Why I am NOT, well, a Lot of Things!
(Originally posed an earlier version
of this with a more specific title, one that attracted spam comments
among other things. My intent is to explain why I am who I am and
why I believe as I do; doing it in the negative seems easier for many
to grasp.)
Over the years, whenever I've tried to explain what I believe, as soon as I use certain words, people would take off on their own
understanding of those words, no longer listening. Perhaps
that is why the Lord (or Moses, if you're hung up about that) gave
the Ten Commandments in the negative, even though they pretty much summarize, “Love God completely, love your neighbor as
yourself”—the Great Commandment (which as it happens is
at the top of my personal list of priorities!). Our poor brains or foolish hearts seem
better able to focus on negatives.
I am not WHATEVER, first, because
I don't trust people. For all the nice-sounding rhetoric, in
most WHATEVER systems, a person must allow someone else control over his
life, and I don't trust anyone else to manage my affairs. If at some
point I need to give control to someone, other than God, I will do my
very best to ask a person I know, who knows and cares about me, someone I
have found to be fairly trustworthy. I have known a few that qualify,
but none of them is a stranger, politician, bureaucrat, or elected
official, few of whom, if any, qualify.
I'm amazed how willing people are to
trust the government (well,
if their
guys are running the show), which is nothing more than a large
bunch of “strange” (double-meaning intended) people. History and
personal experience make it clear that a good many of those people
are self-centered, power-hungry, greedy people, who say one thing but
do something else. Most people would call them liars (if they are
honest themselves), and I especially don't trust liars, especially
bald-faced, political ones! What I can't quite figure out is why
anyone does. I've asked some of the “true believers,” and they
typically don't answer. I especially enjoy those who say, “Prove
that so-and-so lied!” Would a hand writing on a wall convince
them?
What about capitalist liars? Yes,
there are plenty of them. I have no use for a big government
whether designed by capitalists, which leads to the kind of crony capitalism
we often see, or by socialists, who often prefer to cozy up to the
money makers while spouting hateful rhetoric about the same people.
Smaller, much smaller, government, with legal prohibitions
against illegal commercial activity, leaves the people free.
That's my preference. Personal freedom, liberty, has been the most basic right of American citizens of these United States, where a free people are the ultimate rulers of this nation.
Since I don't trust people, because so
many are dishonest and because strangers don't have a reason to care
about me anyway, rhetoric notwithstanding, I'm not WHATEVER. I'm not
a Marxist, socialist, progressive, Communist, or monarchist, to name a few. I am not
a theocrat, even though I am a Christian, because I don't trust many
other Christians either, not when it comes to power over my life, and, furthermore, the history of Christians with power or fighting for power isn't
pretty. I am barely a capitalist, but that requires further
explanation.
Capitalism is based on believing most
people will do their level best to look out for their own best
interests. The charge of greed on Wall Street may or may not be true
in a particular case, but it doesn't matter. I believe in godly
morality, teach godly ethics, but I am not responsible for the
behavior or motivations of another; that's God's business. Government
isn't responsible for motivations either, unless they break the laws
we pass to discourage harm to others. (On this basis, so-called "hate
crime" laws are beyond the business of government because no
one, inside or outside of government, can accurately know a person's
thoughts. As actions, assault or murder can be punished; judging motivation
requires mind-reading skills that no one has). If government
got out of the highly speculative business of manipulating the
economy and simply enforced a set of straight-forward laws against
harming others, I believe we'd be much better off. It has been reported that warning of Bernie Madoff 's dealings began as early
as 1992, but no one cared or was competent enough to stop him over 25
years, due in part to his cozy relationships with government and SEC
officials.
Why does simple capitalism work? If
government doesn't interfere (Sadly, it interferes all too often), a
capitalist entrepreneur decides to market his new recipe for grape
jelly. It is so delicious that he decides to charge $50 for a jar. He soon
discovers, however, that people love the taste but don't buy the
jelly. They'll settle for cheaper jelly that isn't quite as good. So
he is forced to lower the price. He doesn't have any power to overcome
competition and that provides alternatives or demand, which is based on
the free choices of consumers. By giving buyers what they want at
prices lowered by competition, the selfish capitalist will succeed by
doing an apparently unselfish thing. It is the only system I've
found that is not based on good intentions or trust, neither
of which are reliable; if a caring, trustworthy person is a leader
at a given time, those who succeed him often are not. History shows
there have been a few good kings and many awful ones. Revivals
create a generation of fine folks, but soon a generation of scoundrels
follows. Capitalism doesn't rest on good people, which are rare by
any definition. Rather it rests on self-interested people who, of necessity, meet the needs of their customers in order to succeed and thereby profit.
Occasionally, a monopoly may interfere
with this; if a person invents something truly original, he is
entitled to his profit. If people collude to produce an artificial
monopoly, they should suffer the consequences of laws already in
place against that. When the government, however, interferes to make
things fairer, it inevitably makes matters worse. For example,
freezing gas prices artificially low puts suppliers out of business,
thus reducing supply. When people complain about capitalism, now,
they need to understand how much authentic capitalism has been
twisted until it's really a Frankenstein version of the real
thing...thanks to big government! Oh, and now government itself in
the U.S. is well on its way to becoming the biggest, most powerful
monopoly of all, one I am confident, will not be benevolent in
the long run.
So I am not WHATEVER because I don't
trust sinful, untrustworthy people to run my life, the lives of the
citizens, or the life of the economy. I favor reducing the
involvement of the government in all the economic activities it has
assumed, which also happen to be contrary to the constitution. Capitalism doesn't involve my
trust because, for the most part, it requires serving the wants and
needs of people for a capitalist venture to succeed, whatever the
character of the capitalist, as long as the government enforces
reasonable laws against theft and malice while otherwise letting the
system and its people work freely.
Second, I am not WHATEVER because
I reject the power of big government. More
government means less control over an ever-increasing
measure of my life. I am not WHATEVER because I believe in freedom,
liberty, independence, and all those great ideas opposed to a handful
of powerful people in control of everyone else. Democratic socialism
sounds like an oxymoron to me, beyond the point where a democratic
election installs socialism. What amazes me, now, is that Europe is
in major trouble for spending itself into debt-heavy doom, and the
United States government seems hellbent on doing them one better. Are
our current and would-be leaders so power-hungry or so insanely stupid that they
cannot see the economic disaster looms before us? Yet, people like
Bernie Sanders and Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez want to take even more power and take us beyond where they have gone! That's nuts! They are nuts, insanely stupid, or haters of "the land of the free and the home of the brave" (and, no, I don't mean the song).
Both the Occupy Wall Street and Tea Party movements have voiced a strong objection to the abuse of power. That power is a
corrupt mix of politics and wealth, based on bad people willing to
abuse their positions for personal gain. It is not an inherent
characteristic of either wealth or government, but the more power
given to government, in particular, the greater the likelihood of
such corruption. Yes, greater power leads to greater corruption. Is that a surprise to anyone? Here seems to be the critical difference between
“Occupy Wall Street” and the Tea Parties; the one wants
government to have more power while the other seeks to shrink
substantially the size, power, control, cost, and unsustainable debt
obligations of government. I prefer the latter.
Sloganeering this difference creates
stupid criticisms. Smaller does not necessarily mean weaker, at
least not in the most important areas, such as law enforcement and
national security. Both need to be strong but carefully watched by
the people. We've been getting a large dose of more laws and more
regulation which are often a deception to disguise corruption; we need to clean out
the corruption! Neither new laws nor more demonstrations will get
this done. Neither will a complicit media so ideologically slanted to the Left as
to be useless. Just keep in mind that 13 colonies, with remarkably
little central coordination or modern communication resources, defeated the British because the people had a stake in their own
future. Getting back to a modern form of that is why I'm not
WHATEVER.
Part of my opinion here is that many
things will be done better by people closer to the need. We have
been slowly transferring all sorts of necessary endeavors from local
governments to states and from states to the federal government.
Even ignoring, for the moment, that this transfer is wholly contrary
to the Tenth Amendment, I find little to convince me that one
centralized control center will do a better job than numerous centers
seeking to provide best what they observe around them to be most needed. They will
be more readily accountable to the people, both those they serve and
those who pay for their services.
When some speak of eliminating entire
federal departments like education, transportation, housing and urban
development, commerce, labor, or health and human services, let's ignore
the rhetoric that insists those mean WHOMEVERS are just trying to
“kill Grandma” or “leave poor Johnny ignorant.” First, both
Johnny and Grandma are their family's responsibility. If Grandma and
Grandpa didn't plan ahead, and their family for some reason cannot
care for them, then the next step isn't the federal government, which
almost always costs more in the end for its “care” (and, no, it
is NOT free!). When people finally realize how expensive,
inefficient, ineffective, and often counter-productive federal control becomes (and hopefully
that is before the whole system implodes leaving us no alternative but
ourselves), then creative alternatives will blossom. How many horror
stories of poor nursing homes or schools failing to teach even the
most basic things will it take for us to realize we must assume
responsibility for those things we value and not expect them from a
“Big Brother” type government?
Incidentally, I strongly believe the federal government needs to get out of the research funding business. The power of government and the freedom necessary for effective research are totally incompatible. People frequently accuse businesses of biasing research results, but political power is every bit as much a threat to honest research, and I believe a greater threat. The late Michael Crichton illustrated this superbly in State of Fear, a book I highly recommend; this essay discusses it using a powerful illustration. Sadly, government control of research creates winners and losers among those suffering from incurable illnesses, favoring those with the largest lobbies such as women (breast cancer) and gays (AIDS); the power of influence on government by the pro-abortion movement is another example as it relates to stem cell research.
Over a lifetime of watching, reading, and listening, I have found very little to suggest that big government offers anything worth the cost to our individual freedom. Instead, I've observed lots of examples of corruption and abuse of the growing power of government, yet many people still trust it to do a good job. Not me!!!
Third, I am not WHATEVER because
I am not a utopian. I doubt that many genuine utopians even
exist. Those who do are hopeless idealists, oblivious to the fatalerror in trusting untrustworthy people to be in charge. The real
world isn't nice, and people cannot wish it otherwise. Worse, in this
real work, people often aren't nice. Look at the people who rise to
the top of Marxist states—Stalin, Lenin, Hitler (National
Socialist), Castro, Kim Jong Il, Chavez. Socialists criticize
the poverty in capitalist countries, but only corrupt states (and I
must include Islamic states) tolerate as great a mass poverty as
these leaders have created.
Marxism and its accompanying atheism
have produced, in fact, the worst brutality of modern times. So where
are the idealists? Just as in Animal Farm, sweet
sounding rhetoric turns into bitter reality. Does that include the
political leader, the one who espouses socialist ideas, although
often denying that they are socialists? Think of all the beautiful
promises made to voters and remember how few of them have been
fulfilled. I believe a very limited number believe their own ideas;
many merely seek to win votes on insincere promises—elitists who
seek only to win power through electioneering. Power-hungry men use
the utopian notions of socialism but create the wreckage of Marxist
governments, both direct, ugly oppression and softer, but just as
devastating, economic collapse.
Ironically, I am a somewhat an optimistic person, just more of a realist. I never quite believe anything is hopeless, especially as a Christian who believes in the ultimate sovereignty of God. Perhaps the element of pragmatism that warns me away from utopian thinking is my understanding of trade-offs and unexpected consequences. I taught a middle school class the book The Giver by Lois Lowry, set in a world that has been made safe through "sameness;" the price turns out to be everything that makes life worth living. Such is the lesson of utopia; it always sacrifices what people value, most often individual freedom.
Fourth, I am not WHATEVER I
because I believe the money people earn honestly belongs to those who
earn it, regardless of how much. The only money government
has comes from people who earn it. Of course, socialists believe money
belongs to everyone, demonstrating that they understand nothing about
money. Money is a symbol of productivity to allow people not to trade
cows for counseling or apples for iPods. Most think it would be
easier to have money linked to a hard asset like gold, but it would
still represent the work that people do, including work such as
banking, inventing, and investing. In those cases, people try to find
ways to multiply their productivity to accumulate the resources to have
a nicer house, a family vacation, or a comfortable retirement. In the
process of trying to improve their own lives, they, of necessity,
provide the means for others to improve theirs, both through the technology and
conveniences they create, the jobs it takes to manufacture them, and
the services they desire to enhance their lives.
Socialists, and those who often don't
understand how money and productivity go together, believe that a
central government can do all this better, starting with spending the
money they take from the most effective producers. Government
is, for the most part,
NOT a producer; it is a service provider. Sadly, socialistic
governments put themselves in charge of the services they provide, the
cost of the service, and the goods and services of the ones they
serve...the citizens. This upside down arrangement, first of all,
isn't right, for taking the money of producers is theft. Second,
hardly anyone who spends money not their own, spends it as
responsibly or carefully; few enough handle their own money well.
Finally, at a certain point, under this system, people stop producing
until their entire economy collapses. This is already happening in
Europe, destroyed the USSR previously, and is evident in places like
Cuba and North Korea. Once rich Venezuala has become an imoverished wasteland! China still oppresses its people but has allowed movement toward capitalism; this could create a massive capitalist threat, if the Communists allow enough movement. For me, these numerous experements are more than sufficient reason not to be WHATEVER.
Fifth, I am not WHATEVER because
I have yet to see an enduring and successful socialist government;
I include enduring to cover Sweden which I believe to be a unique
case, not reproducible anywhere else, and it is well on its way to
capitalism after over-spending, like so many others. Nearly all
have been disasters from the outset. To the extent it is an
exception, Sweden has several qualities that have enabled it to
endure, a bit longer—a small population and a uniquely Scandinavian
temperament. Being small, it has far less to entice those hungry for
money and power. It has an almost familial community spirit that has
kept things moving, although slow erosion seems to have led to a
noticeable decline in productivity, the inevitable doom of all
socialistic economies (P. J. O'Rourke discusses Sweden in Eat the Rich).
Two inherent problems bedevil
socialism. First is the power placed in the hands of government to
do all sorts of things, regardless of whether it actually knows how
to do them. I'm particularly bemused by the belief that government
knows how to “fix” or manage the economy. To the extent that I
have studied economics, I'm not convinced anyone knows how to do
that; I am convinced that an economy is so vast and so complex, based
on the individual decisions of people, groups of people, businesses,
and governments, that is defeats human analysis, much like weather
forecasting. Basic economic theory talks about trade-offs,
recognizing that nearly every decision a person makes involves
giving up one or more things to gain another. When a person or
family does it, their choices are somewhat more predictable; when
governments do so, they often can not anticipate all the “unexpected
consequences,” while at the same time abusing the power to “pick
winners and losers.”
The second problem that troubles
socialist idealism is greed. Here, I'm not speaking of the greed of
powerful, well-placed leaders; I'm speaking of the greed of citizens
who learn to feed off government largess rather than work, create,
invest, invent, and produce (illustrated in the China story). Socialist governments come to enjoy
giving people stuff, which they pay for by taking it from others (Oh,
those awful rich!); when they can no longer come up with another tax
or fee or scam to take the people's money, then they borrow, and borrow, and borrow! By this point, as in Greece and Spain, so far,
when the government realizes (or a newly elected government falls
heir to the problem), the greedy takers rise up and demand they not be deprived of their entitlements (and who cares how they pay for
them!). Of course, the proponents of continued spending and debt keep promising and promising...
Before someone reminds me about
spendthrift Republicans, many of them have been far more socialist
than capitalist for quite some time. Call them “Democrat lite!”
I've forgotten, for the moment, who observed, long ago, that theproblem with democracy is the point at which people figure out they
can enrich themselves by voting in a government who will take from
others to give to them. (Of course, lately, President Trump's efforts to turn things around has raised the ire of both Democrats and Republican socialists).
Sixth, I am not WHATEVER because
the numbers don't add up. Advocates always scapegoat “the
rich,” as they are doing in the U.S. today. In earlier times, the
rich were the Jews, but the math still did not add up. Without
motivated, productive wealth creators, government has no one to tax
to pay for all the benefits provided by the state. At the beginning,
they make a convenient target, but in the end, too high taxes means
these wealth producers stop producing or find some way to escape with
their wealth, making it unavailable to pay for the socialist state's
largess. Replacing so-called “selfish motives” to produce by
threats and fear works even more poorly. The USSR could produce
weapons but was not able to feed its own people.
In other words, the “rich” are
“geese who lay golden eggs.” They provide nearly unlimited wealth
and power with “gifts” of golden eggs, but, when the government kills the geese, they no longer lay more eggs! The wealthy producers create wealth that blesses an entire
society. Rather than envy them, we should appreciate that what they
do, even for selfish reasons, nevertheless increases the general
wealth of their communities. In the case of the United States, we
became a lighthouse for the hope that our remarkable national
prosperity, deeply anchored in individual freedom to seek wealth,
would enable immigrants to find their own prosperity. Target the
wealthy, and soon all will be impoverished...except for the leaders,
who will surely reserve a large portion for themselves (which they would have us believe they surely deserve!).
Seventh, I am not WHATEVER
because I reject the very idea of “fairness.” Life isn't
fair, and a WHATEVER government can't change life. Capitalism is
based on equality of opportunity; everyone has a chance but even that
is not “fair.” A few will become Rockefellers and Gates, a larger
percentage will become successful in smaller endeavors, many will
have jobs with these successful ones, and some will be handicapped.
As a Christian, I believe God has gifted every person with something
they may give to the rest of us. Economic success is one such area of
gifting; art and music are others. Repairing a car or running an
office, making a woman beautiful with hair-styling and make-up, or
rearing a child into a mature, wise adult are forms of giftedness.
Compassion is also a gift, but it doesn't make money in any way, but
only gives. A community based on such diverse giftings is richer for
what everyone contributes to benefit all. Socialism cannot recreate
or simulate this, for too many simply become idle, self-serving
dependents, who've never discovered the joy and satisfaction of using
whatever their gifts may be.
I see nothing “fair” about giving
some people what others work hard to earn. Should every adult or
family own their own house? Of course not! Some don't wish to own
their own house. Should every one that wants to own their own house
get one? Should parents give every teenager their own car when they
turn 18? I would say that no parent should give a child a car, at
least not till they have proven in some way that they are
responsible. Saving money to buy a car is an excellent way to prove
that. Doing what is necessary to buy a home is equally important.
People simply given things often do not value or care for them. I like
Habitat for Humanity's requirement, for families acquiring homes
through Habitat's program, of “sweat equity;” to gain an
affordable home, the prospective home-owner must work in building or
renovating homes, including their own, hopefully finding greater value in what they've had to work hard to get.
Government assistance requires nothing,
in far too many cases. What is fair about some people getting what
others work hard to receive? What's fair about requiring some to pay,
through high taxes, what other get for nothing? Nearly half of the
U.S. population do not pay taxes. What happens when more than half
are supported by the rest? This won't be the top 1% but the top
40-45%! Not only will such a situation be grossly unjust, it will sap
the very energy from our culture. I am not WHATEVER because I want to
live in a dynamic, creative, productive society that no
government-manged system has ever produced!
* * * * *
P. S. S. I welcome thoughtful interaction; indeed, I eagerly desire it. I don't claim to know everything, certainly not everything about economics and government. Neither am I ignorant. I definitely am not one who enjoys personal attacks as a substitute for intelligent comment, and will delete anything objectionable. Please keep that in mind if you choose to comment.
posted by Roger @ 1:34
AM
3 Comments:
Hey Roger:
Good and timely thoughts. One quick reflection is that your first point is a non sequitur, since it (people can't be trusted) is equally true under all economic systems. I think you need to reframe that point to address why mankind's inherent untrustworthiness produces worse results under socialism than under competing economic systems such as capitalism (which I happen to agree is the case). For example, our founding fathers built checks and balances into the political structure they gave us because of their recognition of the fallen nature of mankind. Does socialism lack similar checks and balances whereas capitalism includes them?
Ernie
Good and timely thoughts. One quick reflection is that your first point is a non sequitur, since it (people can't be trusted) is equally true under all economic systems. I think you need to reframe that point to address why mankind's inherent untrustworthiness produces worse results under socialism than under competing economic systems such as capitalism (which I happen to agree is the case). For example, our founding fathers built checks and balances into the political structure they gave us because of their recognition of the fallen nature of mankind. Does socialism lack similar checks and balances whereas capitalism includes them?
Ernie
I thought that was pretty clear in the
third paragraph, except I realize that I never explained my comment
on capitalism...later. I guess I was planning a separate point, as I
wrote it, but then never wrote that additional point. I'll do it now.
Comments