Regression to Serfdom

The market has failed. That's a frequent justification for expanding the powers granted to politicians. But how has the market failed? By who's standards? When we miss a hole in one do we talk about "physics failure?" Or if we can't balance the checkbook is it a "failure of mathematics?" What it really means is that people's interactions haven't produced the results the speaker wanted. But how often do these same folks talk about legislative failure? About programs and politics that have unintended consequences?

These days it is rare that people seize power by force of arms. The people violently wrested power from the ruling class in a series of revolts over hundreds of years. Now, the approach of the ruling class is to convince the people to freely gift that power back to the government, where it can be conveniently bought and sold. As I've said before, when you hear "the free market has failed" just mentally substitute "freedom has failed" and you'll begin to see through the lies used to convince us to return to serfdom.

"Is not this simpler? Is this not your natural state? It's the unspoken truth of humanity, that you crave subjugation. The bright lure of freedom diminishes your life's joy in a mad scramble for power, for identity. You were made to be ruled." - Loki

The House Noone Built

The apologists for the President are now coming out of the woodwork regarding his "You didn't build that" quip, saying he just meant everyone has gotten a little help from friends and family to get where they are. Obviously, framed this way, it is very difficult to argue with such a blanket and relatively vanilla observation. Of course, to believe that you have to ignore not only what he said, but also the context in which he said it. Frankly, he said that if you have a successful business, it's not because of your own effort or attributes, but because government programs and infrastructure made it all possible.

The problem with this line of thinking is that government is overhead. It's a cost center, not a profit center. As James Madison said, "If men were angels, no government would be necessary" and we could reduce this cost to zero. However, that's not the case. We need a certain minimum level of government in order to create an environment conducive to economic growth (as illustrated by the Armey Curve).

Allow me to illustrate. A manufacturing company has an HR department, to handle the various needs involved in managing their people. If the company wanted to increase its productivity, it would not double the staffing in its HR department. If anything, they would look for ways to cut the HR budget to the minimum necessary to still have a well-managed workforce.

If a farmer wants to grow wheat, he needs fertile soil to create the right environment for growth. But at some point he actually needs to sow and water and harvest. Beyond a certain point, more soil doesn't help.

If I open a business in a shopping complex, can the landlord claim that I didn't build my business? Can he claim that if it wasn't for him, I wouldn't have a business? Can he lay claim to a percentage of my profits above and beyond whatever rent I've agreed to pay him? Can the business next door to mine claim a percentage of my profits because his rent helps pay for the entire building? The landlord may have created the conditions, but without my efforts it would just be an empty building. Unfortunately, today's political climate has made that a very common sight.

So, although we may derive benefits from government infrastructure, it doesn't produce growth by itself and actually crowds out alternative investments . Although other people have paid for it, we've paid for it too in the same taxes and fees that everyone else has. What no one else has shared is the risk I've taken, the hard work and perseverance I've applied, or the vision and the will to build. For two hundred years we've been the freest nation in the world and as a result have experienced the greatest boom of economic growth and technological innovation. Politicians didn't build that; the People did.

Leviathan Unchained

"If Congress can do whatever in their discretion can be done by money, and will promote the General Welfare, the Government is no longer a limited one, possessing enumerated powers, but an indefinite one...." -- James Madison


Today's Supreme Court ruling on the Obamacare and the Individual Mandate marks a black day in our history.  The premise of the ruling is that Congress has essentially unlimited authority to levy taxes.  But when does a tax become a fine?  The ruling upholds the idea that Congress can fine you for failing to comply with any action they dictate.

Unfortunately, we started down this path a long time ago when we embraced tax exemptions for "good behavior."  By dressing it up and calling it an exemption (instead of a penalty for everyone else) we swallowed the poisoned pill and made it part of our tax code.

Our Founding Father recognized the threat posed by the power to tax, and placed limits on it to ensure it would be used soley to collect revenue, not to enslave the populace.  Direct taxes had to be uniformly distributed, without picking favorites: "No capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census."

That protection was struck down by the 16th Amendment, and the tax code has been a tool for social engineering and behavior modification ever since.

So now we face a future of fines whenever we fail to submit.  Life, Liberty or Property: Pick two.

To Support and Defend

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg's recent commentary on the Constitution has some people questioning her ability to uphold her oath, and with good reason.  "I would not look to the U.S. Constitution, if I were drafting a constitution in the year 2012." Instead "I might look at the constitution of South Africa."

A quick glance at the South African Constitution highlights some glaring differences from our own Constitution; differences which also highlight Ginsberg's unabashed political leanings.  South Africa guarantees its people food, water, education, housing and healthcare (among other things).  South African politicians are then charted to achieve these goals using their available resources.

The South African Constitution holds to the idea of "positive rights" which the left embraces and which FDR pushed for without our own government.  The key problem of course is that the government itself has nothing which it hasn't first taken from someone else.  In order to guarantee something to someone, you must first be willing to force someone to provide it, without regard for their personal liberty.

Frederic Bastiat succinctly describes the conflict between our Bill of Rights and FDR's "2nd Bill of Rights":

"The second half of your program will destroy the first."

In fact, it is impossible for me to separate the word fraternity from the word voluntary. I cannot possibly understand how fraternity can be legally enforced without liberty being legally destroyed, and thus justice being legally trampled underfoot.

Legal plunder has two roots: One of them, as I have said before, is in human greed; the other is in false philanthropy.

In fact, in order to enforce any sort of positive rights, you must first strip one group of their rights in order to satisfy another group, thereby failing the test of universality and putting to lie the idea of Equality before the law.  In doing so, the left clearly presupposes that some people are more equal than others.

Our Founding Fathers wrote the Constitution with an eye towards limiting government's potential for abuse, and by safeguarding Liberty they ensured an abundance of prosperity to their decedents.  If however we choose to sacrifice Liberty in order to gain material security, we will lose both.

The Happy Fantasy

A common mantra that I’ve heard from my left-leaning friends is that a) everyone should be able to earn a “decent” living doing whatever they enjoy and b) that everyone deserves to have a “decent” car, house, clothes, vacation, etc.  Blame touchy-feely high school guidance counselors for the first fallacy, which has directly led to the disillusioned masses of psychology, fine arts and literature majors populating the Occupy Wall Street movement.

The hard facts of life are that not everyone can do what they enjoy most for a living.  Otherwise there would be far more rappers, football players and fly fishermen than we would know what to do with.  Meanwhile, sewers would go uninspected, crime scenes would go uncleaned and garbage would collect by curbside.  Seriously.  If it weren’t for an appealing paycheck (or a lack of other opportunities), who would wake up in the morning and say “Gee, I really want to muck through people’s feces today”?  Similarly, jobs that are stepping stones to bigger and better things would also be avoided entirely.  Intern?  Nope, I want to be CEO.  Apprentice?  Just let me rig that wiring.  Draftsman?  I’m ready to build skyscrapers.  If you enjoy your work, consider it a bonus.  Otherwise, many of us go to work each day at a job we don’t mind doing (too much) so that we can do the things we enjoy (such as fly fishing).

The second fallacy lies in the varying standards of what constitutes “decent.”  If you ask ten people to describe a decent car, you’re bound to get twelve answers.  And there are folks who are willing to trade a less than decent car in exchange for, say, vacationing in France every year.  As any marketing major will tell you, tastes vary widely across the spectrum, because value (like beauty) is truly in the eye of the beholder.  Systems that try to meet everyone’s needs with a one-size-fits-all approach generally do it badly, leaving no one satisfied.  As the saying goes Comrade, it comes in two sizes: too big or too small.

The endless summer, where everyone lives in a mansion and gets paid to surf and look good, exists only in imaginations and fantasies.

 

Faust's Bargain: Charity and Government

The latest edition of Columbia includes an article by Alton J. Pelowski entitled "In Defense of Life, Love and Freedom" describing the problems when a private charity becomes dependent on public funding.  Similarly, Catholic Charities in Illinois are closing their adoption services because of new requirements to change their screening criteria to accept gay couples in order to receive government funding.

Although I empathize with their distress, American Catholics who have traditionally supported government-sponsored social programs have only themselves to blame.  Non-profit organizations who have been happy to trade arduous fund-raising for siphoning tax revenues are likewise guilty.

"Free money" is always hard to resist, but there's always a catch.  Once you've accepted the money you lose the freedom to run your organization as you like (which is why some organizations like Hillsdale College eschew public funding).

Indeed, the Catholic charities are faced with a dilemma of their own making.  If they refuse to  compromise their principles for money, they must either close their doors or return to the days when they relied on their own voluntary fund-raising efforts.  The latter option is obviously more difficult; a consequence of diverting funds from private donations to publicly mandated tax revenue.

Instead it looks like they're taking the easy option: quitting.

Freedom in the Market

When people say “Capitalism has failed,” mentally replace “Capitalism” with “Freedom” and then consider what they’re saying. After all, capitalist was the label used by Marxists to describe those who believed in the free market. Even “free market” is a misleading term because it conjures up an image of some separate entity acting on its own without our involvement. It would be more accurate to describe it as the freedom to act within the market, i.e.: the principle of free exchange.

Capitalism is just another word for economic freedom.

Of course those calling for the eradication of capitalism aren’t asking to give up their own freedom. They still want the right to negotiate their wages and purchase (or not purchase) products as they see fit. What they really want is the ability to negotiate other peoples wages, force others to agree to their desires, and split the tab for things that they want to have but don’t want to pay for. They’re eager to see shackles placed on others, not realizing they may wind up wearing them in the end.

“He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself.” - Thomas Paine

Freedom of Consent

We have to remember that the people in government are just like people in the corporate world.  They're ultimately self-interested.  They need to feel the connection between their actions and their consequences to make good decisions.  The difference is that we've entrusted them with coersive power; the authority to use force to compel us to do or not do certain things.  And power once ceded is rarely given back.  We really ought to remember that before inviting them into every aspect of our daily lives:

The problem... is that government is no different from any other organization in society -- it seeks its own aggrandizement. AT&T, General Motors, and Microsoft would love to have world monopolies, controlling all the resources and expanding into every corner of people's lives. But they are limited by competition, the dynamics of the marketplace, and the need to win people's consent in order to market their products.

Government is different. It expands by fiat, through legislation, through taking advantage of emergencies, and by declaring that private entities can't be trusted and government intervention is necessary. Most of all it grows by raising taxes and hiring more and more people so that soon its voter base approaches a majority of the electorate.
http://spectator.org/archives/2011/09/26/the-moochers-credo/

Let's face it.  It's easier to convince a majority of 435 people in Washington D.C. than it is to try to win the consent of millions of consumers exercising their freedom in the market.

An American's Creed

An American's Creed - by Dean Alfange

I do not choose to be a common man
It is my right to be uncommon...
If I can. I seek opportunity... Not security.

I do not wish to be a kept citizen,
Humbled and dulled by having the state
look after me.

I want to take the calculated risk;
to dream and build, to
Fail and succeed.

I refuse to barter incentive for a dole.
I prefer the challenges of life to the
Guaranteed existence; the thrill of
Fulfillment to the stale calm of utopia.

I will not trade freedom for beneficence
Nor my dignity for a hand out. I will
Never cower before any master nor bend
to any threat.

It is my heritage to stand erect,
proud, and unafraid; to think and act for
myself; enjoy the benefits of my
creations; and to face the world boldly
and say, "This I have done with my own hand,
I am a man. I am an American.

Make Mine Freedom

This is a fantastic cartoon.  It was true sixty years ago, just like it was true two hundred years ago and just like it's true today:

http://nationaljuggernaut.blogspot.com/2009/09/this-cartoon-seemed-far-fetched-in-1948.html