Category Archives: Liberalism

>Be Careful What You Fight For

>There is one positive consequence of the economic collapse that is occurring, and the futile attempt by the government to stop it with money stolen from its constituents: the American public has woken up. Despite the best efforts of the major media outlets to spin this the way the government would like, it is apparent that mainstream America is mighty angry that they are being fleeced to prop up the financial system. I hope that anger does not fade with the passage of time – at least not until after November 4th. While wholesale changes are unlikely, it would be nice to see a few incumbents packing after this election and replaced by non-Republicrats. It would be an encouraging sign of things to come.

However, as good as it is to finally see some outrage over the destruction of our Republic, there is still a long way to go. Listening closely to the cries of anger, it is apparent that the majority of Americans still haven’t found their way to actually demanding their freedom. While they are angry, it seems that government has successfully channeled their anger in the wrong direction. Generally, Americans are mad at Wall Street, and are blaming this crisis on “greed.” To the extent that they fault government, they are blaming the crisis on “not enough regulation on Wall Street” and even (ugh) “too much laissez faire capitalism.” This of course plays right into the government’s hands, because the answer to “too much laissez faire capitalism” is more government intervention into the marketplace – which was the REAL cause of this problem in the first place.

If anything, the number one clue that it was not free enterprise that caused this debacle is that the government says it was. By now, every American should know to listen carefully to everything that the Bush Administration says and assume that exactly the opposite is true. However, decades of conditioning to mistrust the free market is paying off for the government, at least for the time being. They have turned this into a class war, instead of an ideological one. They have Americans indiscriminately resenting the wealthy, whether they earned their money legitimately or not. They have Americans condemning corporations, whether they achieved their place in the market legitimately or not. While Americans are mad at their government, they have been convinced, for the moment, that government’s failure was not protecting the average American from the evils of capitalism.

Of course, the truth is that this crisis was a failure of socialism, not capitalism. It was the socialist idea that every American was entitled to a house, and that taxpayers must pay for them, that led to the creation of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Those companies guaranteed mortgages to people that would not have received them in a free market. Only the ability of the government to forcibly collect taxes to back those mortgages allowed the lenders to offer them. If there was any doubt that the government was backing Fannie and Freddie with taxpayer money, that doubt was removed when the government took over the companies when their inevitable failure occurred.

Even with the GSE’s in place, it took another socialist institution, the Federal Reserve, to supply the imaginary money needed to lend to all of those “sub-prime” borrowers. Without the imaginary “liquidity” provided by the Fed, the loans could never have been made and the home prices could never have been bid up so far. The Fed merely blew up another bubble, as it has been doing since the day it opened its doors in 1913.

What these interventions into the marketplace do is create artificial demand. Everyone knows that an increase in demand, while supply remains equal (or when the increase in demand outpaces an increase in supply), results in an increase in price levels. However, demand is not merely the desire to purchase a product, but also the ability to do so. If demand were merely the desire to have something, there would be unlimited demand for all products and services, taking most of the challenge out of running a successful business! The Fed and Fannie Mae certainly didn’t increase the number of people who desired to have a house, but it dramatically increased their purchasing power. In fact, the combination of easy money and credit by the Fed and the incentive for lax lending standards represented a massive increase in demand over the entire housing market, with the predictable dramatic increase in home prices. None of this represents free market forces at work. It is textbook socialist central planning and wealth redistribution.

That brings us to the government “solution,” and what Americans should really be mad about. Our government is now going to forcibly extort trillions of dollars from us in a misguided attempt to maintain the artificial conditions it created in the market. It won’t work. They have tried it many times, and it has never worked. The artificial demand drove prices far above their natural level, and natural market forces are now pushing them back down. Borrowers were lent money that they were never going to be able to pay back. What is worse, a large percentage took the artificial equity caused by the rise in price of their homes in home equity loans and spent it. That money is gone, and the borrowers can’t pay it back. Government taking possession of the mortgages isn’t going to change that. Those borrowers are still going to default, and the home prices are eventually going to go where they naturally must go. Economic forces are like forces of nature. In the end they cannot be stopped.

This intervention is practically identical to the interventions attempted during the Roosevelt administration in the 1930’s, which turned a severe 2-year recession into a crushing, 10-year depression. This bailout will have devastatingly similar results. It doesn’t matter whether a CEO gets away with a $10 million dollar bonus or not. What matters is tens of millions of Americans unemployed for a very, very long time. THAT will be the result of government’s attempts to maintain the artificial conditions in the economy that GOVERNMENT created in the first place.

Since the Austrian economists predicted all of this, while the Keynesians did not, it might pay to listen to what the Austrians suggest as a solution to these government-created crises. While their first advice was always not to create the problems in the first place, they certainly were clear about what to do when the inevitable bubble bursts occurred. Not surprisingly, they advised us to do EXACTLY THE OPPOSITE of what the government proposes. The cure for the recession, according to the Austrians, was to EASE regulation on business, especially in the labor market, and allow the quickest, smoothest reallocation of resources (including human resources) that was possible. As government intervention had created the problem, more government intervention was not going to solve it. In fact, any intervention could only make it worse, no matter what form it took. That is because the wealth creating mechanism of capitalism depends upon the participants making their decisions voluntarily, and government intervention represents forcing people to make different choices. This is really what most Americans are demanding from their government right now – for government to force market participants to choose differently than they otherwise would. Be careful what you fight for, Mr. and Mrs. America, you will probably get even more than you asked for.

I do have hope, however. Sooner or later, Americans will figure this out. At least they’re screaming about something now, which is a lot better than the docile slumber they’ve exhibited over the past several decades as we’ve marched toward oblivion. The government would much rather have them keep on sleeping than to have to divert their anger towards scapegoats and imaginary boogeymen. They will succeed in doing just that this time, but their system is nearing its end. The inevitable economic debacle will occur, and hopefully that will be the final straw. Americans have put their faith in government control and central planning of their lives for almost a century, and it has consistently let them down. Perhaps this last calamity will finally make them see the socialist lie for what it is. Then, they will finally stop walking down the road to serfdom.

Home

The Populist Myth of the 19th Century

Leave a reply

1024px-Mill_Children_in_Macon_2 Spending too much time talking with people that share your views can skew your perception of public opinion. Once you are close to any subject, there are certain conclusions that you accept as self evident because their validity has been proven over and over again. As time goes by, and you have discussions with people that are equally convinced of the validity of those conclusions, it is easy to begin assuming that everyone recognizes them. It is only by talking with people outside your group that you realize that, however valid your beliefs may be, the vast majority of people are either ignorant of them or remain unconvinced. This is undeniably true for me regarding the 19th century.

Despite irrefutable evidence to the contrary, there is a popular view of that period that I call The Populist Myth of the 19th Century. Before dismissing its relevance, consider the fact that this myth has been and remains the driving force behind most public policy from the turn of the 20th century to the present day. Belief in this myth has been behind the gravest errors made by government, not only in domestic policy, but in foreign policy as well. The great wars of the 20th century may well have been avoided and the defeat of poverty might be within our grasp had this Myth not gained acceptance with the great majority of people. These are extraordinary claims, to be sure. However, not only are they provable with diligent research, they can be proven theoretically as well. However, before getting to the proof, let us first define our terms. What is the Populist Myth of the 19th Century? It goes something like this.

After the United States won its independence from Great Britain, it established a system of government that placed priority of individual rights over all others. As a natural result of its system of laws, an economic system of unprecedented free trade, or laissez faire capitalism, naturally emerged. As a result, the Industrial Revolution came to America and flourished even more so than it had in Great Britain. Unencumbered by government control, America became a great wealth-producing engine and hotbed of innovation that resulted in a reshaping of the way human beings lived their lives and made great fortunes for captains of industry that lead the way in this period of explosive progress.

However, the price of this unencumbered freedom was oppression of the working and poorer classes by these same captains of industry. Unrestricted by government regulation, large corporations were free to drive down the price of labor, cut their costs by skimping on safety and other protections in the work environment, and increase their vast fortunes at the expense of misery for the working class, which was reduced to virtual slavery. Eventually, even the children of working class families were sent into the factories to help families on the brink of starvation try to earn enough to survive.

By the turn of the 20th century, it was apparent that reform was needed to save the working class from the victimization inherent in laissez faire capitalism. The social reform movement began, establishing social programs for those left behind, imposing tighter regulation on business, giving a fair chance to workers to unionize, and preventing the natural inclination towards monopoly that was also apparently inherent in capitalism. The fight for the common man had begun, with its champions Woodrow Wilson, Teddy Roosevelt, Franklin Roosevelt, and other bright lights of the 20th century. That fight goes on to this day, championed by the “liberal” or “progressive” parties in politics, with the goal of someday achieving the economic equality that a free society desires.

This is a compelling story. It appeals to the natural instinct in humans to pull for the underdog and fight against injustice. The basic tenets of this myth have inspired great works of literature and iconic films over the past century. It remains the core belief of most celebrities in America, an assumption of the media when looking for compelling news or attempting to appear “on your side” to the average reader/viewer, and most importantly, a fundamental assumption of government in making the laws which determine what we can and cannot do. There is only one problem. None of it is true.

Certainly, the general “solutions” alluded to occurred, but the problems did not exist. This may seem ridiculous to most 21st century Americans. EVERYBODY knows that working conditions were poor in the 19th century, workers were economically oppressed, that unrestricted capitalism naturally results in monopolies, and that, however distasteful it might seem, some government control of the economy is necessary or most of society’s wealth ends up in the hands of the wealthy few at the expense of the starving masses. Let us take a look at the fallacies of the Myth one at a time.

First, the quality of life of the working class did not deteriorate as the industrial revolution progressed, it rose dramatically. Pictures of what we would consider today squalid living conditions and relative poverty are extremely misleading when viewed in a vacuum. When one considers the quality of life for the working classes – the peasants of the old world – for all of history before the Industrial Revolution, it is apparent that the quality of life during the 19th century was much better. More importantly, IT WAS CONSTANTLY IMPROVING. This was the natural result of innovations like mass production. A simple understanding of supply and demand dictates that when the supply of goods and services is increased, their prices go down. The supply of goods and services, especially manufactured goods, exploded in the 19th century. Products that had previously been only available to the rich were now available to everyone, and their prices had dropped low enough that even those on an average income could afford them. For the first time in history, the primary market for the output of society’s production was the common people themselves, rather than the rich.

Detractors of capitalism often point to periods of decline in average wages as “proof” of the inherent oppression of the worker in laissez faire capitalism. This argument demonstrates either an attempt at deliberate distortion or a pitiable lack of understanding of basic economics. While wages sometimes did go down, prices declined at a much faster rate, resulting in a dramatic rise in “real wages” for the average working class American. Money is only the medium of exchange, and its nominal value is irrelevant without considering its corresponding purchasing power. If one had the power to cut all wages by 10%, but also to cut all prices by 50%, one would have the power of making everyone much, much richer. That is exactly what laissez faire capitalism did during the 19th century. It not only made the captains of industry richer, it made the working class richer. This trend was still continuing when the social reform movement started. Had it not been interrupted, one can only imagine how much better off the working class might be today.

There is also the myth that laissez faire capitalism naturally results in monopolies for large corporations, which then use their advantage in the market to raise prices for consumers and drive down wages, resulting in a general impoverishment of the working class. Again, the most basic understanding of economics (or even simple logic) refutes this claim easily. First, one must consider that there are two kinds of monopolies. One certainly can result from laissez faire capitalism. The other kind is a government created monopoly. The first kind of monopoly actually benefits society, while the second harms it.

Monopolies occur naturally in a laissez faire system only one way: when one company is able to deliver better products at lower prices than any of its competitors. Contrary to the Myth, this type of monopolist cannot then use its advantage to drive up prices and drive down wages. It must continue to keep its quality higher and prices below that of its competitors, or its monopoly status will cease to exist. Similarly, it is also competing with other firms for quality labor. If it offers lower pay or poorer working conditions than its competitors, its labor force will naturally migrate to the higher pay and better conditions of the competitors. While it might be argued that neither of these can happen once the monopolist’s competition has been eliminated, competition is NEVER eliminated. If there are no active firms competing at the moment, the possibility of investors entering the market is always present, and new firms enter the market the minute that a monopolist shows signs of vulnerability in its domination of a particular industry. Thus, the possibility of competition hangs over the head of the natural monopolist like an economic sword of Damocles.

A government-imposed monopoly, on the other hand, suffers from none of these pressures. Since no other firms are ALLOWED to compete, the monopolist is free to set prices wherever it sees fit. For any workers that desire to work in that particular industry, they must accept the wages offered by the monopolist or not work in that industry at all. It is within the government-imposed monopoly that all of the evils associated with monopolies exist.

Government-imposed monopolies can occur in two ways. One is where the government simply passes a law saying that a particular firm will be the sole provider of a particular good or service. This was common in the 20th century for public utilities. The flawed logic that inspired these policies was rooted in the Myth. It was thought that for basic necessities, which everyone was entitled to, businesses should not be allowed to profit from providing them. Therefore, government would allow one company to sell those services to the public, with strict control over their prices. The obvious failure of this logic resulted in the deregulation movement later in the 20th century. Detractors of this will point to power shortages and blackouts such as those experienced in California earlier in this decade. However, analysis of those crises consistently reveals that they were caused by those government controls left in place after deregulation, rather than the deregulation itself. For example, in California, the mass blackouts of 2001 were the result of price ceilings left in place in the supply chain. A free market makes no compromises.

The other, more common type of government monopoly results from excessive regulation. This is the unforeseen result of copious regulations imposed on industry in trying to solve the imaginary problems of the Myth. When it becomes so expensive to comply with regulation that only the largest firms can operate in a given industry, you have a trend toward government-created monopoly. More often than an outright monopoly by one firm, a few large firms emerge and do compete with each other, but they are insulated from new competition by the cost-prohibitive aspect of complying with regulations. While competition amongst themselves brings some of the forces of capitalism to bear, a status quo emerges in how the industry does business and what the limits on price and wages are. The economic sword of Damocles does not hang over the heads of these protected firms, other than to the extent that they compete with each other. Only a new competitor can shake the industry up, and government has insured that new competition is unlikely.

John D. Rockefeller’s Standard Oil was an example of a natural monopoly. It resulted in oil being delivered to the market at higher quality and lower prices than any other company could compete with. Standard Oil’s monopoly was maintained by CONTINUING to deliver that high quality and those low prices. Rockefeller was later a major player in creating the Federal Reserve and other government interventions into the economy, which are harmful to the market. However, he attained his vast wealth and eventual monopoly in oil by benefitting customers, not harming them.

In contrast, the government-created monopolies in the public utilities sector resulted in poorer service and higher prices for consumers. This is the reason that deregulation was eventually pursued. Immediately upon introducing competition and a FREER MARKET, supply and quality rose, while prices fell dramatically. Only in cases where government controls were left in place did adverse results occur, as previously noted.

One more aspect of the Myth that immediately comes to mind is the specter of child labor. The Myth says that child labor was a natural result of the Industrial Revolution, and that only government intervention ended it. Again, a compelling story, but completely untrue. As Andrew Bernstein insightfully points out in his book, The Capitalist Manifesto, the Industrial Revolution didn’t create the practice of child labor, IT ENDED IT. Child labor had been a fact of life for the working class throughout history. Indeed, one of the reasons (and there were many) for the migration of people away from the country and into the factory jobs in the city was the fact that the jobs their children would do in the factories were far easier than the back-breaking work they did on the farm. After less than a century of industrialization, real wages rose to the point that most families did not have to send their children to work at all. Thus, government did not end the practice of child labor, laissez faire capitalism did. This is a verifiable fact of history.[1]

This is only a brief and incomplete critique of the Myth. It has many other components, each of which can be shown to be equally false. The Myth is based upon a core misunderstanding of capitalism. Today, capitalism is wrongly characterized as a system that gives an advantage to the rich, or to employers. It is no such thing. Capitalism is the system of freedom, where every transaction between buyer and seller is undertaken by mutual, voluntary consent. In this system, all participants make the best decision that they can based upon their rational self interest. Sellers attempt to sell at the highest price that their goods or services will fetch on the market, while buyers attempt to buy at the lowest prices that they can. Buyers seek the highest quality for their dollar, while sellers seek to provide higher quality for the same money in order to win business away from their competitors. The sum total of all of these voluntary transactions results in the economy becoming a wealth-generating engine. The secret is the ability of all participants to choose freely. By acting in their rational self interest they benefit both themselves and society as a whole. Without this free choice, the wealth-creating mechanism breaks down.

Many might argue that “buyer and seller” immediately excludes “worker,” but that is a tragic misunderstanding as well. In a capitalist system, labor is a market like everything else. “Workers” are really SELLERS. They are selling their services to employers. They compete with each other for the best jobs, and employers compete with each other for the best employees. When not disrupted by government, all of the benefits that accompany the free market for other goods and services occur in the labor market as well. Detractors of capitalism attempt to portray workers as servants that must be protected from their oppressive masters. They are no such thing. They are sellers that require no more protection from their customers than a car dealer requires protection from its customer shopping for the best car at the lowest price. By offering higher quality work, workers can demand higher prices for their services. They are free to accept an offer of employment or turn it down, or to leave their present employment for a better offer. In a truly free market, workers are empowered as the owners of the original means of production that they are.

There is even a benefit to the worker of this free buying and selling relationship when it results in lower wages. Remember that in a laissez faire capitalist system, the workers are also the chief market of the mass supply of goods that results. Thus, if the market lowers the price of labor, the corresponding price of consumer goods also falls. Therefore, even if the worker is earning less money, his purchasing power increases. His real wages go up. He becomes wealthier. Just as wages never rise nearly as rapidly as the general price level of consumer goods in an inflationary pattern (making workers poorer over time), wages never fall as quickly as the decrease in the general price level that is the result of natural economic growth (making workers wealthier over time). That real wages went up during the 19th century is a verifiable fact, and is not in dispute.

At the turn of the 20th century, even the proponents of the social reform movement recognized that capitalism was making the working class wealthier and eliminating poverty. They did not start the reform movement because capitalism was not helping the lower classes, they started it because they did not feel the improvements were occurring fast enough. This fact, too, has faded from memory, but a little research will bear it out. With all of the achievements of the century behind them, and the marvelous innovations that mankind had accomplished, they felt that there was no reason that anyone should ever want for anything again. Within 50 short years, the telephone, the moving picture, the automobile, and most of the rest of what we think of as the modern world had been invented, mostly in America. Surely, they thought, poverty could be eliminated as well. They attempted to use the power of government to ACCELERATE the progress that laissez faire had resulted in.

However, there was a fundamental flaw in their thinking. They failed to understand the mechanism that made all of that wealth creation and innovation possible. The mechanism relies on the choices between buyers and sellers being VOLUNTARY. Once the introduction of force is introduced, the process is disrupted. Detractors of capitalism consistently fail to recognize or are able to ignore the reality of what “social reform” is. It is GOVERNMENT USING THE THREAT OF VIOLENCE TO SEIZE AND REDISTRIBUTE PROPERTY, AND TO FORCE BUYERS AND SELLERS TO MAKE CHOICES THAT THEY OTHERWISE WOULDN’T MAKE. However they try to euphemize it, THIS is the alternative to laissez faire capitalism that they offer. Most non-economists probably do not realize this when they advocate for most government economic policies. They would probably find them morally repugnant if they understood them properly. However, this is the REALITY of even the “mixed economy.”

This use of force is not without consequences, however. By disrupting the voluntary nature of the transactions, capitalism’s wealth-creating mechanism breaks down. The more property is stolen for welfare programs, the less capital is left to expand production. The more government intervention there is, the less wealth is created. Productivity and innovation cannot be forced. That is the reason that free people are more productive than slaves. It is the reason that communism has failed wherever it has been practiced. Russia had a larger population and more natural resources than the United States, but tens of millions of their people died amidst those vast resources because they were practicing an economic system that did not allow the wealth-creating mechanism of capitalism to function. The same can be said of China, Viet Nam, and every other country that practiced communism. As they have moved toward a free market economy, they have become more and more prosperous. As America has moved toward a less free market economy, it has declined.

Today, the United States practices a “mixed economy” because of the persistent belief in the Myth. Refusal to recognize the plain facts of history, that the working class was becoming richer under laissez faire, rather than poorer, is the only reason that laissez faire is not still the economic system of the United States. It is also the reason for the socialist movement throughout the world, which directly led to the World Wars and the ensuing Cold War. Despite the fact that both economic systems have been taken to their logical extremes, and socialism produced mass starvation while capitalism produced mass prosperity, America continues to try to mix socialism with capitalism. After a century of “government reform” of capitalism, the gap between rich and poor is far wider than it was under laissez faire capitalism, the quality of life of the working class is declining, and a much greater concentration of wealth in the hands of the very few is occurring. Everything that the social reformers set out to do has not only failed, but resulted in the exact opposite of what their intention was. It is not a matter that the reform was not done skillfully or completely enough. It is a matter of the “reform” being the use of coercion to force people to make choices against their will. It is morally repugnant, and it does not work.

Politicians are naturally disposed to believe and promote the Myth. It gives them a reason to do a whole lot more than they would be allowed to do otherwise. Promoters of the Myth cite their “heroes” of the 20th century. Only by believing the Myth can you admire the policies of Woodrow Wilson, Teddy Roosevelt, or FDR. These men were great destroyers of prosperity and violators of individual rights, not heroes. They attacked capitalism under the pretense of solving the imaginary problems of the Myth. When crises occur in our “mixed economy,” politicians consistently blame the capitalist aspect of our society rather than the socialist aspect, and suggest more socialism as a solution. “Coincidentally,” this results in more power for the politician.

The Myth is pervading our current presidential election campaigns. McCain claims Teddy Roosevelt as his hero. Obama has invoked FDR. Both agree that more regulation is needed to solve the current financial crisis. Popular acceptance of the Myth allows them to frame the debate where only less freedom can solve our problems. It is up to the American people to choose. The proof that the Myth is false is everywhere, even in public records maintained by the government itself. However, there will never be a large movement to truly solve our problems until Americans learn accurate history and stop believing in the Myth. Once they do, they will see that the great experiment has been completed, and the results are indisputable. Only laissez faire capitalism – the economics of freedom – can restore America’s prosperity. It is the only moral and practical choice.

[1] Bernstein, Andrew The Capitalist Manifesto: The Historic, Economic, and Philosophic Case for Laissez Faire. University Press of America 2005

Tom Mullen is the author of A Return to Common Sense: Reawakening Liberty in the Inhabitants of America.

>Life in the Post-5/7 America

2 Replies

>We have spent the past seven years in a “post-9/11 world.” We started hearing this insidious slogan not long after the terrorist attacks occurred. To translate the slogan for anyone who has not realized what it means, it means this: Whatever was left of your personal liberty before the 9/11 attacks is no longer a privilege your government can afford to grant you (and make no mistake, your government considers liberty a privilege, not a right). It seems that personal liberty is something that was nice in the Old America, but is just impractical in a “post-9/11 world.”

Of course, the struggle for economic freedom was lost decades ago with the onset of public and corporate welfare, the abolition of the gold standard, and the emergence of the American Empire. However, as with the other “civil liberties,” some traces of the economic freedom of America’s former Republic have survived several decades into America’s post-WWII social democracy. Those last traces are about to disappear as well. The following is one way it could happen.

Why May 7th? There is no compelling reason for the exact day. However, it is the Thursday of the first full week after the next president’s first 100 days in office are completed. It may be just a coincidence, but cataclysms never seem to happen during those 100 days. Perhaps world market movers don’t do much until they get a feel for the new administration. Perhaps it is some kind of statist magic, left over from government sorcerers like Merlin or Morgan Le Fay. In any case, even the terrorists respected the first 100 days of George Bush’s administration before launching their attacks. So, I am going with the odds to say that the economic day of reckoning will not manifest itself until May 7, 2009 – the new “Black Thursday.”

Even if the American economy is already dead for all intents and purposes, an historic crash of the stock markets will officially signal the dawn of the new era. When it does, all pretense of the “possible moral hazard” accompanying massive government interventions into the marketplace will be dropped. We will be in a “post-5/7 economy,”[1] much like our “post-9/11 world,” and the last vestiges of your economic freedom will be lost, just as your personal liberty was lost after 9/11. Forgotten in debates regarding whether these interventions will be good or bad for “the economy” is the fact that each one amounts to stealing from someone – legal plunder because it is committed by government. Each new intervention, “unavoidable” because of the latest threat to the U.S./world economy, will cause three more problems for the government to solve with further interventions. Pointing out that the original problem was caused by a previous government intervention will be pointless. Free markets were a nice idea in the 20th century, but government control of the marketplace will be needed in a post-5/7 world.[2]

Despite the fact that government already treats the right to the fruits of your labor as a granted privilege, the small percentage Americans have been allowed to keep will seem relatively large compared to what they will be allowed after the big event. At that point, there will be a continual state of economic emergency that requires “Americans and Europeans to do more, not less,” as Barack Obama recently said in Berlin. There will be Housing in the New America and Universal Healthcare to be paid for, tens of millions of unemployed Americans to feed and clothe, and the “challenges of the 21st century (all created by government)” to meet.

Perhaps at that point it will occur to someone, somewhere, that none of this is necessary. Without the parasitic influence of a few thousand people, the other 300 million would naturally trade with each other to their mutual benefit, and would have little to fear from people thousands of miles away whom they would never think to bother themselves. It really is that easy. Americans can make a decision for freedom anytime they wish to, and rid themselves of the parasites once and for all. Hopefully, there will come a time when they will be easier to convince in the post-9/11, post-5/7 world.

[1] Whatever the actual date of the crash, simply insert it into the new government slogan and it works just as well.

[2] While it would be impossible in a Republic to enslave people with such nonsense as a market crash or a terrorist attack creating “a new world” where natural rights no longer exist, it is relatively easy in a Democracy, where only 51% of the people have to believe it for the scheme to work. This is just one reason why no politician refers to America as anything other than “a Democracy” anymore. Be suspicious of anyone who speaks likewise.

Home

>Housing in the New America

2 Replies

>Lest it fade from memory amidst almost daily violations of our rights by the federal government, let us consider some possible implications of the housing bill passed almost one month ago. Since then, the shares of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac have plummeted yet again, and at this point, the “bazooka” that Treasury Secretary Paulson said he would likely never have to use is certainly loaded and ready for firing. In case you have forgotten, the urgency behind passing the housing bill, and the stated reason for President Bush withdrawing his veto threat, was the need to keep the two Government Sponsored Entities (GSE’s) from imminent bankruptcy. Paulson said that he needed vast powers at his disposal (the bazooka), including the statutory authority for the federal government to buy shares in Fannie and Freddie. He said at that time that he didn’t anticipate ever having to use the bazooka, but needed to have it to “boost confidence.” He was either lying or a fool.

It is apparent by now that the bazooka is not going to inspire investors to buy back into Freddie and Fannie. Shares have been as low as $3 and $4, respectively, in the past week, down from highs of $69 and $68 over the past year. They literally have trillions of dollars worth of bad mortgages on their books and no way to cover their obligations. While there is some justifiable outrage over the use of public funds to backstop these firms (although not enough), it doesn’t seem that the great majority of people see where this scenario is likely headed.

The U.S. government is going to have to buy a substantial portion of Fannie and Freddie, because no one else will. Of course, that will push up the price of their shares artificially, as the market has decided (rightly) that these companies are worthless. It is not out of the question that the federal government will acquire a controlling interest or all of the shares of the two GSE’s, perhaps with the stated intention of selling them back into the public sector after they have stabilized under the federal government’s “astute management.”

What happens then? Well, the tsunami of mortgage defaults continues, and another 2 million people walk away from their homes. However, these homes are not now owned by private sector banks, who must sell them at pennies on the dollar, if necessary, to recoup as much of their losses as they can. No, these houses are now owned by the federal government, for whom market forces do not apply. Of course, the government would want to get what they could out of these assets, but they have another alternative that is not available to the mortgage lenders, who cannot lose money indefinitely (in theory).

Before considering the government’s “other option,” let us take a step back and consider the bigger picture for a moment. It is obvious that the bursting of the housing bubble is symptomatic of a much bigger, more systemic problem for the U.S. economy. After decades of consuming more than it produces, its productive structure decimated by an increasingly predatory and parasitic government, the U.S. consumer economy itself is poised to collapse. Already, retailers are going bankrupt at an alarming rate, and despite the stock markets’ refusal to face reality, the U.S. economy no longer has the productive means to mount a recovery. The Federal Reserve has done everything it can do other than inflate further, which is what it will do, further destroying the U.S. currency. By this time next year, Americans will be looking into the abyss of an unprecedented economic disaster. We have had double digit unemployment before – this time it could be worse.

Of course, if government has proven one thing, it is that they will never learn that intervention into the marketplace never helps. After some inspiring speeches, our new, first-term president will declare war on the problem. That’s when things may really get ugly.

Just what could the federal government do with 30 million unemployed people and 7 million empty homes? Enter the Public Housing Administration and Section 8. Of course, there will need to be a “catchy” new government name to spin the new program to not sound like welfare. Perhaps “America Lives Together,” or “Communities in Progress” or some such nonsense. What is important is that the federal government will REALLY be in the housing business now, and not just for those below the poverty line. Average Americans will now be living in government-owned homes and paying rent directly to the government. Eventually, the rent payments could be incorporated into their payroll withholdings. One thing is for sure, once a federal government program is started, there is one thing it always does and one thing it never does. What it never does is go away. What it always does is grow larger.

Of course, this is not meant as a prediction, but merely one possible scenario among many that could result from America’s economic day of reckoning. However, while 40 years ago average citizens living in government housing was confined to the dark visions of Orwell and Burgess, today the unthinkable shouldn’t surprise us when it comes to any aspect of our society. We are presently giving serious consideration –in “the land of the free” – to socializing medicine, nationalizing the oil industry, and ending the rights of inheritance forever. A nation of socialized housing would complete that picture very well. Perhaps that America is still a few years off. On the other hand, we have been promised “change” during this next presidential term by a candidate with the most socialist platform we’ve seen in decades. Let’s hope it doesn’t look like this.

Home

>False Prophets of Freedom

2 Replies

>One might be tempted to celebrate the “growing” number of people here in America that associate themselves with the “freedom movement.” As encouraging as it may be to see a loss of confidence in the present “neo-con” ruling class, there is certainly no reason to think that what most people would replace them with would result in any more liberty. Sadly, as was the case in Germany in the early 1930’s, the opposition to the present tyranny simply thinks their form of tyranny is better. Using Bastiat’s terms, they don’t object to legal plunder, they just have a different idea of how to divide up the loot.

While professing to be staunchly against tyranny, it is apparent that most people don’t seem to understand what tyranny is, and most importantly don’t understand its motivation. Perhaps many do not WANT to understand, because their solution may not be substantively different. Let me clear the air in the hopes that the 800 pound gorilla hiding in the corner of this tea party we call the “freedom movement” can cease to be politely ignored. In all of human history, there has only been one motivation for tyranny: plunder.

No conqueror in history has gone to the expense and trouble of raising, training, and feeding an army, marching them across vast distances, and risked his own position and wealth for the purposes of suppressing free speech. Neither has he done so to suppress freedom of religion, the writ of habeas corpus, or the right of the people to freely assemble. While he may have attacked all of these rights, he did so only as a means to one end: plunder. Every tyrant that ever lived has violated the rights of his own people and of those he has conquered for no other reason than to gather wealth that he did not earn.

The reason that most people don’t understand tyranny or its sole motivation is that they don’t truly understand liberty, either. If your understanding of liberty ends at freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom of association, and the right to due process, then you are omitting the heart and soul of liberty – property rights. Without a right to keep the fruits of your labor, there can be no liberty, no matter how fiercely the other “civil liberties” are protected. The right to the fruits of your labor is the central right, the foundation of liberty. Without controlling the fruits of your labor, you have no control over your life. Whether you have nothing to eat, a little to eat, enough to eat, or enough to save for another day all depends upon your control over the product of your work. However, it is the violation of precisely THIS right that is the sole desire of the tyrant.

This is why Jefferson said that “’the guarantee to every one of a free exercise of his industry and the fruits acquired by it” is the “first rule of association.”[1] Samuel Adams called it “self-preservation, commonly called the first law of nature.”[2] It is the reason that John Locke devoted an entire chapter of his 2nd Treastise on Civil Government to property, and the reason he said that “The great and chief end, therefore, of men’s uniting into commonwealths, and putting themselves under government, is the preservation of their property.”[3]

Plunder is the violation of this central right. Plunder is the use of force to divest people of the fruits of their labor without their consent. When it is done by individuals or groups outside of the law, it is recognized as a crime. When it is done by government, it becomes what Bastiat called “legal plunder.” Legal plunder by government generally falls into two categories: welfare and warfare. While cosmetically different, these two practices are essentially one and the same. They represent the use of government force to plunder the property of the individual. One merely does so farther away than the other – a relatively minor difference.

Recognizing that the right to property is the most important civil liberty (without which there can be no liberty), and recognizing also that plunder is the only true threat to liberty, Bastiat devoted much of his brilliant essay “The Law” to the subject of legal plunder. Like Locke, our founding fathers, and all philosophers in the liberal tradition, he recognized that government in a free society has only one purpose, beyond which it may not be permitted to go. Its sole purpose is to protect life, liberty, and property. According to Bastiat, the minute that government goes beyond fulfilling this role, it must necessarily attack life, liberty, and property. This is the fundamental principle of government which must be understood before one can begin answering questions of liberty.

Bastiat correctly concluded that there are only three alternatives for a society in determining how to address the question of plunder. Only by choosing the last of these can a society be free. It is not surprising that our two political parties generally align themselves with one of the other two. I will take the “liberty” of inserting their names in parenthesis next to the alternative they advocate:

1. The few plunder the many. (Republicans)
2. Everybody plunders everybody (Democrats)
3. Nobody plunders anybody (Freedom – the position of neither party)[4]

Like the unfortunate child in the middle of a game of “pickle in the middle,” Americans have been running back and forth between the first two alternatives offered by their political parties for decades. It has never occurred to the great majority of people that NEITHER ONE can benefit them in the end. There are only two possible reasons for this. Either the great majority of people do not understand the true nature of liberty and tyranny – that they both revolve around property rights – or the great majority of people DO NOT WANT TO UNDERSTAND. This may be because they secretly do not want to let go of the possibility that THEY ALSO might benefit from legal plunder. This second possibility is even more pathetic than the first. Like the gamblers in Las Vegas, they should know by now that the House always wins.

Rather than objecting to legal plunder itself, false prophets of freedom frame the debate into organizing opposition to the present ruling class on the assumption that the loot should merely be divided up differently. At the moment, the Democrats position themselves as against the war in Iraq, not because it is wrong, but because the Republicans started it. Their position is no more the position of liberty than was the Republicans’ in objecting to President Clinton’s war in Kosovo, or their ludicrous impeachment of him over a sex scandal. They are merely looking to divide up the loot differently.

However, politicians will be politicians, and I am much more concerned about the average American than I am about them. In the end, politicians can be bought with votes. If the vast majority of voters demand liberty, liberty is what they will get. However, when the vast majority of voters are persuaded to demand legal plunder, then it becomes clear why Madison described democracy as “the most vile form of government.”[5]

For those interested in finding their way through this maze of false assumptions, I offer the following examples of common arguments made on current issues and their implications for true liberty.

If you are (rightly) against the war in Iraq, but go on to say that the money we are spending on that war should instead be spent on providing healthcare to uninsured Americans, you are not against legal plunder. You merely want to divide up the loot differently.

If you are opposed to the recent bailouts of the banks during the mortgage crisis, but like False Prophet of Freedom Lou Dobbs go on to say that the government should instead help average Americans that are in danger of losing their homes, you are not against legal plunder. You merely want to divide up the loot differently.

If you are against the fascist alliance being formed between large corporations and government, but suggest taxing the profits of corporations more heavily to fund some public redistribution of wealth, you are not against legal plunder. You merely want to divide up the loot differently.

If you are concerned that Social Security and Medicare are imminently insolvent, and go on to argue that they must be “reformed,” rather than abolished (or at least phased out), then you are not against legal plunder. You are merely concerned that you won’t get your share of the loot.

These are only a few examples of the lapses in reason so common even among those who claim to be part of the “freedom movement.” Presently, average Americans are running from the Republicans (the few plunder the many) to the Democrats (everybody plunders everybody) in their perennial game of pickle in the middle. They still haven’t noticed that no matter which side they’ve run to over the past century, they never actually get to catch the ball. However, the implications are more ominous than this.

After at least a century of practicing legal plunder in one form or another, the inevitable end to which such a society comes is now in sight. Having given up the central civil liberty – property rights – Americans now see that the government monster they have built is coming to gather up the rest of the rights that people have deluded themselves that they retain. It is vital to realize that the police state measures and the perpetual war that we now find ourselves confronted with are not an aberration of the Bush administration BUT THE LOGICAL END OF DECADES OF LEGAL PLUNDER. This was Hayek’s central point in his classic The Road to Serfdom – that Naziism was the natural result of socialism, and that England’s and America’s socialism of the 1940’s would eventually lead to the same results in decades to come as Germany’s socialism of the 1870’s had led to by 1933. He was not only correct in theory, but seems to have correctly predicted the duration.

In conclusion, there will be no “freedom movement” until Americans recognize and understand the nature of freedom and tyranny. Until Americans cease to marginalize or ignore property rights, and again recognize them as the MOST important rights, as our founding fathers did, we will not move one inch toward freedom. In fact, even if we were able to completely end warfare for several presidential administrations in a row, our practice of welfare would lead us right back to our present circumstances.

Do not look to your politicians to offer you Bastiat’s third alternative. They have seduced free people throughout history with the prospect of sharing in legal plunder, while keeping the majority of the loot for themselves. It is left up to every American to reject the notion of legal plunder on their own, to reject the false prophets of freedom, be they named McCain, Obama, Clinton, Dobbs, Paulson, Bernanke, or Roosevelt, and again take responsibility for their own self preservation, and thus regain the right to determine it themselves. This is the ONLY path to freedom.

Tom Mullen

[1] Jefferson, Thomas Note in Destutt de Tracy’s “A Treatise on Political Economy,” 1816. ME 14:466
[2] Samuel Adams The Rights of the Colonists (1772) The Report of the Committee of Correspondence to the Boston Town Meeting, Nov. 20, 1772 Old South Leaflets no. 173 (Boston: Directors of the Old South Work, 1906) 7: 417-428.
[3] Locke Second Treatise Ch. IX, Sec. 124
[4] Bastiat, Frederic The Law (1850) (words in parenthesis inserted by the author of this article)
[5] Madison, James Federalist #10

Home

>So Many Rights…

Leave a reply

>When looking for wisdom in the wilds of western New York, one might be surprised how often it can be found on the airwaves, listening to the legendary hockey announcer, Rick Jeanerette. Over the years, Buffalo Sabres fans have cheered while Jeanerette has boisterously called their teams triumphs with jingles like “Wowee Housley,” “This building is bedlam!” and the immortal “La-la-la-la Fontaine!” One night, after calling the action during a particularly one-sided fight, Jeanerette dryly remarked of the loser,

“He got hit with so many rights he was begging for a left.”

How prophetic.

After eight years of Republican rule (the barely noticeable change in power in Congress being largely irrelevant), most Americans have been reduced to the same circumstances. They may not love what the Democrats have to offer if they ever really take a moment to think about it, but as long as it’s not more of George Bush’s Republicans, they’ll take it. Like the hapless forward in that forgotten hockey brawl, they too have been hit with so many rights that they are begging for a left.

Left is just what they are going to get, and it’s going to hurt just as much – maybe more.
I don’t think that I’m alone in being astonished at how unabashedly socialist the rhetoric was during the Democratic presidential primary debates earlier this year. While Bill Clinton positioned himself as relatively centrist – sometimes almost Republican – while seeking to succeed what was perceived as relatively successful Republican administrations of the 1980’s and early 1990’s, the shift is quite startling now that today’s Democrats smell the blood of a Republican administration with approval ratings down around parking level 3. During the primary season, Democrats have suggested nationalizing the oil industry, nationalizing the healthcare system, and have even promised to “end poverty in one generation.”

Now that the primaries are over and Barack Obama has emerged as the party’s presidential candidate, one would expect that the rhetoric might ease a bit. Normally, candidates appeal more directly to the base during primary contests, but must play to independents and even voters of the opposing party when campaigning for the general election. In a way, Obama’s rhetoric is less inflammatory. However, having taken the time to sit down and listen to his speech in Berlin on July 24, I wasn’t, annoyed, disgusted, or outraged. I was terrified. I was terrified at the things that a man that is presently being cheered wildly by crowds of tens of thousands of Americans at a time was saying. Now, granted, he was speaking to the Germans, who practically invented socialism (no offense, monsieurs). However, the words he spoke were undoubtedly HIS words. Let’s take a close look at some of them.

““…that Europeans today are bearing new burdens and taking more responsibility in critical parts of the world, and that just as American bases built in the last century still help to defend the security of this continent, so does our country still sacrifice greatly for freedom around the globe.”

Well, there is a mouthful. It seems that Europeans now have responsibility for critical parts of the world, which I assume are outside of Europe. They are bearing burdens. Somehow, both of these things seem good to Mr. Obama. Of course, Americans are all too aware of the SACRIFICE they are making. Whether or not that sacrifice is really for “freedom” is very open to debate.

A few moments later, Mr. Obama tells the Germans that “the burdens of global citizenship continue to bind us together.” Not only that, but he warns that “A change of leadership in Washington will not lift this burden. In this new century, Americans and Europeans alike will be required to do more, not less.”

Would it be paranoid to suggest that someone wants us to get used to the idea of “burdens?” Of course, the word “sacrifice” has already appeared one time. It will not be the last.

““True partnership and true progress requires constant work and sustained sacrifice. They require sharing the burdens of development and diplomacy, of peace and progress, they require allies that will listen to each other, learn from each other, and most of all, trust each other.”

Now, someone will be bearing burdens AND sacrificing. Mr. Obama goes on to say, ““Now is the time to join together, through constant cooperation and strong institutions and shared sacrifice, and a global commitment to progress to meet the challenges of the 21st century.

Ok, Ok, I get it. Burden and sacrifice. Mr. Obama obviously wants us to get used to the idea. Of course, the best way to do that is to say the words over and over again. Once people are used to hearing the words, the ideas behind them are soon to follow. Mr. Obama’s intentions seem quite clear. In HIS 21st century, there are burdens to bear and sacrifices to be made.

Merriam-Webster’s dictionary defines sacrifice as “destruction or surrender of something for the sake of something else.” I think that it is safe to say that Mr. Obama is not talking here about destroying anything (although that is also part of his 21st century). No, the “sacrifice” that Mr. Obama refers to is definitely more in the “surrender” category, namely more of the fruits of your labor. However, the definition of sacrifice says that the surrender is made “for the sake of something else.” What does Mr. Obama have in mind?

Near the end of the speech, Mr. Obama tells us.

“This is our moment, this is our time. I know my country has not been perfect itself. At times, we struggled to keep the promise of liberty and equality of all people.”

Here we finally have it, the age old socialist oxymoron, liberty and equality. Certainly, those producing more than they consume will have to sacrifice quite a bit if equality is to be achieved with all of those consuming more than they produce, not to mention those producing nothing at all (including Mr. Obama – although I suspect he will end up in the “more equal than others” category). However, it need not be pointed out that government cannot try to achieve equality and protect liberty at the same time. Liberty recognizes equal rights, but it NEVER results in equality. That’s one of the great things about liberty.

As the Democrats often claim to be “the party of Jefferson,” I will remind Mr. Obama of the words of his party’s patron,

“…that our wish, as well as theirs, is, that the public efforts may be directed honestly to the public good, that peace be cultivated, civil and religious liberty unassailed, law and order preserved; equality of rights maintained, and that state of property, equal or unequal, which results to every man from his own industry, or that of his fathers.”[1]

For those who might not be getting the point, or think that it will be somehow noble or civic-minded to “bear the burdens” of Mr. Obama’s quest for equality, allow me to point out Merriam-Webster’s definition of “burden.”

“the bearing of a load —usually used in the phrase beast of burden.”

How does it sound now?

I do have a question for Barack Obama. It is this: What sacrifices will you make for liberty and equality in the 21st century, Mr. Obama? What burdens will YOU and YOUR family bear?
That’s what I thought.

I know those rights have hurt over the last eight years, Mr. and Mrs. American, but watch out for that left. It may be the knockout blow.

Tom Mullen

[1] Jefferson, Thomas 2nd Inaugural Address (1805)

Home

The Future of a Destructive Species

2 Replies

Nature is often characterized as a delicate balance of plant and animal, predator and prey, land and waterway, forest and plain. While our world is probably more accurately viewed as an evolving environment, marked by constant change rather than balance, and certainly has periods of violent disruption (ice ages, etc.), for the most part, there are many long millennia between these disruptions during which Nature provides an environment of plenty for her creatures. The lion hunts the antelope, catching the slowest and weakest, and therefore culling the herd to make it stronger. The deer take what they need from the forest, leaving the forest intact to house the millions of other species which depend on its shelter. Even the lowly worm plays a part, consuming the very earth itself, and leaving behind nutrients that replenish the soil and make possible new life.

Of all of the species that have evolved on this planet, the mammals are among the most intelligent and most resourceful. While they enjoy many advantages over other species, they also have found their place in the great scheme of things, neither multiplying beyond the number their environment can support nor harming that environment in living out their lives and raising their families.

However, there is one mammal for whom this is not true. This species has developed an industriousness far beyond that of the others. Since its earliest history, this species of mammal has disrupted its environment and displaced other species, often wiping them out completely wherever it has made its home. It has destroyed forests both for the timber to build its homes and as collateral damage resulting from the expanse of its communities. It has destroyed the nesting habitats of countless endangered species of birds, interrupted the course of deer runs vital to the health of the herd, displaced fox, wolf, and squirrel, and destroyed countless ecosystems without hesitation, merely to expand its never-ending quest to subdue Nature herself in its own selfish interests.

It is long past the time to try to bring this species under some control before it succeeds in disrupting the environment any further. Its relentless need to widen its own habitat at the expense of every other species it shares a given locale with must be curbed before the earth as we know it becomes barren forever.

While some would argue that education or behavior modification could be successful in changing the habits of this ambitious species, the problem is now too urgent to wait several decades for such remedies to have an effect. A direct intervention is needed to prevent catastrophic consequences to the environment, including further deforestation, pollution of the water, and destruction of countless more ecosystems. Only the force of law can justly protect what we have left of the world we were born into.

Despite the urgent need of legislation and the immediate need to change the behavior of this species, it should be remembered that this species also has a right to exist, as long as it does not have any effect on its environment. Therefore, this new legislation must consist of just laws that will promote both the long-term sustainability of the environment and the long-term health of this species within it. Unlike so many failed efforts in the past, these laws should not amount to volumes of minute regulations that are difficult to enforce and impossible to fully understand. These new laws must represent a new way for this species to think about itself and its part in the world, and must be written so that obeying them is the only logical conclusion that a species not bent on suicide can come to. We must finally have laws written in words that this species can understand and accept.

We will need someone who can translate English into beaver.

Tom Mullen is the author of Where Do Conservatives and Liberals Come From? And What Ever Happened to Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness? Part One and A Return to Common Sense: Reawakening Liberty in the Inhabitants of America.

Exxon Mobil Profits Continue to Sag

Leave a reply

The recession the federal government is just admitting we are in is obviously taking its toll on Exxon Mobil, whose profits sagged in the 2nd quarter of 2008. What? Didn’t Exxon post record profits of $11.7 billion, kicking us all when we’re down fighting high gas and food prices? That was certainly the headline today in most newspapers and periodicals (https://biz.yahoo.com/ap/080731/earns_oil.html).

As usual, however, the “record profits” are measured nominally in U.S. dollars, which are literally losing value before the ink is dry on these financial articles. A careful read of the article reveals that Exxon made these record profits on about $138 billion in revenue, giving them a profit margin of 8.48% That’s down from the 1st quarter of 2008 when profits were 9.32%, which was also significantly lower than their 3 year average of 10.08% from 2005-2007.

Considering that the Federal Reserve has embarked on the most inflationary binge in its 95-year history, it is a little disingenuous to characterize a company as making “record profits” by measuring those profits nominally, instead of as a percentage of revenue. While the media is almost as anxious as the government to label “Big Oil” as the villain that is profiting on the hardship of the average American, those Americans would be best served to look in the opposite direction when the media points its finger – especially when it is pointing in the same direction as our federal government.

Just to put things in perspective, Campbell Soup Company had a similar profit margin over the same three-year period, 2005-2007. During that time, Campbell averaged a 10.22% profit margin on about $22.7 billion in revenue. However, unlike Exxon Mobile, whose profits have sagged during the past two quarters, Campbell Soup’s profits exploded – more than doubling – in its last reported quarter. After rising to 13% on $2.1 billion during the quarter ending January 27, 2008, Campbell posted a 28% profit on lower revenues of $1.8 billion during the quarter ending April 27, 2008.

28% profits while food prices are skyrocketing? Outrageous! Children are going without while Campbell’s executives laugh and say “mm-mm good!” Congressional hearings are in order. Perhaps we should seriously consider nationalizing the soup industry. I know Maxine Waters has kindly offered to take over Big Oil for us, which would undoubtedly result in lower gas prices, improving emissions results, and a white Christmas in South Beach. However, before we worry about filling up our gas-guzzling SUV’s, we need to do something about Big Soup.

>I Want a New Name

Leave a reply

>Call it a midlife crisis, but I can tolerate the label “conservative” no longer. Can there possibly be a name that makes a person sound more boring? Certainly this is the work of our adversaries, in an attempt to make our ideas sound old, outdated, and irrelevant. When I hear the word “conservative,” I think of an old guy in a smoking jacket, having a scotch at “the club.” Now, I have nothing against a good single malt, but as for the rest, well…

I’m not sure how this happened. How did the people that are in favor of maximum liberty become “conservative?” How did the people that are in favor of maximum government become “liberal?”

It wasn’t always this way. Most Americans in 2008 don’t remember this, but it was not that long ago that the term “liberal” meant exactly the opposite of what it does today. Locke, Rousseau, and Hume are all considered fathers of the modern “liberal tradition.” Their work directly inspired our founding fathers, who were liberals one and all. As late as the 1940’s, F.A. Hayek was still referring to the concepts of laissez faire capitalism and individual liberty as “liberal.” Even today, Merriam-Webster’s Dictionary defines liberalism as,

“b: a theory in economics emphasizing individual freedom from restraint and usually based on free competition, the self-regulating market, and the gold standard c: a political philosophy based on belief in progress, the essential goodness of the human race, and the autonomy of the individual and standing for the protection of political and civil liberties”[1]

If that is what liberalism is, one only need look at the campaign platforms of Barack Obama and Ron Paul to see that we have become terribly confused. Somehow, less freedom has become “liberal” and more freedom has become “conservative.” What kind of Orwellian doublespeak is this? What’s next, “War is Peace, Freedom is Slavery, and Ignorance is Strength?”[2]

Actually, over sixty years ago, Hayek warned us about the redefining of important words,

“The most effective way of making people accept the validity of the values they are to serve is to persuade them that they are really the same as those which they, or at least the best among them, have always held, but which were not properly understood or recognized before. The people are made to transfer their allegiance from the old gods to the new under the pretence that the new gods really are what their sound instinct had always told them but what before they had only dimly seen. And the most efficient technique to this end is to use the old words but change their meaning.”[3]

Wow. That explains why every time I hear people say the word “liberal” in relation to politics, I feel like Inigo Montoya from The Princess Bride. I want to say, “You keep on using that word – I do not think it means what you think it means.”

It’s time to start beating the pro-tyranny crowd at their own game. First, they changed the meaning of the word “liberal” to mean exactly the opposite of what it used to mean. The “classical liberals” became modern conservatives. If that weren’t bad enough, “conservative” has now been redefined as well. If you haven’t noticed, it doesn’t mean less government and more freedom anymore. We now have “neo-conservatives” that like big government just fine – complete with huge gains in entitlement spending, unnecessary warfare, corporate bailouts, and unmasked socialism. Neither “liberal” nor “conservative” have any liberty left in them. We need a new name.

I suggest that the freedom movement wage a little linguistic warfare itself. From now on, let us call ourselves “neo-liberals.” I know. Half of the people reading this just spit their cheerios all over their computer monitors. Lew Rockwell is organizing a posse. Even mild-mannered Ron Paul is warming up his left jab, unused along with his wrestling moves since 1952. I have to admit, the first time I said it, I had an attack of the heebie jeebies myself. However, it is not even a matter that “a rose by any other name would smell as sweet.”[4] It really is OUR name. It was simply stolen from us, like Charles Manson stole that song from the Beatles. Now, we’re stealing it back.

There is no reason why this couldn’t work. If we’ve learned anything, we’ve learned that if you say something over and over enough times, no matter how ridiculous it might be, you can get the majority of people to start believing it. This idea isn’t a bit ridiculous. We have to come to terms with the fact that, whatever we think conservatism means, the rest of America has moved on with the new “neo-conservative” definition. Conservative now means pre-emptive war, police-state security policies, record government spending, and corporate socialism. Liberal now means the politics of envy, higher taxes, record government spending, and democratic socialism. Liberty needs a new word, a word people under seventy can live with.

Neo-liberals. See? You’re getting used to it already.

Tom Mullen

[1] https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/liberalism (the first definition is omitted as it appliesto the word as defined when used in a religious context).
[2] Orwell, George 1984 © 1990 Penguin Books
[3] Hayek, F.A. The Road to Serfdom Routledge Classics 270 Madison Ave. New York, NY 10016 Pg. 161
[4] Romeo and Juliet (II, ii, 1-2)

Home

Can Individual Liberty Be Cool?

Leave a reply

While the big decisions about government and how our money is spent are made by the “over thirty crowd,” what is and is not cool belongs to the young. They are the ones that decide what clothes are cool, what music is cool, what movies are cool, and even what ideas are cool. Then they become adults, and before they know it, they have imperceptibly become uncool. Tragically, those who were coolest when they were young are the last to realize this when they are older.

What is cool is always what is new. Rock and roll was cool in the 1950’s, rock in the 1960’s, Disco in the 1970’s, new wave in the 1980’s, and grunge and rap in the 1990’s. What is old is never cool until it is so old that it has been forgotten. Then, it can become new all over again and have a new chance to be cool. Such is the fate of music, clothing, hairstyles, and ideas.

At no time in the past four decades has individual liberty been cool. During the 1960’s, the counterculture started a social revolution that still dominates American society. Some of it was good. The civil rights movement finally won equal rights for blacks and other minorities. Half the nation protested an immoral and terribly destructive war. Both of these movements had overwhelming support from the cool people – the young. The artist class of the time – the rock musicians and movie stars – united in support of these causes. College campuses protested. Anyone not for these programs was “not with it,” or what we would today call totally uncool.
However, the other far-reaching aspect of this revolution was its socialism. Certainly, socialism had been making inroads into American society since Woodrow Wilson, and had taken great strides under FDR. However, at the beginning of the 1960’s, America still held on to many of its values of individual liberty, free markets, self reliance, and property rights. That changed drastically with the advent of the Great Society, bringing in huge federal government spending programs like Medicare, Medicaid, the Department of Education, and various programs under “The War on Poverty.”

With the institution of these new social programs, which today combine with the New Deal programs to account for over half of all federal spending, the United States effectively shifted from a constitutional republic based upon individual liberty to a social democracy, devoted to economic equality. This shift was helped immensely by the fact that anyone who was remotely cool was behind it. Those same musicians and celebrities that correctly recognized the gross injustice of violating the civil liberties of blacks and other minorities somehow reconciled themselves with violating the most important civil rights of all – property rights. The same people that condemned the unjustified use of force against the Vietnamese had no problem initiating force against their fellow citizens to pay for the social programs. At least in popular culture, you had to be schizophrenic to be cool.

When I was a teenager in the early 1980’s, there was both a renewed interest in 60’s music and a new style of rock, called New Wave. Like any other teenager, my favorite bands were my heroes, and certainly the coolest people I knew about. While I rediscovered the Beatles, idolized John Lennon, and struggled to learn the guitar riff in “Shakin’ All Over,” I was electrified by the new sounds of R.E.M., U2, the Alarm, and The Housemartins. To the young and naïve, the haughty arrogance with which they contemptuously rebuffed the establishment and rebelled against authority was enough to create the illusion of intellectual superiority. Once someone is cool, you automatically think that they “get it.” Anyone that disagrees with them “doesn’t get it.” This is the message we get from our idols, and it is hard-coded into us by the time we’re old enough to drive. Such has been what is cool for several generations.

I consider myself lucky to have attended Canisius College in Buffalo, NY and had the professors I had in both economics and philosophy. Whatever the rest of the world was being taught then or is being taught today, my economics professors in 1984 were teaching me that Keynsian economics were on the way out, and that, among other things, monetary policy was an idea whose time had passed. At the same time, a philosophy teacher introduced me to John Locke’s Treatises on Civil Government. We spent weeks discussing those essays, dissecting them and discussing their importance to everything that our country was founded upon. I remember being completely enthralled with Locke, his ideas truly “making my heart beat faster.” I’m not sure if it was possible in 1690, but if it was, Locke was way cool.

It certainly didn’t sink in right away, but as I got out into the real world and got a little experience, I began to realize that there were some major problems with the philosophy that the cool people were promoting. Cool or not, their message seemed incompatible with the philosophy of liberty that I had come to believe in so deeply. It certainly came as quite a shock to me, when I finally LISTENED to the lyrics of John Lennon’s “Imagine,” that the song was actually a call for world communism. Although Michael Stipe has admitted that even HE didn’t know what he was saying on those early R.E.M. records, he is clear enough in his interviews about where he stands on politics. Similarly, “The World’s on Fire” is still one of my all-time favorite songs, but when I became aware of the Housemartins’ political beliefs, I realized that here again was the same socialist message.

Until Ron Paul’s presidential campaign, I had given up on individual liberty. Neither political party was championing it anymore – the Republicans said some nice things in 2000 and then increased entitlement spending more than any administration and Congress in 40 years. In addition, the Republicans had gradually become the pro-war party, contrary to their non-interventionalist stance throughout most of the 20th century. However, the lack of a choice in politics was not what made me abandon hope. It was the fact that for as long as I could remember, anyone that young people considered remotely cool were, for all practical purposes, socialists. With no political party taking a strong stance on individual liberty and the school system deteriorating so that no one seemed to be learning these principles, I had resigned myself that the individual liberty of Locke, the unalienable rights of Jefferson, and the self reliance of Emerson were now relegated to a dusty spot on my bookshelf. Freedom had been forgotten.

However, what was forgotten has become new again. I was quite surprised by the fact that so many college students were electrified by Ron Paul’s message. On no college campus that I can remember has the “cool crowd” ever rallied for individual liberty. Friends told me that Ron Paul’s anti-war message was what attracted young people, but that when they found out that his government was going to stop “giving them things,” that they would turn their backs in a second. I’m not so sure. Dr. Paul has said himself that he was surprised at how many young people focused upon his message about eliminating the Federal Reserve and the income tax, two of the “Ten Planks of the Communist Manifesto.”

As encouraging as that might be, individual liberty is never really going to catch on again until it finds a way to be cool – and let’s face it, all of the cool people are liberals. However, there is now a coalition forming between supporters of Ron Paul and disenfranchised Democrats to oppose civil liberties violations and wars of aggression. If together we can overcome these huge threats to our freedom, that alone will be a great victory. However, I wonder if we can agree that the social programs must go as well? While the wars are immoral and the police state is terrifying, it is the social programs that have destroyed the fabric of our productive society and eaten up all of our wealth. Will the same schizophrenia persist? Will we fight side by side to oppose the initiation of force abroad, but clash over ending it against our own citizens? Will we be united against violations of our rights by law enforcement, but divided when it comes to the most important right of all, the right to the fruits of our labor?

I have hope. Against a common enemy, former rivals often discover that the gulf between them is not that wide. Sometimes, they even find that they like each other. Libertarians agree with liberals on so many issues – war, tolerance, civil rights, free speech, freedom of the press. It is only property rights on which we differ. I humbly make one request of my new allies: consider the idea that voluntary exchange is a better way for us to deal with one another than coercion. I respect your passion to help those in need, but we cannot fund those efforts by force. If we can bridge this one gap, I believe we can form a coalition that will be unstoppable in restoring our republic to peace and freedom. By eliminating legal plunder, we can realize the dream of eliminating poverty and ignorance that seemed within reach a century ago. With the fruits of our labor restored to us, we can revive the private charities that once astonished de Tocqueville and inspired the world. Our nation can again be an engine of prosperity, not for the rich, but for all Americans, rich, poor, and middle class. If we can take this one leap of faith together and believe in freedom once again, there are no bounds to the heights we can reach.

Is that cool?

Home