard Read.
This cliché often, but not always, precedes an ad hominem along the lines of the defender of individual liberty being selfish, greedy, callous or worse. However, it fails because of a few assumptions and misunderstandings: it exalts an illusion of security above liberty, presumes individuals cannot save or monitor their financial situations and accuses libertarians of forcing mass starvation of the poor.
Social security creates dependency and weakens societal responsibility and communal bonds. Instead of cultivating an atmosphere which encourages individuals to dictate their lives while caring for the unfortunate, social security is an implicit arrangement to grant illusory security in old age with the wealth of future generations. The wealth currently collected funds militarism abroad, not health care or groceries for the elderly.
Of course, some elderly individuals benefit from social security; that is easily seen. What is ignored, however, is of vastly more importance: The wealth squandered by the government, the improvement not accomplished as a result of government misallocation of resources and the loss of self-determination. Individuals lack the responsibility that energizes action. Why should I help the elderly woman down the street? She’s the responsibility of the government.
No respectable libertarian advocates the abolition of social security within 24 hours. The dependent individuals created by government overreach must have some sort of provision. Shifting their care from the responsibility of the government to the responsibility of local and regional individuals, charities and other voluntary associations is most desirable, but two immediate reforms to social security can go far: require means-testing as a prerequisite to receiving social security and allow individuals to withdraw from the program.
The logic supporting compulsory social security appears contradictory: Individuals need social safety nets because they cannot adequately prepare for their lives after retirement (plan or live in squalor provides strong incentives to prepare), yet they can intelligently make strong political decisions by voting (an activity which provides stronger incentives to be irrational and uninformed than rational and intelligent). Such paternalistic assumptions have been persuasively criticized by Glen Whitman and Edward Glaeser, among others. Individuals who have the means to save for retirement provide a difficult argument to social security. We must not forget that patience is not a virtue, it is a preference: If they have the means but decide to indulge in the present rather than moderate for the future, they should face the consequences of their actions. If they lack the intelligence, the state should disenfranchise and direct them to a much greater degree than providing a degree of wealth.
If individuals lack the means to save for retirement, the state shouldn’t provide for the capable as well as the incapable where voluntary associations don’t exist (crowded out by government action). Even better, the state should contract aid associations in the community to dole out relief. Not only would this spur personal responsibility and collective action, it would drastically reduce inefficiency (presuming non-perverse incentives, which is a large presumption). Any consistent position about social security, whether in favor or against, directs an individual to demand a drastic restructuring of the current system.
It is easy to substantiate claims of concern for the unfortunate with demands for increased government action, be it minimum wage laws, higher taxation rates on the rich, larger amounts for those on social security and other welfare programs or subsidized housing. However, it is difficult to separate emotion from sound policy. The greatest method of benefiting the unfortunate is to establish a structure (societal, economic and political) which allows the capable to become self-sufficient and care for the incapable. Encouraging wealth creation and personal responsibility will prevent mass starvation better than any government program. The state cannot create wealth and provide for individuals: It can only redistribute and destroy wealth, or deter wealth creation. Poverty is not a problem with a solution; rather, it is an issue found everywhere but fictional Utopias. Designing policies with the intention to reach Utopia usually aggravates efforts for improvement.
I’ve decided to embark on a new project, inspired by a book published by FEE in 1970. As a way to confront economic myths and flimsy political arguments encouraging limits to individual liberty, FEE published a book which addresses 76 “clichés of socialism,” in an effort to help liberty advocates answer these claims.
In that spirit, I’d like to update or offer an alternative perspective to these clichés. So without further ado…
Cliché of Socialism #1: “The more complex the society, the more government control we need.”
This cliché stands supported by a few fallacies: decentralization is inherently bad and chaotic, government serves as a protective balancing force against complicated institutions , and a lack of understanding about voluntary coordination and cooperation.
Most often as of late, this cliché is uttered concerning the financial crisis of 2008. The financial system is vastly complex and intricate to the extent where no one truly recognizes actual value, risk and other factors of different financial instruments and institutions; as a result, greedy individuals exploit the system. If government control had been more extensive, not only would the financial crisis fail to develop, but the economy would be more stable and productive.
What the argument fails to notice is that not only did government regulation fail (rather than being non-existent), but the correction of the crisis failed to occur, as bailouts and other government interventions prevented market corrections. When financial institutions do not have to face risk or loss, it is inevitable that such a situation occurs.
The cliché also presumes omnipotence on the part of the government. Our complex and globalization society did not evolve and develop as a result of centralized planning and government develop. Complex societies develop and evolve through voluntary association and individual effort that produces an emergent order, as F.A. Hayek, among other intellectuals, strongly argue. The question may be asked: how, if not through central planning, could complex societies develop? It is not through random chaos and confusion, but voluntary (rather than coercive) planning by individuals and associations pursuing distinct goals through various means. Whether or not these individuals and associations intentioned to produce the results they did is irrelevant; the pertinent information is what actually developed and flourished. Society evolves as a result of these individuals and associations pursuing their self-interest (not synonymous with greed), which fosters cooperation and competition for mutual benefit.
Voluntary planning also highlights another important insight: the more complex the society, the less feasible it is for government control to improve, rather than hinder, society. How is this the case? Knowledge is unaggregated, dispersed and fragmented throughout society; as a result, a “knowledge problem”* exists. Decentralized, voluntary planning coordinates knowledge and action better than centralized, coercive planning. Not perfectly, but better, because “it does a better job of mobilizing the knowledge relevant to the decisions that need to be made.” Increasing government control in an increasingly complex society misunderstands the issue and exhibits an inflated belief in the knowledge of humanity. Our society has not been constructed rationally and logically; indeed, it has evolved through a process of experimentation. Tradition may have a greater influence than any level of rationality in shaping current society.
Complexity is frightened when coupled with a limitation of knowledge. To be sure, emergent orders and voluntary planning are not perfect (or even remotely desirable, in some cases). However, emergent order vs. government control to develop a perfect society is a false dichotomy. The benefits of voluntary action, coupled with the utter failure of governments to control societies without butchering their members and the knowledge issue, presents to me a compelling case in support of decentralization of decision-making and power throughout society. Emergent order generally allows modification, experimentation and evolution to a greater extent than an order cultivated be central planning.
Not only is a complex society managed by government edict infeasible, but it appears greatly undesirable.
*The term “knowledge problem,” however, is misleading, as the word “problem” implies a corresponding solution. A more accurate terminology would be “knowledge issue,” as it is akin to the issue of scarcity; a regretful fact in an imperfect world.
Green subsidies and social change theory
Subsidies slow green energy growth
Advocates for green energy investment gloss over a few important points: Job creation is not synonymous with wealth creation, government investment is another form of corporate welfare and government investment is usually, if not always, inefficient.
This sort of thinking is exactly why the Obama administration failed to change anything (except kill more foreign and impoverished brown people, while infringing upon civil and economic liberties to a greater degree than the Bush administration). Aside from the fact that campaign Obama is a separate and distinct person from president Obama, his supporters tried to change society with coercion. Before anything, ideas need to develop and be defended to have any political effect. Look at the Fabian Socialists in England or William F. Buckley leading the conservative shift in American politics, among many other examples. Political changes are lagging, not leading indicators.
For a fuller exposition on political action for social change, see Frank Chodorov’s On Doing Something About It and Clint Townsend’s Social Change Theory, or Jacob Huebert’s Is There Hope for Liberty in Our Lifetime?
Wednesday Links
I’ve lagged on original commentary and writing, I’ll correct that soon. In the meantime, links!
And so it goes. The Democratic mayor of Washington, Vincent Gray, called on citizens to “fight back against oppression.” What oppression, you ask? Riders to the 2011 federal budget would end taxpayer funding for abortions and allow a handful of poor kids in D.C. to once again escape public schools. (Talk about fighting oppression.) Choice, as you know, is tyranny. Sometimes.
The IMF’s World Economic Outlook (WEO), published this week, aims to shatter such complacency. America, its authors write, lacks a credible strategy for dealing with its growing public debt, and is expanding its budget deficit at a time when it should be shrinking. The chart below, drawn from the WEO, illustrates the size of the problem America faces.
As the mountaintops fall, a coal town vanishes
Less than a decade ago, Ms. Gunnoe was working as a waitress, just trying to get along, when a mountaintop removal operation in the small map dot of Bob White disrupted her “home place.” It filled the valley behind her house, flooded her property, contaminated her well and transformed her into a fierce opponent of mountaintop removal. Through her work with the Ohio Valley Environmental Coalition, she has become such an effective environmental advocate that in 2009 she received the prestigious Goldman Environmental Prize. But no one threw a parade for her in Boone County, where some deride her as anti-coal; that is, anti-job.
Mexico reports 28 more bodies in pits near U.S. border
The police say witnesses have told them that gunmen had been pulling people, mostly young men, off passenger buses traveling through the San Fernando area in late March. The authorities say the abductions were carried out by the Zetas drug gang, the same group accused in the killings of 72 migrants last August in the same area.
The motive for the abductions remains unclear, though prosecutors have suggested that the gang may have been forcibly recruiting people.
Lobbyists won key concessions in budget deal
The plan to allow some employees to “opt out” of their employer-sponsored plans and choose their own coverage drew opposition from an unusual alliance of unions and businesses. Supporters said the vouchers would give employees more options and spur competition in the marketplace. Critics contended that younger, healthier employees would leave the plans and make insurance costlier for older, less healthy workers.
Monday Links
Peter Thiel on alternatives to the higher education bubble
Like any good bubble, this belief– while rooted in truth– gets pushed to unhealthy levels. Thiel talks about consumption masquerading as investment during the housing bubble, as people would take out speculative interest-only loans to get a bigger house with a pool and tell themselves they were being frugal and saving for retirement. Similarly, the idea that attending Harvard is all about learning? Yeah. No one pays a quarter of a million dollars just to read Chaucer. The implicit promise is that you work hard to get there, and then you are set for life. It can lead to an unhealthy sense of entitlement. “It’s what you’ve been told all your life, and it’s how schools rationalize a quarter of a million dollars in debt,” Thiel says.
A hilarious post riddled with economic fallacies
1) Shorten the work week. Start with a four-day work week. That means we can get 20% more people into the job market. With around 20% people currently out of work, or working part-time, that solves our jobless problem in one stroke. If that’s too big a wrench, cut down daily work hours at firms instead of firing people. That’s what they do in Germany, where they don’t have our job loss (they do everything better in Europe, but don’t get me started).
US intervention in Libya not justified (my Post column)
The past half-century of foreign intervention proves to be a queer mix of amplifying harm and entrenching anti-American attitudes the world over.
Strangely, foreigners prefer private investment from the U.S. rather than rockets and regime change.
