Free People, Not Free Markets
Hopefully the good people at Blasphemy Blog won't mind that I'm just lifting their post, but I thought this one was quite good.
posted by Smorgasbord @ 12:57 PM
7 comments
Notes From a Patriots Fan
I am a Neo-Liberal. I advocate taxpayer funded social programs to effect a better country. However, I acknowledge that every time we let government pass a law we restrict our liberty. We must therefore be vigilant in keeping government as small as possible and wholly accountable for its actions. Corrupt representatives and an apathetic citizenry have started a trend toward fascism. I aim to slow that tide by energizing my fellow Americans through open political discourse. I am a patriot.
7 Comments:
Smorg,
Having lived in Africa for 6 years my perspective is a little different. If you have the time read:
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/thomassowell/ts20050712.shtml
&
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/thomassowell/ts20050713.shtml
There are many naive people in this nation who comment on things they are unaware of.
Let me know what you think.
-Jack
Perhaps I misunderstood the intent of the post at Blasphemy Blog, but to me they weren't necessarily saying we needed to intervene in Africa as much as they were saying completely free markets aren't necessarily the answer to all of the world's ills - as some "conservatives" suggest.
Free markets are a fantasy in Africa, Smorg. They don't exist. The did at one time in South Africa, but that has since been ground into the dirt economically.
Business is the key to economic activity and prosperity. This is reality.
-Jack
Indeed we need businesses. They are the economy. Without them there would be no economy. But we also need regulation. "Outside forces" such as governance laws, the SEC, and labor unions have done a terrific job of keeping heartless corporations in check. I say "heartless corporations" not as an insult or a judgment either, it's simply the way it is. They are viewed as people in the eyes of American law (which I think is a mistake) but they aren't people and they don't have a conscience. That's the chief reason they are so dangerous. Necessary, of course, but dangerous and in need of constant supervision.
I don't know squat about the economics of Africa and I won't pretend to. The only reason I linked to the post at Blasphemy Blog was because I liked his point about how in free market systems it's the market that is free, not the people. I think it's important we always keep that in mind.
I agree, Smorg. A corporation is about making money for the stock holders. It is an unfeeling entity. A business also is without a heart, and its purpose it to make money. All of this has to take place within the context of morality and ethics. That is what regulation is for.
As life is about balance, there is a line where regulation can cross where business ceases to be profitable. Therefore no one does it. Here in SC our textile industry used to be what powered us economically. Between regulation, competition and taxation, it no longer becamse profitable for people to maintain the textile business so they went out of business. This resulted in lost jobs, lost production, etc.
I think that many people look at capitalism as an "ism" along the same line as they do socialism and communism. This is a false assumption (not saying you don't already understand this), as capitalism is not a political system so much as an economic one. The far left (Lenin) viewed it as a threat to the power structures of both socialism and communism, while failing to see its merits. What they did not realize, was that socialism and communism fail when markets are not allowed to flourish. So when the Soviet Union failed economically and when China failed economically they realized that capitalism was the only answer to economic growth. What had happened was that they had demonized an economic system and equated it with a political system and that is just not true.
Today's left tend to think this way too. Capitalism is not the opposite of Communism--they are unlike constructs.
If one looks for opposites then this is how it would look:
Democracy - Fascism
Socialism - Ochlocracy
Communism - Objectivistic libertarianism
Capitalism happens to be the primary economic model within democratic society, so the concern Lenin had with capitalism was really a concern with democracy.
Hope this makes sense,
-Jack
I don't know what you mean by "Objectivistic libertarianism". Can you link me to some place(s) that explain it?
Thanks
Actually that was a term I coined back when I taught at Penn State, so I will have to give you my definition. Centrist libertarianism is about personal freedom coupled with personal responsibility. This is what is being promoted out there, and it's premise in based highly on individualism. Objectivistic libertarianism is extreme libertarianism and it is centrally focused on personal freedom devoid of personal responsibility. This person would think that their individual rights supercede all collective rights. A complete centrality of self.
Back when I was teaching I began work on a model (I don't believe that I am particularly original with this, as it makes so much sense!:) which I was going to incorporate into a book that I was (am still) writing. It is not completely developed, but illustrates the gist of political structure.
I posted it on:
News Snipet 'Blog: MORE TO COME
Excuse its being a little crude.(I tried to piece it together on MS Word)
The top and bottom hemisphere's have to do with one's philosophy of government. For example, the top half is about individualism-- (individual freedoms) while the bottom half is about egalitarianism (collective outcomes). The person at the top hemisphere is in favor of personal freedom coupled with personal responsibility (and a wide variety of degrees). The person on the bottom is in favor of equal outcomes. Here is what the top would think: "I do not appreciate interference from others on my personal choices and decision making. I want the freedom to make those choices for myself and am willing to accept the consequences and responsibility for those choices I make." The bottom says "I think that everyone should be entitled to equal outcomes. Everyone should have the same amount of money and resources, regardless of how much they contribute towards its creation. No one should have personal rights and all decisions for outcomes should be made by the collective." (sort of the "Borg" model).
If one uses pure democracy as a starting point, then as one proceeds leftward (liberal thought) they proceed through socialism, communism, then fascism. Lenin knew his politics well. If one proceeds right (radical thought), then they proceed through libertarianism, ochlocracy/controlled anarchy, fundamentalism (not what most Americans understand the term to mean) and then fascism. All roads away from democracy lead to fascism, Smorg, regardless of whether one goes left or right, something most people on the left and the right do not understand.
Examples: Hitler was a liberal socialist who moved further leftward eventually becoming fascist. An example of the right side would be like what happened when Saddam was toppled and Sadir tried to reassert a theocratic rule in Iraq, bringing people back under fascism.
Play around with the model a little and you will see world events and people in it. You can pretty much indicated with a pencil where someone stands politically in this model by analysis of their personal philosophy.
Will be back for more comment if you like on this topic.
-Long-winded Jack
Post a Comment
<< Home