It’s not about God, gays and abortion any more:
Those old battles have been eclipsed by a new struggle between two competing visions of the country’s future. In one, America will continue to be an exceptional nation organized around the principles of free enterprise — limited government, a reliance on entrepreneurship and rewards determined by market forces. In the other, America will move toward European-style statism grounded in expanding bureaucracies, a managed economy and large-scale income redistribution. These visions are not reconcilable. We must choose.
It is not at all clear which side will prevail. The forces of big government are entrenched and enjoy the full arsenal of the administration’s money and influence. Our leaders in Washington, aided by the unprecedented economic crisis of recent years and the panic it induced, have seized the moment to introduce breathtaking expansions of state power in huge swaths of the economy, from the health-care takeover to the financial regulatory bill that the Senate approved Thursday. If these forces continue to prevail, America will cease to be a free enterprise nation.
I know which side I’m on. Read the whole thing.
[Sunday afternoon update]
Yes, Virginia, there is a culture war. As noted, it’s the one that has been raging for two centuries between Rousseau and Locke. And the Rousseauians have a lot of blood on their hands.
[Bumped]
These visions are not reconcilable.
Of course they are — just look around. We have every element that the writer lists from each “vision”. There is a spectrum of possible tradeoffs between different elements, and we will move around on that spectrum, but it’ll never be all one or the other.
One of the biggest fronts of the war is over “redistribution.” This is what it looks like:
A burglar, labeled “Government”, runs from a house with a sack of loot. The homeowner emerges from his doorway yelling “Let go of my stuff!” Concurrently, the guy from across the street emerges from his doorway and yells at his burgled neighbor, “That’s my stuff!”
I wish I could draw.
It is possible to live quite comfortably on what at might first glance appear to be a meager income. My family, for example, lives at about a 1959 standard — 1300 ft^2 brick home, one small car (no tailfins), home cooking most nights, and no TV. (Well, we _own_ a television receiver, but the only thing it “receives” is data from a DVD player.) I’m a self-employed writer; my wife runs the family auto logistics business. On paper, we make only a modest amount, but since we live debt-free (save for mortgage and car note) and itemize to the hilt, we have essentially no tax exposure. Our family business is getting it up the ass from both the State and the Feds, of course, but all that means is we’ll have to put a few employees on the street. (Practically all of our employees are black and are diehard Obama supporters.) The tighter the Feds squeeze, the more employees go jobless. Whitey’s standard of living remains. Oh, the sweet irony.
I’d recommend the 1959 lifestyle to anybody. We have everything that the Cleaver family from TV’s _Leave It To Beaver_ had. and they lived quite happily (or they would have, had they been real) plus cell phones, polio vaccine, and Japanese animation on the Internet. Some people call our way of life “retrofrugality”. I prefer the plain English phrase “living within one’s means”.
Jim, the visions are not reconcilable. Governments all over the world have fooled a significant portion of their populations into thinking that they are happier with assistance instead of getting satisfaction from the fruits of their own labor; either that or governments have deliberately created an underclass in order to perpetuate the power of the state.
Why are people protesting in Greece? Because they want the government to give them even more. They are angry because their government — in the face of its worst economic and perhaps existential crisis in decades — won’t pay the lavish pensions to which they feel entitled. There’s no better example of the cultural difference between America and Europe today, yet it is toward European-style social democracy that the 30 percent coalition wants to move us.
This path is not sustainable, yet the folks in power (both sides of the aisle here in the US) are too selfish to change direction.
Give me liberty and Barney Frank’s, Harry Reid’s, Nancy Pelosi’s, Rahm Emanuel’s, and Paul Krugman’s jobs.
The scheeple in Europe have forgotten-if they ever knew it already-the maxim from Robert Heinlein’s “The Moon is a Harsh Mistress:” TANSTAAFL! There ain’t no such thing as a free lunch.
M. Gallagher
Seoul
You’re telling this to a guy who likes being fooled.
This passage really resonated with me:
I have been thinking this for months. I really want to see candidates who can articulate these principles and not get mired in recriminations and politics. I’d like to think, at least, that Brooks is correct — that a candidate who ran on these classic, core American beliefs would win.
In a democracy with a progressive tax and a regressive spend system a vicious vote oneself rich entitlement circle is naturally enough created. Those who contribute more than their fair share to government become an increasingly marginalized minority, ripe for exploitation by the democratic majority.
If only one could enforce the fundamental principle of no representation without taxation…
The SF writer Frank Herbert (famous for the seminal work Dune) had an interesting point in one of his other works. It concerned the villain of the story through doing something that threatened the lives of a large fraction of the human race, through doing something for personal amusement. It’s SF, so this woman personally owned (and essentially ran like a feudal lord) several planets – and yet according to the law was a private citizen and thus immune to an organisation in the story solely devoted to putting sand in the gears of government.
The point is: How much money should a person be allowed to accumulate before extra restrictions are placed upon him? Bill Gates, Warren Buffett and George Soros are private citizens. But is that all they are?
Big business has a great deal of power, comparable to that of government, and is under no effective democratic control whatsoever. That’s wrong, no matter how you slice it.
Big business has a great deal of power, comparable to that of government, and is under no effective democratic control whatsoever. That’s wrong, no matter how you slice it.
No, not at all.
My homeowner’s association has more power over me than Bill Gates. I don’t happen to like MS products, so I can avoid them. If I don’t like my homeowner’s association rules, I have to get into a legal fight.
Fletch,
What power do you imagine that big business has? From where I sit, big business always asks, “How high?” every time the government says, “Jump!”
Mr. Eagleson, let’s see: Oh yes, the banks (collectively and individually) have essentially forced the transfer of countless billions of dollars, pounds and euros from hard-working taxpayers to said banks. The oil industry essentially dictated military strategy in the Middle East after 9/11. The agribusiness industry has dictated the advice given on diet by government information bureaus to the general public, distorting it away from the real truth. The pharmaceutical industry has been dictating health policy in many countries for decades, including the prevention of availability of safe, natural (and non-patentable hence cheap) nutritional and herbal medicines. The list goes on and on and on and on. Government policy in many areas is essentially dictated by the relevant industry and the larger companies that comprise it.
Fred K, sure you can avoid Mr. Gates’s products. Providing, of course, that you don’t rely for at least some of your own living on software that only runs under Windows – as I do. It’s a little more difficult to avoid buying gas, gasoline, electricity or phone service. Unless you want to go live with the Amish, that is.
And if you don’t do that, you are still living in a country (assuming for the moment that you are an American) that has trillions of dollars of extra debt because of government decisions made under heavy big business influence, and by huge amounts of money simply given to big business (most notably the banks). Such as, for example, the decision to invade Iraq and Afghanistan instead of Saudi Arabia.
Fletcher Christian wrote:
Big business has a great deal of power, comparable to that of government, and is under no effective democratic control whatsoever. That’s wrong, no matter how you slice it.
This view is false. Government is the agency that holds a monopoly on the legal use of physical force. No private business, no matter how big, has that power.
Thus no private company in the U.S. has the power to force anyone to purchase its product. Which means, every private business in the U.S. is under the direct “democratic control” of its customers. If those customers choose to “vote” for a different company’s product, by purchasing it instead, that first company is dead and bankrupt.
In the U.S., only government-created monopolies like the Post Office and the electric utilities have any power to force people to deal with them.
The only power that a business has is the power to offer a value in a voluntary exchange, i.e. offer a product or service in exchange for a price or offer a wage in exchange for a man’s work. The business has no power to force anyone to accept any of its offers — it must deal strictly by persuasion.
Now, it is true that in a highly regulated, highly controlled economy such as ours, wherein government has its regulatory fingers in everyone’s pie, businesses can and do lobby for preferential treatment and favorable regulations. The solution to that problem is to eliminate government’s power to regulate and control economic activity — to implement a complete separation of economics and state in the same fashion and for the same reason that we have a separation of church and state. It’s called laissez-faire capitalism — and it works wonderfully.
Fletcher Christian:
Try this experiment to denmonstrate the difference between private “power” and real (State) power:
Those big businesses you don’t like? Boycoatt them, Secede from the private sector. Don’t use their services. Drop out, grow your own food, etc. See what measures Big Business takes against you.
Then boycott the State. Secede from it. Don’t use the State’s services, and don’t pay for them. See what measures the State takes from you.
Report back to us in about a year.
“Big business has a great deal of power, comparable to that of government.”,
Really? So if I don’t want to use Microsoft products, Bill Gates can put a gun to my head and force me to? Amazing.
l
Fletcher is conflating business per se with businessmen leveraging the government’s monopoly on force. Easy mistake.
@Bilwick1
“Report back to us in about a year.”
Probably more like 10-20 years, maybe 8 with good behavior.
JP, that’s assuming they don’t burn you alive in your own
housecompound.JP, that’s assuming they don’t burn you alive in your own house compound.
Or burst in the front door and shoot your children, while executing an
arrestsearch warrant. When that happens, the government will “stand ready to offer our condolences to the family, and any help we can give them.”Michael Smith: Fine, as far as it goes. Now try not paying your power bill. I predict that there will be people at your door within a few weeks at most. Armed with various forms of legal authority, and if you push it backed up by various people with guns – paid for by taxpayers, and authorised by “democratically elected” government to use deadly force if necessary.
Titus – You’re right. Does that actually make a difference?
The real point IMHO is that big business has far too much power, mostly financial, over the official apparatus of government – mostly given to it by members of said government who are bought and paid for.
To take an example that is close to my heart but maybe not so important to you; imagine that you have some chronic illness. How free are you to choose “alternative” healing methods rather than high-profit pharmaceuticals? If you think “perfectly free” please consider the example of a naturopathic clinic in Texas (IIRC) that was invaded by FBI and DEA agents armed with submachine guns, and had all its computers and patient records legally seized and half its staff arrested. What were they doing wrong? Using vitamins for treatment. Freely chosen by the patients.
Which industry was behind the regulations being used as an excuse for this? No prizes for guessing. Of course, that particular industry has no influence over government policy. You believe that? Then I have a nice bridge in NYC I would like to sell you…
Fletcher,
To get full troll points you really need to point out how conservatives hate science before complaining that your insurance company wont cover treatment with dream catchers and new age power crystals.
Mr. Triscari, I agree with you that some of alternative medicine is arrant nonsense. Herbal and nutritional medicine do not come into that category.
And yes, some of the more extreme conservatives (particularly religious ones) do hate science. I find it astonishing that anyone, in what the country itself likes to think is the most advanced country on Earth (it isn’t), denies the obvious truth of evolution for example. Some of the extreme of the extreme even think of Genesis as literal truth. Just for starters, if Noah’s Flood had happened as stated there would be no land life. (Most land plants don’t do too well under five miles of water.)
Oh, I forgot. Titus, what exactly is the distinction between business and the people who run it? Does, for example, Microsoft have some sort of mystical existence (other than a legal one) distinct from those who own and run it?
The governmental monopoly of power is a dangerous weapon. Some folks want to keep the scope of its power small, to minimize the risk of misapplication. Others want to make it big and powerful to “get things done” and then just take it for granted that only “the right people” will ever have access to it. If you’re in the latter camp, don’t cry to us when blows up in your face on a daily basis.
Back on-topic: I’m somewhat encouraged that this news is hitting the MSM. It means people are starting to realize that the culture wars of the Boomers are dying off (issues that Xers and Millennials couldn’t care less about because they’re already settled in their own minds, at least) as the Boomers retire or expire. With the election of Obama and the resiliency of the Tea Party movement, political change is starting to happen, and no one yet knows exactly where it will go.
Fletcher, if you don’t pay your power bill, the power company will send someone out to turn off your power. The only reason the police would get involved would be if you attempted to prevent the power worker from disconnecting your delinquent ass. Then your bill might eventually be sent to a collections agency, or possibly they might take you to court. Eventually, they might get a judgment against you, and will collect in one fashion or another. And why shouldn’t they? You didn’t uphold your end of the legal business contract you voluntarily entered into. You would be a thief. You don’t want to pay for power? Fine, don’t have the power company hook you up.
Mr. Smith, it has been said again and again that pure laissez-faire capitalism leads to a very ugly society indeed. To the whole of the business world shrinking to a monopoly (or very close to a monopoly) for each sector, with one company being able to charge as much as it likes for as shoddy a product or service as it likes. To prevent this coming to pass the UK has a Monopolies Commission – I don’t know what the US equivalent is called.
Such corporate entities are quite prepared, also, to use some very dirty tricks to keep their position.
I’ll give an example. Tesco is not in a monopoly position – although in a lot of localities they have a local monopoly – in the UK. However, they completely dominate their sector, which is food retail with increasing forays into such things as electrical goods. Another relevant fact is that in the UK land is in short supply and another is that we import a great deal of our food. Tesco has (perfectly legally, so far) been buying up large amounts of agricultural land around our towns, and then just sitting on it. Not building on it, not letting anyone grow food on it, just fence it off and leave it. Why? Because Tesco owning the land means no competitor can build their own supermarket on it. Who wins by this policy? Tesco. Who loses? Everybody else.
Megacorporations have no morals. If one appears to have them it’s PR.
Fletcher Christian wrote:
Mr. Smith, it has been said again and again that pure laissez-faire capitalism leads to a very ugly society indeed. To the whole of the business world shrinking to a monopoly (or very close to a monopoly) for each sector, with one company being able to charge as much as it likes for as shoddy a product or service as it likes.
Yes, it has been “said” again and again, but what have been the real-world results?
The closest thing to pure laissez-faire capitalism that the world has ever seen was the 100 year period of time in America from the ratification of the U.S. Constitution in 1789 to 1889. During that period of time there were essentially no economic controls or regulatory agencies of any sort. The result was the development of the American economy that created the a standard of living unmatched anywhere else on the planet.
Repeat: The result of this near-laissez-faire period was the development of the American economy that created the a standard of living unmatched anywhere else on the planet.
The other result was that during this period, there was not a single example of a private monopoly. By “private monopoly”, I mean one achieved without government force. The only monopolies that existed were ones created by the government, such as a handful of railroad monopolies, the Post Office, etc.
Repeat: During this near-laissez-faire period, not a single non-government-enforced monopoly appeared.
So it is a complete Marxist myth that laissez-faire capitalism leads to monopolies. Simply put, under laissez-faire capitalism, no private business can use force to keep competitors out of its markets.
You mention Tesco in the U.K. Since the U.K. is most definitely NOT a laissez-faire economy, and since Tesco, by your own words, is not a monopoly, I don’t see its relevance to the issue of laissez-faire capitalism.
The U.K., like the U.S., is now a highly regulated, highly controlled “mixed economy”, i.e. it is a mixture of a few elements of capitalism laboring under the weight of massive government controls and regulations. The existence of such regulations creates many opportunities for companies to use government regulations to their advantage — either by prohibiting other companies from entering their field outright or by simply creating huge barriers to entry for new competitors.
There are enough examples of this to fill an encyclopedia. At the state level here in the U.S., there are now licensing requirements for every profession. Even to be a florist, for the love of god, one must go to school for two years then pass a state examination. Guess who got that law passed? The local florists who don’t want any more competition.
On a bigger scale, all the pharmaceutical companies support the U.S. regulatory agency called the Food and Drug Administration. Even though this agency, the FDA, has so many regulations that it now takes 11 years to get a new drug or medicine approved, and even though it takes an army of researchers and clerical support people to get any new medicine or drug approved, the pharmaceutical companies support this agency because it basically means there will never be another new competitor coming in to supply drugs and medicines. No company can start up and survive if it takes 11 years to get its first new product on the market.
So, yes, companies, especially big companies, game the system and manipulate the government into giving them favorable treatment, often at the expense of the taxpayers. The solution is to eliminate government’s power to regulate the economy, for then it will not be in a position to grant favors and pick economic winners and losers, and then every company will have to stand on its ability to satisfy its customers, with no way to keep out new competitors. A complete separation of economics and state — in the same way as we have a separation of church and state — this is the solution. And it is called laissez-faire capitalism.