Values and Social Capitalism
May 25th, 2012 § Leave a Comment
Over at Values & Capitalism this week I share thoughts on “social capital”—the idea that voluntary community associations increase social trust and cooperation, creating an environment suitable for democracy and capitalism. From this premise, we find that liberty and virtue share a reciprocal relationship, where they both depend on and enhance one another. Read the post here.
Is Price Gouging Immoral? Should It Be Illegal?
April 30th, 2012 § 1 Comment
Is Price Gouging Immoral? Should It Be Illegal?
April 30th, 2012 § Leave a Comment
The folks at LearnLiberty.org are creating some excellent and rather entertaining videos on liberty and free markets. This short video shows how price gauging during an emergency—an act commonly viewed as inspired from the devil himself—is merely a function of the market finding a way to deliver goods to the people who need them most.
I heard a great EconTalk podcast a while back with Russ Roberts and Mike Munger on this very topic. Paradoxes like these are one reason I enjoy economics. The bigger reason is learning how to actually help people in need instead of making situations worse.
How “Free” Kills (posted @ CommonSenseConcept)
July 22nd, 2011 § Leave a Comment
In case you missed it, a piece I wrote for the “Two Cents” blog at Common Sense Concept was published Tuesday. In the post, I talk about the degrading effects of free money. (click image to read)
We’ve all heard phrases like “you don’t appreciate what you don’t earn” or “no pain no gain.” The idea that income must follow labor goes all the way back to the Garden of Eden, where Adam is told, “by the sweat of your brow you will eat your food” (Gen. 3:19).
A good work ethic is a cornerstone of a healthy character and success in life. When we talk about helping the poor, passing on an inheritance, or winning the lottery, we must proceed with caution, recognizing the destructive potential of income disconnected from effort.
To be clear, there is nothing wrong with a friendly gift, and there are appropriate ways and means of assisting those in need—it is, in fact, a fundamental calling of the Christian life—but it is imperative that we look beyond material circumstances to ensure that our actions produce their intended results. This requires knowing the person, and that tip should clue us in on God’s design in all of this. Bureaucracies, drive-thru food pantries and quick hand-outs at the intersection are cheap knock-offs of the real thing: relationally-driven service and grace. When we remove relationship from the equation, we also remove accountability and responsibility—the lack of which is often the very source of the problem to begin with.
——————————————————–
The “Two Cents” blog is part of the American Enterprise Institute‘s “Common Sense Concept” project, an initiative to bring young people into the discussion about faith, politics and economics.
Dusting off the ole blog…
March 21st, 2011 § Leave a Comment
{ Stretch…… yawn….. }
It’s time to bring the blog out of hibernation. Back in early November I began submitting applications to several graduate schools, and on trustworthy advice, I tucked away any online evidence that could sway the judgment of admissions committees (just in case). Being late-March, I think we’re in the clear.
As of 3/21 I have received one acceptance letter from Louisiana State University. I am still waiting on Georgetown, Notre Dame, U. of Dallas, and U. of Houston. Updates to come.
I want to take this opportunity to make some improvements to the blog, but I’m not sure what would best serve my visitors. The first rule of communication is knowing your audience, but the anonymity provided by the internet makes that a little difficult. Unless someone comments, I have no idea what they think or why they came here in the first place. So you can help me out a lot by answering this brief survey (check all that apply):
Greetings from Atlanta!
June 1st, 2010 § Leave a Comment
FINALLY! A free wi-fi network. I assumed a nice hotel like the Westin Peachtree Plaza would have an open network,… not so. I had to come down the street to the Mall food court.
Anyway, here I am, broadcasting from Atlanta, Georgia. I’m here as one of about 50 students from around the U.S. (and 12 other nations) who have been selected to participate in a week-long economic seminar. It’s being put on by the Foundation for Economic Education, and some very generous donor out there paid for me to attend, including the hotel and a couple of meals a day. Sweet deal, I know.
Considering the difficulty involved in finding a network, I doubt I’ll be updating as often as I had hoped. I will attempt to add a few pictures tomorrow, especially since they’re letting us out early so we can check out the city. I haven’t seen much of it—just whatever was viewable from the monorail window between the airport and downtown. I’m on the 55th floor of the “tallest hotel in the western hemisphere,” which I must say is pretty cool. The building is cylindrical, so all of the rooms have a window facing outward and a door facing the inside, and an elevator shaft straight down the center.
As of an hour ago (Tuesday, 4:30 pm) we’ve sat through 6 lectures, all of which have been interesting. Here’s the week’s schedule for inquiring minds. The real focus of these lectures is Austrian Economics, which looks at human motives—the stuff I like. I won’t bore you with details other than to say that I’m gaining a much better understanding of the why behind the what. For example, government subsidies in a particular industry that are supposed to help can actually hurt that industry by sending artificial market signals that, in turn, affect judgment and ultimately lead to the wasteful allocation of resources (investment). The whole point of economics is to increase the standard of living by increasing wealth, so it’s important that resources (time, capital, people, creativity) are used in such a way that they add to the net production.
Quick thought:
It was brought to my attention that my interest in politics and economics is heavily driven by my desire to understand, test, explore and promote a very meaningful set of “truths” upon which the world was dramatically changed. We’ve heard them so many times they’ve nearly lost meaning: “We hold these truths to be self evident: that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights; that among them are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.” I realized that this is not merely a political statement, but an economic one as well. I believe this statement is true, and I believe it has been the key to prosperity in the United States, and by extension, the world. But every generation is at risk of forgetting these truths, or at least forgetting how to retain those rights. That’s why I’m here, far away from my home and the woman I love. The world needs people who will spend time and energy trying to understand where freedom and prosperity come from. Otherwise, how can we expect to keep them?
*********************************************
UPDATE:
Day 4 (Thursday, June 3) – The awkwardness of being in close and consistent proximity with a bunch of strangers started wearing off after a couple of days. The lectures are good, and the late-night discussions at the pub or pizza joint next door are even better. It’s hard to really soak up information in crash-course sessions like this, but at least it familiarizes me with these issues and opens my mind to ideas about how the market can solve problems much more efficiently. The professors who are speaking at this seminar are pretty hardcore dudes, I think a couple are Anarchists, or darn near it. But if you really want to explore a school of thought you need to talk to the people who are most passionate about it. It’s not that I disagree on any major arguments, but I think there’s a point at which “the market” is glorified in idealistic impracticality, and government is villianized beyond reality. If you know me, you know I’m a pretty strong free-market, limited-government guy. But we do need government to perform basic freedom-preserving functions. It’s when government is no longer freedom-preserving that we have problems. I will attempt to wrap up the things we discussed this week after it’s all over.
We got out early yesterday so we could “see Atlanta.” I took a tour through the CNN headquarters, which is viewable from my floor-to-ceiling, wall-to-wall window… yes, it’s cool. I tried to visit Grant Park , where a Civil War battle was fought—and there’s apparently some other things there relating top the era—but it’s pretty much impossible to navigate this city without someone who knows what they’re doing. Instead I walked around downtown, grabbed a Gyro from a tiny shop on the street, and headed back to the hotel for some treadmill and a few laps in the pool. I’ll probably try Grant Park again Saturday.
In general, Atlanta’s not the prettiest place I’ve ever visited, nor are the people very nice. However, I must be fair… I’ve spent nearly my entire time downtown. Perhaps the rest of the city is different. Last night as I sat in the pizza joint across the street reading Economics in One Lesson—an introductory-level book on how regulation influences the market—and I got to see just what happens in downtown Atlanta after dark. The pizza parlor had an employee out front who looked like he was on a smoke break, but there was no cigarette, and he remained there for far to long. After watching him chase off several panhandlers who were attempting to beg money off of the customers, realized what his job was. There are some strange folk ’round here.
I have a few photos to share from the Marta train, my room and other places.
*******************************************
UPDATE: June 6
It seems a bit late to be adding on to this 3 days after coming back to Houston, but the post can’t be left incomplete.
On Friday the FEE group was treated to a couple of lectures by the President of the Von Mises Institute Jeffrey Tucker, then a closing lecture by FEE President Larry Reed. As I said in the previous update, these guys are pretty hardcore free-market guys, I have a hard time distilling exactly what role they think the governmentshould play. I’ve heard at least one mention the importance of the justice system and military protection.
My decision not to post my notes on every lecture was part intentional and part logistic. On one hand I didn’t want to say too much until I had the whole picture in view, and on the other hand I could only get online a few times the whole week. Not to mention that it would’ve made this most extremely long. However, most of my posts for the next few weeks will likely deal with economics, so much of what I learned will be applied in those posts.
To make a general statement, I think that the lessons I learned through the FEE seminar have pushed me somewhat more toward the free market—dare I say, libertarian—view. I’ve always been a free-market guy, but I had many doubts about its limits. I still think there are limits, but I’m increasingly confident in the creativity and motivations of individuals to solve problems, and increasingly distrustful of governments and special interests who use force to do so. The market allows all to choose, while the latter allows only some to choose.
I want to point out a sign that was posted outside of the building we were in. It says “if we don’t know know how many people they are, how will we know how many buses we need?” Hmmm… how would we know? Well, in the private market a company would simply keep adding buses until the demand for them slows down. The strange thing about the idea that mere population numbers tell you how many you need is that these numbers tell you nothing about where people want to go and when. The market, however, will figure that out because it responds directly to the need.
On Saturday I got up, had breakfast, and began to stroll around the city of Atlanta. I walked through some pretty rough neighborhoods on my way to the church, birth home and burial site of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., which are all on the same street, spanning about 3 blocks. I also visited his memorial museum, which inspiring, but slightly frustrating. I’m a huge fan of Dr. King, though I believe much of his message has been miscommunicated and misunderstood. People have made him a martyr for economic equality, when what he really preached was the end of race-based hatred. It’s like me saying I wish for all war to end, and people thinking I mean an end to military action. The differences are subtle, but important.
I then walked south about half a mile and ended up in what the locals call Cabbagetown—a neighborhood that meshes Houston’s Montrose, Midtown and Heights areas, including boutiques shops and restaurants, newly renovated urban condos, and victorian-style homes. A few hipsters on bicycles were thrown in for good measure.
From Cabbagetown I entered the Grant Park area. The park itself was recently renovated and looks quite nice. The park includes a zoo and the Cyclorama, which contains the largest oil painting in the world. The painting is of the Civil War battle in Atlanta, which was considered the beginning of the end of the war. I then walked through some more rough neighborhoods, before reaching the capital of Georgia. After a few photos went back to the hotel and got ready to head to the airport.
My general observation about Atlanta can only be based on the areas I visited (downtown, the east/southeast side, and along the south rail line). There were more panhandlers than I’ve ever seen in a city. It would not be an exaggeration to say I was asked for money over 25 times, and the range of creativity employed in doing so was impressive. It’s my personal policy that I don’t hand money to someone just because they walked up and asked for it. I did, however, buy a bottle of water from a dude with a cooler, and threw some change to a guy who was playing some good guitar music to passers by. At least they are being rewarded for providing something, whereas panhandlers are just further encouraged to get paid for doing nothing.
But Atlanta has some good things going for it as well. They have a lot of big businesses, which supports a strong economy. They also have a huge indoor aquarium, the “world of coke” and other interesting tourist attractions. The most disappointing aspect of the city was its lack of its old-south identity. Though the city was established long before the Civil War, it was evacuated and set on fire by evacuees before the Union took the city over. Thus, today’s Atlanta is began its rebirth relatively late—in the 1870s. That makes it even younger than Houston in terms of architecture and historical landmarks. In fact, as northerners moved into Atlanta in the late 19th century they advertised the city as the start of the “new south”, with the intention of erasing the past and embracing the industrial future. Like Rome, Atlanta built its new city atop the old, leaving historic lands buried beneath stone and steel.
Government Takeover: A Lesson in Free Markets
October 15th, 2009 § Leave a Comment
It’s true. An insider memo to Republicans, from a strategist who has been working with the party for years, encouraged party leaders to use the word “Government Takeover” when referring to the Democrat’s plan. His name is Frank Luntz, and he is an expert on the power of words in marketing. He understands that communicating is less about what is said, and much more about what is heard, so crafting language carefully is essential when building support (and Democrats understand this well). Even though from a technical standpoint the plan does not clearly state that the government will take control of the health care industry, it sets the deck for it, and Luntz has encouraged the use of the phrase in order to tune people in to what the plan ultimately means. Obviously, you may disagree… but that’s why we have parties.
I’ve heard several Democrats, including the President, accuse Republicans of misleading the public – that the government takeover thing is nonsense, and that they just want “choice and competition” in the insurance industry, as if the free market does not already supply choice and competition. Interestingly, they are against the Republican plan of allowing people to use insurance companies from other states.
The problem with the “competition” claim is that it’s bunk. The government doesn’t compete – it declares victory at will.
Think about it for a moment. How do businesses succeed? How do those fat-cat CEOs make sure that the company does well? To answer that you have to go to the source of profit – the consumer. So ask yourself, why do you shop at the grocery store you shop at, instead of the one down the street? How do you decide where to purchase gas? The clothes you are wearing, the cell phone provider you have a contract with, and the movie you’re going to see this weekend – why are you giving them your hard-earned money?
The answer is very simple: You can, and you want to.
But those two things are taken for granted too often in our society. The reason you can is because you have a job (someone pays you money in exchange for skill or labor). Also, you can because you are not prevented by the government or other factors. When jobs become more scarce people are willing to do harder work, and if the demand for work is high, wages drop. At this point that movie ticket, those new shoes and the cell phone are dropped from the budget in favor of food, shelter and clean water. Since jobs are created through the opportunity to produce and make a profit, free markets have the power to raise the standard living for all of us. I find it aggravating that the strongest advocates of the “Shared Prosperity” mantra (nice word-smithing, by the way) are fighting for policies that will eliminate half of that equation. “Shared Poverty” just didn’t have the same ring to it I suppose.
So you can buy things because jobs are available and you have one. But you want to buy things because you perceive the value of the benefit as greater or equal to the value of the cost. You are presented with the choice of keeping your money or trading it for something else, and you will only do so if it is worth it. This means that in order for a company to get your business they have to provide what you are looking for, and maybe a little extra, but the price tag has to be reasonable, otherwise you’ll go elsewhere. The more competition there is the harder the companies have to work for your business. A cell phone provider that is twice as expensive as the rest and offers fewer incentives isn’t going to do well, and they’ll go under. Then the companies who are working hard to satisfy their customers will grow. The customers, resources and jobs will shift to the better players.
Now that we’ve spelled out what is required for a company to be successful, we can look at what happens when the government runs a business. We can be sure than any government-run service will be 1) cheap, 2) inefficient, 3) low-quality, and 4) highly influenced by politicians.
The cheap factor is the main selling point for the public. Middle and low-income citizens want it, and politicians want to promise it. But why is it cheap? Because it is subsidized by people with higher incomes, made possible via the progressive tax system. Since making other people pay is far better than having to pay yourself, the government gets a lot of customers. Other companies simply can’t compete with that. And as with all things that are paid for by someone else, money is spent frivolously and with little oversight. Since there’s no concern for profit, there isn’t much concern for operational efficiency or quality either. And by the time the millions of people who bought into the idea realize its true value, it’s usually too late to back out.
But you may be thinking that if private companies offer a better product then most people wouldn’t use the public option. But this assumption is mistaken on two points. First, the government is the government. It is the one entity in our lives which has the authority to dictate your behavior, with physical consequences for disobedience. What a nice perk! Companies that do not have that power are forced to rely on actually satisfying customers. But government can just tweak this and tweak that until results come out in their favor. For example, you can personally choose to buy a product or donate to a charity, but you had no part in choosing whether to pay taxes, how much, or where it goes. You can choose how much to spend in accessories for your car, but the inspection and registration sticker regulations are set by politicians and bureaucrats.
But even when you have a choice, there is a point at which the scales are so tipped that private businesses simply can’t get a fair competition. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were two government-backed mortgage loan companies. They were pressured by politicians to lower standards in order to get more people into homes. They could do so because they were backed by other people’s money. When they did lower their standards, other banks had to drop theirs. When people started defaulting on loans Fannie and Freddy had a way out (and we decided to bail out a few more as well), but many other banks had to close their doors.
Look at public and private schools today. It is very difficult for anyone to send their children to the school of their choice. While I think government-run schools are necessary, the education system is plagued by the same things which I have pointed out here. Since education is primarily the responsibility of states, there is more accountability and less waste, but government tends to operate a certain way no matter how large or small.
It should be clear then. Government-run business is not fair business because it is not interested in competition – it is purely interested in dominance. Government has a natural tendency to seek control (in the name of service, of course), and it can only acquire control when there are no opponents. But the government’s opponents are the private businesses that provide products, services jobs and opportunity that we want and need. Government and private businesses can work together for great things when their roles are appropriately separated – much like church and state. But allowing the government to have its own “public option” for everything we buy and sell will inevitably lead to a very real “Government Takeover,” where politicians determine what you can buy, and it’ll have very little to do with what you want.
Sonia Sotomayor & Judicial Interpretation
July 13th, 2009 § 1 Comment
Sonia Sotomayor
The Senate confirmation hearings for Obama’s Supreme Court Nominee, Sonia Sotomayor, began this morning with an opening statement from Vermont Senator, Patrick Leahy. In it, he said of Judge Sotomayor that “Hers is a success story in which all Americans can take pride. … Let no one demean this extraordinary woman.” This was a reference to the fact that she made her way up from a poor family. Well, I’m sorry, Mr. Leahy, but Law, Justice and the Constitution have little to do with one’s personal story, and whether one was born to a rich or poor family. It would make a fine movie – and I guess that’s what aggravates me. We live in a time of Hollywood Politics.
Two years ago this Friday, Barack Obama spoke at a Planned Parenthood conference and made the following statement about his approach to Supreme Court nominations: “We need somebody who’s got the heart, the empathy, to recognize what it’s like to be a young teenage mom. The empathy to understand what it’s like to be poor, or African-American, or gay, or disabled, or old. And that’s the criteria by which I’m going to be selecting my judges.”
Empathy – the ability to understand and share the feeling of another.
Jump forward to 2009. Within a few months of Obama’s presidency he made his first nomination to the highest court in the land – Judge Sonia Sotomayor. If confirmed by Congress she will be the first person of Latin descent to fill such a position. Within days of her nomination the following quote, from a speech in 2001, was made famous: “I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would, more often than not, reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life.” It means exactly what it says – if you want the context the New York Times provides the transcript here.
Call it empathy – I call it racism. But that’s not the point I’m after.
What is being heralded by the progressive movement today is that “Justice” in our society can be achieved through eliminating social advantages and making everyone feel like life is “fair.” They want total economic equality, and they see the Supreme Court as the best way to change society, because it doesn’t require a vote. By putting activists in the Court, they believe they can write and rewrite the foundations of our legal system in order to do this. In essence, they want to give the “losing team” the whistle; to put their player in the umpire outfit. Instead of interpreting the Constitution according to its meaning, they want a new constitution.
To them, law is not natural and inherent – it is invented by people in power. And since law is not natural, it is not definitive. Since it is not definitive, it cannot be sought out, only created.
I must ask, then, what is the purpose of a law if it can be traded for new ones every election cycle? What value is a law that can be created by one generation to be erased the next, and so on? Are our fundamental rights based on a tried and true natural law or not? If not, we may as well flush the Declaration of Independence down the toilet.
I believe that human rights are concrete. The constitution had specific intentions to protect those rights. Having empathy has nothing to do with it. Life experiences have nothing to do with it. What do you need to be an excellent Supreme Court Justice? First, you should spend a considerable amount of study time on the Constitution, the transcripts and journals that documented the debates over it, and the personal diaries of the men involved. You should also understand the political philosophies that influenced their judgement. And you should be a generally wise and intelligent person in order to put all of these things together and apply them to modern conflicts.
Good judgement in American civil law is a result of understanding the foundations of that law, and is completely separated from personal opinions, personal experiences and personal feelings. The ability to withhold these things and make objective judgments, allowing the Constitution – and the spirit under which it was written – to be the authority, is what separates a Supreme Court Justice from a political activist. But they want it so badly, that as far as they are concerned the end justifies the means. But do we want an end which seeks to place itself above the law?
_____________________________
Hey, how about a new Federalist Party?
July 9th, 2009 § 2 Comments
Third parties are generally a waste of time, and there are two primary reasons. #1: lack of sufficient funds and networking for a successful national campaign, and #2: a hesitancy among people in both major parties who fear that by abandoning the ship they are weakening it, only to dive into a sinking boat. Instead, the parties shift and sway with the interests of those who support it. Because of the fundamental ideological differences in the two parties, most issues go to one side or the other, but there is always disagreement within a party. Some Democrats oppose abortion, and some Republicans support it. Party affiliation isn’t so much about submitting to the beliefs of the party s it is influencing the party with your beliefs.
So there’s no real reason to go around calling for a new party – but it sure is fun to speculate.
Results from a Gallup poll came out last week that show how Americans believe the Democratic Party has become too liberal, but that views on Republicans are split. Some think they’re too liberal, others think they’re too conservative.
If I can digress for a second, I have to wonder whether the people answering these polls understand what the terms “liberal” and “conservative” mean. I suppose it is a result of the Culture Wars, but it seems that the modern political landscape in this country tends to be framed as a debate over moral traditionalism versus moral relativism. While that is definitely part of the discussion, we should remember that the true issue is not over which type of morality to legislate, but whether morality is the proper arena for government intervention in the first place.
I am not saying that law should ignore ethical issues, after all, what is law but a standard of ethics? I am simply saying that the principles of true Conservatism have been diluted by an overzealous crowd of politicians and yes, even church folk, who desire to use the Federal Government as a means to correct society’s ills and bring the prodigal sons back to order. Do I believe that our nation has made steps away from our Christian heritage? Yes. Am I disappointed and grieved at that fact? Yes. But do I think that making laws is going to cure America and bring God’s blessings upon us? No! Laws do not make people good, and perhaps the greatest problem is deciding whose definition of “good” we follow. The Baptists? The Presbyterians? The Catholics?
Anyway, it seems that while Republicans continue to be unpopular as a party, Conservatism itself is gaining steam when you get right down to its basic tenets. Americans believe in liberty. They may not like the scary aspects of Capitalism, or the burden of individual responsibility, but when faced with the real alternatives, and when the hidden details are made plain, Americans always value their personal privacy and freedom. So what the Republican Party has to do is embrace their traditional message of Liberty. Will they? Can they? I don’t know. But if not, the time would be ripe for a new party. What would I call it? With all the revolutionary-era references lately, what better name than “The Federalist Party.” Yes, there was a Federalist Party before, but there’s no reason why we can’t resurrect it. Especially since the Federalist Papers already provide the manifesto!
The original Federalist Party began only two election cycles after the first American election. They were the remnants of people who called themselves “Federalists,” who argued for the adoption of the Constitution. There’s a bit of confusion over the name, because in their own time they would have represented the “pro-Big Government” position. Yet today Federalism is often used to refer to the constitutional divide between federal and state powers, which is typically a small-government position. In reality, modern day conservative rhetoric more closely resembles that of the Anti-Federalists, who opposed the Constitution because it was a harsh blow to the liberties they had just fought for – and they were right. The Bill of Rights was not part of the Constitution, and was added only as a condition of New York’s ratification.
However, when compared to the modern era, it is clear that todays Democrats are a far cry from their 18th century counterpart. No one would have dreamed of direct income taxes (much less at 40%), nationalization of banks, or massive social programs in 1789. The principles that the Federalists promoted were of limited government with a reasonable amount of power, enough to sustain itself and protect its people. Under the Articles of Confederation – our oft ignored first constitution – the government was extremely inefficient, currency and military structures were abysmal, and the Federal Government had no real power to levy taxes on the states to pay for itself, or to do anything really. Washington has to have a certain degree of authority. We can’t deny that. But today’s conservatives argue that the ever-growing power of the Federal Government has far exceeded that which was intended by our Founders, and that under an authority this strong liberty cannot be protected. And I have to agree. No one can doubt that states and individuals in America have consistently lost ground over the last 100 years – especially under the leadership of such social utopianists as Franklin Roosevelt, Lyndon Johnson, Jimmy Carter and Barack Obama.
So maybe its time to go back to our roots and remind America of what she stood for on the day she was made. The new Federalist Party would do that. What would be the basic Federalist party platform? Let’s see….
1. The Separation of Powers, providing Checks and Balances between the 3 branches of Government and within Congress itself is essential in protecting liberty in America.
2. The Constitution, while it can be amended under severe necessity in order to achieve more thoroughly the ends for which it was intended, is not a “living document”, for it is designed for the sole purpose of protecting the liberties of Americans.
3. The 10th Amendment, which reserves all rights to the states that are not given to the Federal Government, must be respected.
4. We are a Representative Republic, not a Democracy. The public should be aware of the dangers of true democracy.
5. There should be as much separation between the individual and the Federal Government as reasonably possible.
6. Repeal the 17th Amendment, which disconnected State legislatures from Congress by making Senators electable through the population instead of the legislature, as originally designed.
I’m going to stop there and let other people fill the blanks….
If you have a suggestion for the “Federalist Party” platform leave a comment. I will add the ones I really like to the post. It doesn’t have to be serious, after all, this is just for fun… or is it?
_______________________________________________
Update: Lee Coursey asked below why I wouldn’t just join the Libertarian Party. Well, good question, and I do have an answer. In my opinion the Libertarian platform is so focused on absolute liberty that is comes quite close to Anarchy, and I do not believe that it can muster the kind of broad support it would need to become a major party, simply because it is so radical. Also, they seem to take on a view toward moral relativism that I don’t believe is a positive step.
A few examples of where I split with the Libertarian platform: 1) While there are grey areas on abortion, the Government should definitely not take the hands-off approach they are proposing. The freedom to live is our most precious freedom, and if nothing else a Federal ban on late-term abortions is entirely appropriate. The rest can be up to states. 2) They want to lift all censorship restrictions – that’s ridiculous. Many of our current regulations are very reasonable. Parents can filter most of what their children see and hear, but if there were no restrictions whatsoever that would be an impossible job. I do believe society has a certain right to make demands on communications through government. 3) I think one of the few ways government has to regulate business is when dealing with Monopolies – at least among non-luxury industries. The public needs competition. Without it, the consumer loses all negotiating ground and becomes controlled by the company. When freedom to pursue profit leads to the loss of choice on the consumer’s part something has to be done. 4) LIbertarians would put education completely in the private sector. Bad move. While education may not be a fundamental right, it is vital to our survival as a nation and to the very valuable American concept of economic Mobility. I did not come from a wealthy family, and if my mother had to pay for education I simply would not have gone to school. Obviously I wouldn’t have learned to read and write, and I would definitely not be blogging about political theory and whatnot. In order for people to be good citizens they require a certain degree of education, which should be available to all citizens.
My point is, when we enter into a society we do so understanding that we are all in it together, to protect one another. Those in our society that mean to disrupt this goal have their life, liberty and property taken. But in order to have a strong and prosperous society we must all be willing to give a reasonable amount of our own liberty. A peaceful society is a give and take relationship. To champion liberty in its absolute purest state is to call for an end to law, thus an end to the civil society. Many of the ideas Libertarians support would increase personal liberty – no doubt – but they would also weaken our nation. Abraham Lincoln understood this, and eventhough he was a proud sponsor of liberty – the first Republican, and “Great Emancipator,” in fact – he knew that there as a price to pay for lasting peace, and he was willing to deny transient cries of liberty in order to preserve the Union. Libertarians romanticize over liberty to an extent that they no longer ask what is reasonable to sacrifice for the greater good, and I fear that under their control America would be a weaker and less secure nation.
3 Questions for Democrats
June 12th, 2009 § Leave a Comment
I want to extend an official open invitation to people who currently support the Democratic Party. There are a few of questions that I have difficulty getting answered, and I hope someone can come forward and provide clear and logical arguments. You can answer any question or all of them.
1) How will the Democrat agenda/platform lead to a stronger and more prosperous America?
2) What is a reasonable point at which the government should take control of something?
3) Do you believe that in personal and business matters the government knows best?
A week in D.C. and thoughts on Libertarianism
July 23rd, 2010 § 4 Comments
It’s been several days, and I am only now recovering from what turned out to be quite an exhausting week in Washington, DC. I travelled there on invitation from the Institute for Humane Studies to participate in one of their week-long summer seminars—this one focused on public policy from a libertarian perspective. We spent about 10 hours each day in lectures, Q & A session and discussion groups. Of the 60 or so students who had come to the Trinity University campus, at least a third of them had come from overseas, and never more than a few from any given country. It was common to find oneself at a table with people of 5 different nationalities.
The seminars themselves were mostly various forms of critique of government policies, none of which were entirely new to me, and therefore didn’t result in any profound realizations on my part. However, there was much to be gleaned from the after-hours discussions with other liberty-minded individuals from around the world. I always hear about the socialists in places like France, Canada or Norway, so speaking to people from these countries who value the ideals of the American founders was educational and inspiring. The week was less about what I learned from lectures, and more about how I changed through the experience as a whole.
The IHS folks were great, and made themselves very available to us. Part of their mission is to get people connected, and to provide guidance for people who want to pursue careers in advancing libertarian principles in academia and think tanks. We spent a few hours at the Cato Institute, hearing from several of their staff about the organization and the work they do, which really provided some clarity in the ambiguous world of political think tanks.
TOURING DC
We were released on Friday morning, but seeing as how I’d never been to my nation’s capitol, I had plans to stay an extra few days to see the town. I was able to visit all of the major memorials and monuments, Ford’s Theatre and the house in which Lincoln died, several of the Smithsonian museums, the outside of the White House, the Supreme Court, Library of Congress, National Archives and, of course, the Capitol. We had to personally stop by our Senator’s office (John Cornyn) to get passes into to the House and Senate chambers.
The most amazing moment of the entire trip was standing before the Declaration of Independence, U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights. Second to that would be a portion of the Library of Congress where many documents and letters from the founding era are on display, along with Thomas Jefferson’s personal library. I have spent a significant amount of time studying our founding era, its important documents and the people involved. It was incredible to finally meet all of them face to face.
ON LIBERTARIANISM
I am a solid believer in limited government. When government claims authority over a given matter, the sovereignty of individuals to make decisions for themselves in that matter is eliminated. As the power to regulate expands, more cash and lobbyists must be tossed into the game by companies and groups who want to ensure preferable regulation.
Furthermore, the call for government action in the first place is rarely necessary. The market is far more capable of assessing and meeting needs than a handful of suits around a table, and when people are free to invest and invent, wealth is increased and the entire community enjoys a better standard of living. I haven’t even mentioned the moral problem with the arbitrary taxation and distribution of resources. The 18 powers enumerated in the constitution, accurately interpreted, were designed to keep us a free and secure people. It is diversion from those limits that has caused many of the problems we face in America.
Having laid bare my libertarian credentials, I now turn to the reasons I disagreed with many of my hard-libertarian friends. A number of people I spoke with, including a couple of the speakers, were self-described “anarcho-capitalists.” They essentially believe we should work toward a stateless society—the logic for which rests on the principle that voluntary human action increases cooperation, while coercion causes disruption and corruption. While I generally agree with this premise, to extrapolate from this that the world can be at peace by extirpating every form of government is just as far from reality as the socialist utopia that conservatives and libertarians mock.
My critique of the anarcho-capitalist theory is that it fails to account for the reason political associations are created in the first place, and imagines that people who are aggressively competitive in the market will not be aggressively competitive when faced with extinction or survival.
Societies form naturally, and in due time they will inevitably be faced with a serious threat, either internally or externally. They find themselves at risk of losing their liberty, their loved ones, or their life. In order to defeat this threat, and because we understand there is power in numbers, they forge associations and agree upon certain terms. This, I might add, is voluntary action. The concern, then, for the defender of liberty, is not to eliminate these commitments, but to a) ensure that as the “contract” is drafted essential liberties are not forfeited over for arbitrary rule, and b) ensure that those who are given power remain crippled in their ability to circumvent the agreement. This is what the Constitutional Convention attempted to do, and while it was not perfect, it has been left to subsequent generations to protect their liberties by preserving the agreement or, when necessary, altering and strengthening it.
Anarcho-capitalists tend to focus more on the consistently disastrous economic outcomes of government intervention, and not on ugly political realities. They prefer to simply say it shouldn’t exist, than to admit that it must exist, and try to find a position of compromise. And this is where this ideology becomes very dangerous.
Failure to recognize the necessity of the political process results in a rejectionist attitude. I am not exaggerating when I say that half, half of the libertarians I spoke with during my week in DC said they did not vote in the last election, and most say they simply don’t vote, period. Let me make this clear: no vote is a vote for the guy you least want to win. The game is being played, and you are in it,… you do not get to choose whether to participate, other than moving out of the country. Imagine the damage done to our society by millions of liberty-oriented people who have chosen to stay home on election day, year after year. The key is to be active in the primaries, when the candidates are unknown and vulnerable, the voters are few, and anyone’s got a decent shot. And be involved at the local and state levels—the breeding grounds for future federal officeholders.
Imagine that society is a play. The script, lights, costumes and choreography are all determined by many different people using their own expertise. A great performance is the culmination of thousands of decisions and months of planning, which cannot be done by a single person. This is the way the market works, free from government interference. But the government does have an important role in building a safe and stable platform on which the play can be performed. It needs few tools, and little creativity, and once the platform is built there is little more to do but maintain it. But by doing this the play can go on safely, and adapt as needed without restructuring the platform.
Friends of liberty, the best strategy we have in this war against statism is to change the minds of the people; show them why liberty is important, and how it is being slowly eradicated. And while you would be correct to point out that this happens outside of the voting booth, we must realize that at some point ideas have to become action in order to make a difference. The voting booth is the only measure; the only instrument through which the public indirectly charts the course of collective progress. If those who believe in liberty refrain from it, then who are we leaving to pull the lever in our stead?