Hijacking Individual Rights
Tibor R. Machan
When John Locke identified, in serious and reasonable detailed ways, the nature of human political liberty--as a natural right of every human being--for a good bit political thinkers in the West were in awe. What a notion--it is not governments that are sovereign but individuals persons! Much of the political universe went topsy-turvy for a while. Law books were reworked, myths about inherited titles got busted. A revolution was spawned, with the Declaration of Independence and the Bill of Rights in America as its most significant consequence.
But all this was, of course, a bit too good to be true. Very soon a bunch of prominent thinkers--apologists of the state--began to undermine Locke’s discovery. Jeremy Bentham, for example, ridiculed the idea of natural, unalienable--in his work Anarchical Fallacies he wrote that “Natural rights is simple nonsense: natural and imprescriptible [that is, unalienable] rights, rhetorical nonsense — nonsense upon stilts.” Bentham was an extreme empiricist and since natural rights is a normative idea, an idea about how we ought to related to each other, he scoffed at it, regarded it unfounded in observable fact.
Henceforth Locke’s natural rights, including the right to life or liberty, became less and less respected by political thinkers. One result was that instead of the original negative version, as Locke laid it out--a prohibition against invaders--various critics began to defend so called positive rights.
The Lockean idea of the right to liberty implied that no one may intrude upon anyone--it was supposed to be a “No trespass” sign. Only if invited are others admitted into one’s life and one’s property--“person and estate,” in Locke’s language. But with that idea becoming less and less well respected, all hell broke loose and nowadays rights are being peddled as entitlements to what others did or owned. This is the origin of today’s dominant doctrine of welfare rights--people believe that others may be forced to work for them, to pay for what they need and want, that they have a right to other’s lives and property. Ergo, the triumph of the welfare state, not of the fully free society sketched so well in the Declaration of Independence.
Of course there are many who accept what Locke discovered and reject the fiction of positive or welfare rights, unearned entitlements. Their view accords well with moral philosophy as well as common sense.
Why would others have any claim on one’s life and property if both of these belong to oneself? And why would they not belong to oneself? One’s life is certainly not anyone else’s and what comes from the productive activities of this life, namely, one’s property, doesn’t belong to anyone else either. The only legitimate way other people can come to share one’s life and property is if their owner willingly parts with them. I may choose to work for someone, as an act of generosity or in return for payment; I may choose to share my resources with others, again as a gift or in exchange for something they might be willing to do for me or give me.
But this excellent idea turned out to be radical and still seems quite unfamiliar, even odd, to millions across the globe. They hold on to the ancient fiction that people belong to some tribe, nation, ethnic group, clan, society, state, nation or some other band. The fact that such a position means really nothing more fancy than that some other people get to rule you, that not you but others own you, that you are a subject or even slave of others, doesn’t sink in for too many folks because there is always some kind of sophisticated story--narrative, in today’s language--provided to justify it. You belong to the community! We are together and you must subjugate yourself to the greater whole, and so forth and so on. That deceptive term “we” manages to hoodwink millions into letting a few self-anointed leaders run the show, take hold of people’s labor and resources and use these as they see fit. And if you don’t comply, even simply refuse to agree, you are dubbed some kind of anti-social cretin.
People have free will--despite what so many thinkers now want to claim, namely, that we are moved about by impersonal forces--and they can think up lots of pseudo-justifications to make us all into their peons. They can persuade themselves that when they think of something that appeals to them, they are authorized to coerce us all to support the idea, never mind about our plans, goals, hopes, and aspirations.
This is how a very good idea, the unalienable individual rights of everyone, got to be perverted and corrupted into the idea that your life and works don’t really belong to you at all but to “us,” meaning, the few who perpetrate the ruse.
Monday, June 02, 2008
The Big Lie Again
Tibor R. Machan
Just to make it clear that association with prestigious institutions does not guarantee veracity, Professor Eric Foner, DeWitt Clinton Professor of History at Columbia University, has chimed in with yet another distortion of reality, one that several prominent folks have been perpetrating over the last few years. I am thinking, for example, of Paul Krugman, Princeton University economist and columnist for The New York Times.
Both of these folks have been repeating the claim that ideas favoring the free market are widely championed in America. Foner wrote this in The New York Times Sunday Book Review recently: “Arthur Schlesinger Jr., ‘The Politics of Upheaval: 1935-1936’ [is a book the presidential candidates ought to read] because it demonstrates how the marriage of engaged social movements and an activist government can promote the common good even in the most dire economic circumstances, and offers and alternative vision of the market fundamentalism that now dominates American politics.”
I have dealt extensively with the myth of government’s capacity to promote the “public” good and how that idea tends to mean the agenda of people who differ from what most others like to promote. In the American political tradition the public good comes to nothing less or more than securing everyone’s fundamental, unalienable individual rights!
What jumps out at a reader in the quote from Foner is the out and out myth he is peddling, namely, that “market fundamentalism dominates American politics.” If you doubt me, just listen to Senators Obama, Clinton, and McCain and notice how little confidence each of these major contemporary political figures shows for the free market. The current Congress has no interest in free markets either. Instead it keeps supporting farm subsidies and numerous protectionist measures. Liberal Democrats, in turn, are openly hostile to free trade--notice how both Senators Obama and Clinton keep hammering away at NAFTA (which, by the way, Bill Clinton supported), a measure that gives at least lip service in favor of the free market. (Not that even NAFTA fully endorses economic freedom!)
Why on earth is it so necessary for Professor Foner and his ilk to peddle this big lie, namely, that the free market is favored in America these days? No one but Congressman Ron Paul treated it as a good thing and his vote totals did not come close to suggesting that the idea dominates American politics. So why the lie?
I believe that enemies of the free market are worried that any problems in the American or indeed world economy might be laid at the feet of the real culprit, the mixed economy or welfare state. Because it is welfare states that in fact dominate politics nearly everywhere, including in America. The mixed economy is an uneasy combination of extensive government economic intervention and pockets of free market activity.
American political opinion, pace Professor Foner, has been swinging back and forth between more or less extensive government interventionism. That is what has dominated American politics, what with all the regulatory agencies, minimum wage measures, eminent domain policies, subsidies, protection from foreign competition, etc., etc.
But if one can convince people that economic problems stem not from this mess of the mixed economy but from market fundamentalism, they may decide to try even more interventionism, more government regulation, more central planning exactly as advocated by Senators Obama and Clinton and not at all vigorously opposed by Senator McCain.
The Big Lie! It was once associated with Plato’s Republic, where the philosopher king was required, in the imaginary perfect state, to mislead the public for its very own good! Maybe Professor Foner shares this idea: Lie to the American public about what kind of economic philosophy is dominant so they will then accept the opposite idea, namely, socialism.
In fact, however, this lie is of no help to anyone, not even Professor Foner (since his reputation is seriously sullied from perpetrating it).
Tibor R. Machan
Just to make it clear that association with prestigious institutions does not guarantee veracity, Professor Eric Foner, DeWitt Clinton Professor of History at Columbia University, has chimed in with yet another distortion of reality, one that several prominent folks have been perpetrating over the last few years. I am thinking, for example, of Paul Krugman, Princeton University economist and columnist for The New York Times.
Both of these folks have been repeating the claim that ideas favoring the free market are widely championed in America. Foner wrote this in The New York Times Sunday Book Review recently: “Arthur Schlesinger Jr., ‘The Politics of Upheaval: 1935-1936’ [is a book the presidential candidates ought to read] because it demonstrates how the marriage of engaged social movements and an activist government can promote the common good even in the most dire economic circumstances, and offers and alternative vision of the market fundamentalism that now dominates American politics.”
I have dealt extensively with the myth of government’s capacity to promote the “public” good and how that idea tends to mean the agenda of people who differ from what most others like to promote. In the American political tradition the public good comes to nothing less or more than securing everyone’s fundamental, unalienable individual rights!
What jumps out at a reader in the quote from Foner is the out and out myth he is peddling, namely, that “market fundamentalism dominates American politics.” If you doubt me, just listen to Senators Obama, Clinton, and McCain and notice how little confidence each of these major contemporary political figures shows for the free market. The current Congress has no interest in free markets either. Instead it keeps supporting farm subsidies and numerous protectionist measures. Liberal Democrats, in turn, are openly hostile to free trade--notice how both Senators Obama and Clinton keep hammering away at NAFTA (which, by the way, Bill Clinton supported), a measure that gives at least lip service in favor of the free market. (Not that even NAFTA fully endorses economic freedom!)
Why on earth is it so necessary for Professor Foner and his ilk to peddle this big lie, namely, that the free market is favored in America these days? No one but Congressman Ron Paul treated it as a good thing and his vote totals did not come close to suggesting that the idea dominates American politics. So why the lie?
I believe that enemies of the free market are worried that any problems in the American or indeed world economy might be laid at the feet of the real culprit, the mixed economy or welfare state. Because it is welfare states that in fact dominate politics nearly everywhere, including in America. The mixed economy is an uneasy combination of extensive government economic intervention and pockets of free market activity.
American political opinion, pace Professor Foner, has been swinging back and forth between more or less extensive government interventionism. That is what has dominated American politics, what with all the regulatory agencies, minimum wage measures, eminent domain policies, subsidies, protection from foreign competition, etc., etc.
But if one can convince people that economic problems stem not from this mess of the mixed economy but from market fundamentalism, they may decide to try even more interventionism, more government regulation, more central planning exactly as advocated by Senators Obama and Clinton and not at all vigorously opposed by Senator McCain.
The Big Lie! It was once associated with Plato’s Republic, where the philosopher king was required, in the imaginary perfect state, to mislead the public for its very own good! Maybe Professor Foner shares this idea: Lie to the American public about what kind of economic philosophy is dominant so they will then accept the opposite idea, namely, socialism.
In fact, however, this lie is of no help to anyone, not even Professor Foner (since his reputation is seriously sullied from perpetrating it).
Sunday, June 01, 2008
“Supposed Universal Values”
Tibor R. Machan
Professor of history Sean Pollock at Wright State University, in Dayton, Ohio, recently wrote about Senator John McCain’s foreign policy views in a letter to the Sunday New York Times Magazine. He asked, I think rhetorically, “Does McCain not see that by intervening militarily in foreign countries and by justifying such intervention in terms of supposed universal values, America stands in the tradition of imperial powers whose policies and practices have tended to engender the kinds of insurgent movements he fears?” I focus on this here because the question raises some important issues.
One is whether when people like Senator McCain support military intervention, do they in fact invoke “supposed universal values” in support of their position? I don’t know but if former Federal Reserve chief Alan Greenspan--certainly familiar with the Bush administration--is to be believed, the war in Iraq has little to do with any such values. It has to do with oil. Or perhaps with some obscure UN resolution. Or maybe the support for McCain’s position comes from the United Nation’s covenant of “the responsibility of protect” against tyrants and/or natural disasters.
Certainly if there are universal values, ones all people ought to embrace and governments in any country should protect, it does not follow that foreign governments must intervene when they are being violated. These governments are, let’s remember, public servants of their own citizenry, not of the populations of foreign countries. Nothing at all about there being universal values requires intervention of any kind. If I believe that my neighbor ought to show tenderness toward his children and he doesn’t, I am not authorized to meddle in his family life. Perhaps I am justified in thinking badly of him, even of trying to encourage him in various civilized ways to change his ways. But no intervention is supported by such universal values.
Professor Pollock shows disdainfulness toward universal values, otherwise why did he say “supposed.” Maybe he wants to guard against the tendency he ascribes to Senator McCain by his skepticism. Yet, this tendency to intervene by someone who holds such universal values does not follow from holding such values. This is especially true of liberal democratic countries that are committed to the principle of freedom of choice. Unless another country is aggressing against its neighbors--or there is strong reason that it will do so imminently--no justification exists to intervene. Furthermore, not all intervention in support of such values, when justified on the grounds that apply--not merely that there are such universal values--amounts to imperialism. But I’ll leave that point aside here.
When, for example, a country is ruled by brutal thugs and the bulk of the citizenry is desirous of outside help intervention is not at all imperialistic. But even then the help must come only if the citizens of the country capable of giving it approve. Otherwise help must come from volunteers since the legal duty of a country’s government and military is to provide protection to its citizenry, not to citizens of other countries.
A liberal country’s foreign policy must not amount to aggression, not even to humanitarian intervention. Force must only be used in defense of the country itself, or of a friendly ally. That is what the government officials of a liberal country swear to when taking office, to protect the constitution of the country, meaning, to protect its integrity and citizenry from those who would attack or seriously threaten them.
None of this denies that there are some, perhaps just a few, essential, universal values every society should follow, ones that all governments should protect in their society. Senator McCain’s belief in military intervention need have nothing at all to do with his embrace of universal values such as human rights for all. As a senator in a free society he is sworn to secure rights for those who elected him not for people abroad. But this does not mean those people abroad do not possess those rights just as citizens at home do.
It is a logical fallacy, which has some very deleterious results when committed, to think that the existence of universal values implies that one must become the police that should provide the protection of those values. Something else is needed for this to happen, namely, to become properly authorized to give that protection.
Tibor R. Machan
Professor of history Sean Pollock at Wright State University, in Dayton, Ohio, recently wrote about Senator John McCain’s foreign policy views in a letter to the Sunday New York Times Magazine. He asked, I think rhetorically, “Does McCain not see that by intervening militarily in foreign countries and by justifying such intervention in terms of supposed universal values, America stands in the tradition of imperial powers whose policies and practices have tended to engender the kinds of insurgent movements he fears?” I focus on this here because the question raises some important issues.
One is whether when people like Senator McCain support military intervention, do they in fact invoke “supposed universal values” in support of their position? I don’t know but if former Federal Reserve chief Alan Greenspan--certainly familiar with the Bush administration--is to be believed, the war in Iraq has little to do with any such values. It has to do with oil. Or perhaps with some obscure UN resolution. Or maybe the support for McCain’s position comes from the United Nation’s covenant of “the responsibility of protect” against tyrants and/or natural disasters.
Certainly if there are universal values, ones all people ought to embrace and governments in any country should protect, it does not follow that foreign governments must intervene when they are being violated. These governments are, let’s remember, public servants of their own citizenry, not of the populations of foreign countries. Nothing at all about there being universal values requires intervention of any kind. If I believe that my neighbor ought to show tenderness toward his children and he doesn’t, I am not authorized to meddle in his family life. Perhaps I am justified in thinking badly of him, even of trying to encourage him in various civilized ways to change his ways. But no intervention is supported by such universal values.
Professor Pollock shows disdainfulness toward universal values, otherwise why did he say “supposed.” Maybe he wants to guard against the tendency he ascribes to Senator McCain by his skepticism. Yet, this tendency to intervene by someone who holds such universal values does not follow from holding such values. This is especially true of liberal democratic countries that are committed to the principle of freedom of choice. Unless another country is aggressing against its neighbors--or there is strong reason that it will do so imminently--no justification exists to intervene. Furthermore, not all intervention in support of such values, when justified on the grounds that apply--not merely that there are such universal values--amounts to imperialism. But I’ll leave that point aside here.
When, for example, a country is ruled by brutal thugs and the bulk of the citizenry is desirous of outside help intervention is not at all imperialistic. But even then the help must come only if the citizens of the country capable of giving it approve. Otherwise help must come from volunteers since the legal duty of a country’s government and military is to provide protection to its citizenry, not to citizens of other countries.
A liberal country’s foreign policy must not amount to aggression, not even to humanitarian intervention. Force must only be used in defense of the country itself, or of a friendly ally. That is what the government officials of a liberal country swear to when taking office, to protect the constitution of the country, meaning, to protect its integrity and citizenry from those who would attack or seriously threaten them.
None of this denies that there are some, perhaps just a few, essential, universal values every society should follow, ones that all governments should protect in their society. Senator McCain’s belief in military intervention need have nothing at all to do with his embrace of universal values such as human rights for all. As a senator in a free society he is sworn to secure rights for those who elected him not for people abroad. But this does not mean those people abroad do not possess those rights just as citizens at home do.
It is a logical fallacy, which has some very deleterious results when committed, to think that the existence of universal values implies that one must become the police that should provide the protection of those values. Something else is needed for this to happen, namely, to become properly authorized to give that protection.
Marx Was Partly Right
Tibor R. Machan
Most literate people know that first on the list in Karl Marx & Frederick Engels' Communist Manifesto of what needed changing to achieve socialism is the abolition of the right to private property. This follows, of course, from the very idea of socialism, which sees humanity or society as an organic body, akin to a termite colony. Individuals no longer exist in such a system, so privacy and private property must go, too.
Marx also made a prediction that in modern democracies there wouldn’t be a need for violent revolutions because the citizenry will get rid of the legal protection of private property through the electoral process. Too many people will get fed up with the volatility of freedom, including the free market place, and gradually achieve socialism by voting in politicians who will eliminate the obstacle of legally protected private property rights to central planning.
Marx thought that central planning would serve society well but he based this idea on his confidence that human nature will change. Instead of people wanting to achieve various goals of their own, they will in time come to aim only for the public good. He believed that once matured, “the human essence is the true collectivity of man.” The new man, then, will not be like you and me or anyone today.
This is an important element of socialism and central planning because only if it is true will the theory of public choice, which completely undermines confidence in central planning, be avoided. Public choice theory addresses human being as they are now, not as they would turn out to be in Marx’s vision of a socialist society. If Marx is wrong and human nature will not change, then public choice theory shows that central planners will make a mess of things, not help out at all. Central planners, being ordinary humans, will aim at fulfilling their own agendas, not some vague public purpose.
A unified, one-size-fits-all public purpose makes sense within the context of the Marxian idea of the new man, one who cares nothing for himself or herself, only for the whole society. This is like people in a team or orchestra who are not focused on their own private agendas but that of the group. It works fine in small organizations which human beings join voluntarily because they do in fact promise to fulfill their own goals, only with the aid of other people. But in Karl Marx’s picture no need for voluntary joining exists. People will be born as socialists, by their very nature.
Because the Marxian idea is a myth--history is not driving us toward socialism and the new man--the socialism aimed for by Marx and his followers has to be brought about coercively, by brute force--see Stalin or Hugo Chavez, as examples. This is even so when people elect politicians whom they entrust with public service because those people, of course, haven’t a clue how to achieve some mythical comprehensive public good. So even when elected by majorities, as Max thought they would be in democracies, promoters of socialism will be thoroughly stymied by their own unavoidable ignorance of what really benefits us. We are not all the same; indeed humanity as it actually is consists of a huge variety of individuals with an equally huge variety of different ways of attaining their best interests. No central planners can achieve this, ever.
But Marx did have it right that in their impatience and frustration with the free market, people will attempt the impossible. (Marx, of course, didn’t think socialism is impossible.) Consider, for example, environmental issues. Many are panicked about how well protected private property rights leave much of the environment uncared for--e. g., rain forests, the polar bear, etc., etc. So they then wish to entrust the care to politicians and planners. They envision some kind of supreme plan that will bring about a healthy ecosystem. But no one really knows what that is and planners are just as prone to mismanage it all as individuals, only the scope of their mismanagement is far greater, so the damage they do is huge. (In fact most of the current environmental mess is due to government central planners who built ridiculously huge projects using government's power to violate private property rights, as in the case of the TVA and the many humongous dams around the globe.)
Impatience is what produces all this. It is true that with a regime of legally protected private property rights no grand scheme is in the offing. Yet that impossible dream motivates too many people, however futile it is from the start. The only real prospect is the piecemeal, strict private property approach and that is what encourages--though it does not guarantee--the responsible use of the environment.
Just as the perfect is the enemy of the good, so the myth of guaranteed environmental health is the enemy of a reasonably healthy one. Too bad, but Marx did have a point about people’s impatience. Yet certainly it isn’t going to lead to any socialist utopia.
Tibor R. Machan
Most literate people know that first on the list in Karl Marx & Frederick Engels' Communist Manifesto of what needed changing to achieve socialism is the abolition of the right to private property. This follows, of course, from the very idea of socialism, which sees humanity or society as an organic body, akin to a termite colony. Individuals no longer exist in such a system, so privacy and private property must go, too.
Marx also made a prediction that in modern democracies there wouldn’t be a need for violent revolutions because the citizenry will get rid of the legal protection of private property through the electoral process. Too many people will get fed up with the volatility of freedom, including the free market place, and gradually achieve socialism by voting in politicians who will eliminate the obstacle of legally protected private property rights to central planning.
Marx thought that central planning would serve society well but he based this idea on his confidence that human nature will change. Instead of people wanting to achieve various goals of their own, they will in time come to aim only for the public good. He believed that once matured, “the human essence is the true collectivity of man.” The new man, then, will not be like you and me or anyone today.
This is an important element of socialism and central planning because only if it is true will the theory of public choice, which completely undermines confidence in central planning, be avoided. Public choice theory addresses human being as they are now, not as they would turn out to be in Marx’s vision of a socialist society. If Marx is wrong and human nature will not change, then public choice theory shows that central planners will make a mess of things, not help out at all. Central planners, being ordinary humans, will aim at fulfilling their own agendas, not some vague public purpose.
A unified, one-size-fits-all public purpose makes sense within the context of the Marxian idea of the new man, one who cares nothing for himself or herself, only for the whole society. This is like people in a team or orchestra who are not focused on their own private agendas but that of the group. It works fine in small organizations which human beings join voluntarily because they do in fact promise to fulfill their own goals, only with the aid of other people. But in Karl Marx’s picture no need for voluntary joining exists. People will be born as socialists, by their very nature.
Because the Marxian idea is a myth--history is not driving us toward socialism and the new man--the socialism aimed for by Marx and his followers has to be brought about coercively, by brute force--see Stalin or Hugo Chavez, as examples. This is even so when people elect politicians whom they entrust with public service because those people, of course, haven’t a clue how to achieve some mythical comprehensive public good. So even when elected by majorities, as Max thought they would be in democracies, promoters of socialism will be thoroughly stymied by their own unavoidable ignorance of what really benefits us. We are not all the same; indeed humanity as it actually is consists of a huge variety of individuals with an equally huge variety of different ways of attaining their best interests. No central planners can achieve this, ever.
But Marx did have it right that in their impatience and frustration with the free market, people will attempt the impossible. (Marx, of course, didn’t think socialism is impossible.) Consider, for example, environmental issues. Many are panicked about how well protected private property rights leave much of the environment uncared for--e. g., rain forests, the polar bear, etc., etc. So they then wish to entrust the care to politicians and planners. They envision some kind of supreme plan that will bring about a healthy ecosystem. But no one really knows what that is and planners are just as prone to mismanage it all as individuals, only the scope of their mismanagement is far greater, so the damage they do is huge. (In fact most of the current environmental mess is due to government central planners who built ridiculously huge projects using government's power to violate private property rights, as in the case of the TVA and the many humongous dams around the globe.)
Impatience is what produces all this. It is true that with a regime of legally protected private property rights no grand scheme is in the offing. Yet that impossible dream motivates too many people, however futile it is from the start. The only real prospect is the piecemeal, strict private property approach and that is what encourages--though it does not guarantee--the responsible use of the environment.
Just as the perfect is the enemy of the good, so the myth of guaranteed environmental health is the enemy of a reasonably healthy one. Too bad, but Marx did have a point about people’s impatience. Yet certainly it isn’t going to lead to any socialist utopia.
Friday, May 30, 2008
Elites, Good and Bad
Tibor R. Machan
Democrats are all bent out of shape about how to think about elites--the group in society that claims to be superior to the rest of us. Senator Obama is dubbed an elitist for saying that many turn to religion out of frustration. Senator Clinton is trying to flee her own elitist legacy, what with an education from various elite institutions. So what is so bad about being a member of the elite?
In many previous ages and even now in many regions of the globe certain people were deemed to be above the rest, as a matter of their birthright. They were and are considered to be part of the natural aristocracy--rulers by excellence! This means that they need accomplish nothing at all to rank high among human beings. The feudal system is rife with this notion, as are many other in which class warfare is afoot.
But there can be aristocrats who deserve their higher standing in society. This would arise from having achieved something worthwhile, such as a great scientific discovery, an engineering or some kind of artistic feat. Such accomplishments would ordinarily gain a person recognition and even standing in a community. And so one could join the aristocracy or elite without the fiction of having inherited it in some mysterious, mythical way.
Trouble is that when the semi-official philosophy in the land is egalitarianism, even this sort of elitism is frowned upon. No one is supposed to be regarded as having higher rank than anyone else--that is one thesis of egalitarianism. And among liberal democrats this philosophy is rampant--nearly everyone gives it lip service even when it is totally absurd (such as the folks do at National Public Radio, which is one of the snootiest organizations in the country).
Many trendy notions contribute to the mess--for example, relativism and subjectivism about values. If what makes something worthwhile is only a matter of a subjective feeling--some simply like it more than other things--there can hardly be any rational reason for attributing to it higher rank than to competing accomplishments. If it is all relative whether one deserves the Nobel Prize in economics or physics, then the idea that the achievements of these people are superior to that of others and the prize is deserved make no sense. Thus, egalitarianism must rule! Everything people do is of equal worth or, indeed, worthless. The very idea of “worth” becomes meaningless since no objective standards are supposed to exist by which to assess what we do in any realm at all.
Post-modernism, which is but a recent version of subjectivism and relativism, also produces this egalitarian outlook. It is all a matter of how you look at it, you see, so how could anything really be a more worthwhile achievement than something else?
Clearly the liberal democratic ethos embraces some of these ways of thinking about the world and about human conduct. For example, all of the poor are equally deserving, never mind how they got to be poor. All of the sick, too, are equally deserving of support, never mind how they got sick (say by accident or because they acted recklessly). No one is a failure in school or at work, only impaired somehow. No one is at fault in a divorce! And so forth and so on.
When these views dominate in a community, such as in the Democratic Party, any type of aristocracy or elitism is a liability and those who wish to flourish--to win votes for example--must reject any thought of earned merit by anyone. That is just what we now witness with Senators Obama and Clinton, a desperate effort to deny any kind of special achievement, even while they both contend, paradoxically, that they deserve to become president of the United States of America because of their superior judgment and character!
Elitism, however, is actually quite all right when it involves earning one’s high rank, in science, the arts, athletics, and in other spheres where human beings set out to triumph. But an ultimately condescending egalitarianism obscures this fact. The phony humility of such egalitarianism aims to deny something entirely unavoidable in human affairs, namely, that some do better than others and thus deserve more! Those will be the accomplished elite and no effort to deny this fact will manage to actually avoid it. Such denial will merely produce confusion and contradiction, neither of which reaps any benefit at all.
Tibor R. Machan
Democrats are all bent out of shape about how to think about elites--the group in society that claims to be superior to the rest of us. Senator Obama is dubbed an elitist for saying that many turn to religion out of frustration. Senator Clinton is trying to flee her own elitist legacy, what with an education from various elite institutions. So what is so bad about being a member of the elite?
In many previous ages and even now in many regions of the globe certain people were deemed to be above the rest, as a matter of their birthright. They were and are considered to be part of the natural aristocracy--rulers by excellence! This means that they need accomplish nothing at all to rank high among human beings. The feudal system is rife with this notion, as are many other in which class warfare is afoot.
But there can be aristocrats who deserve their higher standing in society. This would arise from having achieved something worthwhile, such as a great scientific discovery, an engineering or some kind of artistic feat. Such accomplishments would ordinarily gain a person recognition and even standing in a community. And so one could join the aristocracy or elite without the fiction of having inherited it in some mysterious, mythical way.
Trouble is that when the semi-official philosophy in the land is egalitarianism, even this sort of elitism is frowned upon. No one is supposed to be regarded as having higher rank than anyone else--that is one thesis of egalitarianism. And among liberal democrats this philosophy is rampant--nearly everyone gives it lip service even when it is totally absurd (such as the folks do at National Public Radio, which is one of the snootiest organizations in the country).
Many trendy notions contribute to the mess--for example, relativism and subjectivism about values. If what makes something worthwhile is only a matter of a subjective feeling--some simply like it more than other things--there can hardly be any rational reason for attributing to it higher rank than to competing accomplishments. If it is all relative whether one deserves the Nobel Prize in economics or physics, then the idea that the achievements of these people are superior to that of others and the prize is deserved make no sense. Thus, egalitarianism must rule! Everything people do is of equal worth or, indeed, worthless. The very idea of “worth” becomes meaningless since no objective standards are supposed to exist by which to assess what we do in any realm at all.
Post-modernism, which is but a recent version of subjectivism and relativism, also produces this egalitarian outlook. It is all a matter of how you look at it, you see, so how could anything really be a more worthwhile achievement than something else?
Clearly the liberal democratic ethos embraces some of these ways of thinking about the world and about human conduct. For example, all of the poor are equally deserving, never mind how they got to be poor. All of the sick, too, are equally deserving of support, never mind how they got sick (say by accident or because they acted recklessly). No one is a failure in school or at work, only impaired somehow. No one is at fault in a divorce! And so forth and so on.
When these views dominate in a community, such as in the Democratic Party, any type of aristocracy or elitism is a liability and those who wish to flourish--to win votes for example--must reject any thought of earned merit by anyone. That is just what we now witness with Senators Obama and Clinton, a desperate effort to deny any kind of special achievement, even while they both contend, paradoxically, that they deserve to become president of the United States of America because of their superior judgment and character!
Elitism, however, is actually quite all right when it involves earning one’s high rank, in science, the arts, athletics, and in other spheres where human beings set out to triumph. But an ultimately condescending egalitarianism obscures this fact. The phony humility of such egalitarianism aims to deny something entirely unavoidable in human affairs, namely, that some do better than others and thus deserve more! Those will be the accomplished elite and no effort to deny this fact will manage to actually avoid it. Such denial will merely produce confusion and contradiction, neither of which reaps any benefit at all.
Thursday, May 29, 2008
A Socialist America?
Tibor R. Machan
It is becoming increasingly likely that soon the United States of America, which supposedly won the Cold War against the socialist Soviet Union, will become a socialist society. A comparable country would be France, prior to the presidency of Szarkozy.
This is the conclusion to be drawn from what two of the presidential candidates who have a solid prospect to reach the White House have been saying over the last several months. Both, Senators Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Hussein Obama have indicated in no uncertain terms that they prefer an economic order in the United States that is regimented by the plans of some folks from above, not by the free choices of individuals from below. She has said that what America needs is “a commander in chief of the economy.” He has decried American capitalism and the profit motive that is its main economic engine. She has taken advice from neo-Marxists Michael Lerner of TIKKUN magazine, he has stated that the greatest influence on his thinking and values was his mother, an avowed socialist and communist sympathizer.
I am not using “socialist” and “communist” as scare terms, only as accurate descriptions of what the two potential nominees of the Democratic Party believe. They are not simply welfare statists, people who believe that along with a substantial free market the country needs to have supportive federal and state governments who provide people with last ditch economic security in the face of the vicissitudes of market forces. No, the two candidates appear to be impatient with such meager measures and want to take the reigns once they enter the White House and shape the country’s economic affairs according to a specific vision. They both believe in the planned economy (with just a bit of hesitation from Senator Obama who has indicated in a few of his speeches and interviews some skepticism about extensive government regulation).
Why are these people champions of socialism? Because, it seems, they believe that economic affairs in a society ought to be completely predictable and risk free. Only a system that guarantees success for everyone--never mind whether his or her work is in demand, whether luck is on his or her side, whether he or she is skilled and talented--would satisfy the criterion of a just socio-economic order for these candidates. And if the spontaneous processes of the free market fail to achieve this goal, then government must enter to regiment the country so that things turn out properly, as envisioned by those seeking such a system of guarantees.
This is what is called utopianism in the field of political economy. Most people know that it is an impossible dream, an ideal that can only be achieve in fantasy, not in reality. The world simply doesn’t work in a way that can provide everyone with economic and related success. To wish for this is comparable to wishing for a marathon race that everyone will win! Impossible. (George Orwell’s Animal Farm shows this nicely!) And to attempt it must then involve massive coercive force. That is just what happened in socialist bloc and why their system failed and left the countries where it was attempted a colossal economic mess form which recovery will take decades.
Unfortunately over the last several decades most Americans have been taught by teachers who pretty much share the two Senators’ economic philosophy. In elementary school students are indoctrinated about all kinds of topics, from sex to the environment, and how government must deal with problems therein. The idea of individual freedom is, turn, nearly completely neglected. In high schools there is very little economic literacy being taught and most students are educated to care about fairness and equality, not about initiative and risk. In colleges and universities there is now very little in the curriculum that reminds students of the most productive but also unsure economic system, namely, capitalism. Instead the dream world of the top down managed economic system is most widely championed.
In the American political arena there is hardly anyone who opposes these trends. Certainly the Republicans cannot be counted on to challenge the socialist vision since in the main they have their own similar moral authoritarian vision to offer. The ideas and ideals of the Founders are nearly cast to the side by all but the small group of libertarians who aren’t at this time a viable political alternative.
Maybe this is a temporary setback. I believe in the long run the free market alternative is going to be triumphant. But for the time being it is losing. So we need to prepare for some pretty awful times.
Tibor R. Machan
It is becoming increasingly likely that soon the United States of America, which supposedly won the Cold War against the socialist Soviet Union, will become a socialist society. A comparable country would be France, prior to the presidency of Szarkozy.
This is the conclusion to be drawn from what two of the presidential candidates who have a solid prospect to reach the White House have been saying over the last several months. Both, Senators Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Hussein Obama have indicated in no uncertain terms that they prefer an economic order in the United States that is regimented by the plans of some folks from above, not by the free choices of individuals from below. She has said that what America needs is “a commander in chief of the economy.” He has decried American capitalism and the profit motive that is its main economic engine. She has taken advice from neo-Marxists Michael Lerner of TIKKUN magazine, he has stated that the greatest influence on his thinking and values was his mother, an avowed socialist and communist sympathizer.
I am not using “socialist” and “communist” as scare terms, only as accurate descriptions of what the two potential nominees of the Democratic Party believe. They are not simply welfare statists, people who believe that along with a substantial free market the country needs to have supportive federal and state governments who provide people with last ditch economic security in the face of the vicissitudes of market forces. No, the two candidates appear to be impatient with such meager measures and want to take the reigns once they enter the White House and shape the country’s economic affairs according to a specific vision. They both believe in the planned economy (with just a bit of hesitation from Senator Obama who has indicated in a few of his speeches and interviews some skepticism about extensive government regulation).
Why are these people champions of socialism? Because, it seems, they believe that economic affairs in a society ought to be completely predictable and risk free. Only a system that guarantees success for everyone--never mind whether his or her work is in demand, whether luck is on his or her side, whether he or she is skilled and talented--would satisfy the criterion of a just socio-economic order for these candidates. And if the spontaneous processes of the free market fail to achieve this goal, then government must enter to regiment the country so that things turn out properly, as envisioned by those seeking such a system of guarantees.
This is what is called utopianism in the field of political economy. Most people know that it is an impossible dream, an ideal that can only be achieve in fantasy, not in reality. The world simply doesn’t work in a way that can provide everyone with economic and related success. To wish for this is comparable to wishing for a marathon race that everyone will win! Impossible. (George Orwell’s Animal Farm shows this nicely!) And to attempt it must then involve massive coercive force. That is just what happened in socialist bloc and why their system failed and left the countries where it was attempted a colossal economic mess form which recovery will take decades.
Unfortunately over the last several decades most Americans have been taught by teachers who pretty much share the two Senators’ economic philosophy. In elementary school students are indoctrinated about all kinds of topics, from sex to the environment, and how government must deal with problems therein. The idea of individual freedom is, turn, nearly completely neglected. In high schools there is very little economic literacy being taught and most students are educated to care about fairness and equality, not about initiative and risk. In colleges and universities there is now very little in the curriculum that reminds students of the most productive but also unsure economic system, namely, capitalism. Instead the dream world of the top down managed economic system is most widely championed.
In the American political arena there is hardly anyone who opposes these trends. Certainly the Republicans cannot be counted on to challenge the socialist vision since in the main they have their own similar moral authoritarian vision to offer. The ideas and ideals of the Founders are nearly cast to the side by all but the small group of libertarians who aren’t at this time a viable political alternative.
Maybe this is a temporary setback. I believe in the long run the free market alternative is going to be triumphant. But for the time being it is losing. So we need to prepare for some pretty awful times.
Tuesday, May 27, 2008
Libertarianism Isn’t Utopian
Tibor R. Machan
Although it is prudent to be skeptical about the entries found at Wikipedia, the on line encyclopedia offers a sound account of utopias: “Utopia is a term for an ideal society. It has been used to describe both intentional communities that attempted to create an ideal society, and fictional societies portrayed in literature. The term is sometimes used pejoratively, in reference to an unrealistic ideal that is impossible to achieve....”
At a recent conference I directed for Freedom Communications, Inc., the criticism that libertarianism is utopian took center stage. It was advanced by a respectful critic, one who was not disdainful but merely doubtful about the soundness of libertarianism as a viable approach to thinking about public affairs. The gist of the doubtful thesis amounted to the claim that libertarianism is altogether too negative about government, indeed, that libertarians tend to hate politics and all that’s associated with it.
I found myself inspired to reflect upon the critic’s charge, especially since just a few weeks ago I penned a column contending that contemporary politics has become thoroughly corrupt. It is now virtually routine for politicians to be panderers, people who seek to be elected to public office on the basis of offering voters benefits that they will deliver at the expense of others. For virtually every politician the first principle seems to be to promote wealth redistribution, taking from Peter and handing some of what was taken to Paul, while keeping a good bit for politicians and their employees, bureaucrats.
Is this evidence supporting the claim that libertarians hate politicians, consider government all bad? Not quite.
When one considers an institution or profession as having been corrupted, it is generally understood that there could be instances of it that are not corrupted. Corruption means having gone bad, having seriously deteriorated from the proper, legitimate sort. Like a bad apple or rotten tomato, corrupt politics assume that there could be a right sort of the thing.
Libertarianism is a political stance that is well sketched out in the Declaration of Independence, a document that the American Founders--mainly Thomas Jefferson--crafted and signed on July 4, 1776. Seeing that the anniversary of this date is the most significant American holiday being celebrated every year in America, and that’s about to happen this year, it may be useful to quote the few lines that lay out the conception it proposes as to the nature of a proper government: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed....”
The libertarian view of government is that this institution has as its purpose to secure the unalienable rights of the citizenry that’s to be served by the government via certain just powers. Government, in turn, becomes corrupt when this purpose is abandoned and others take its place. Politicians, who are supposed to run for offices that contribute to the proper purpose of government, become corrupt when they run for offices that do not contribute to this proper purpose but to others, including coercive wealth redistribution, coercive micromanagement of the lives of the citizenry, coercive regulation of commerce, science, health care and many other aspects of the lives of the citizenry.
Admittedly, this conception of government is not what has been most prominent throughout human history and, indeed, across the globe in our own time. Even in America, where the Declaration was penned and was supposed to guide the drafting of the constitution of the federal government (and even, in time, state governments), the idea is revolutionary. But that isn’t what is vital in this discussion.
What is vital is that for those who see the view sketched in the Declaration as sound, as do most libertarians, government can be understood in positive, benign terms and need by no means be “hated.” Only when governments become corrupted do they become objects of derision, even hatred, mainly because their powers are then utilized for unjust purposes, which is a grave dereliction of their duty.
Think of it like this: Medicine is a wonderful, positive profession but when medical professionals abandon their purpose and utilize their skills--powers--to perpetrate quackery, they have become corrupt and are deserving of criticism, even sanction. That is just what the libertarian thinks about most governments, now or in the past. But the libertarian isn’t deluded into thinking that even the best possible government will be a road to the solution of all social, let alone, personal problems people face in a country. Now that’s utopianism.
Tibor R. Machan
Although it is prudent to be skeptical about the entries found at Wikipedia, the on line encyclopedia offers a sound account of utopias: “Utopia is a term for an ideal society. It has been used to describe both intentional communities that attempted to create an ideal society, and fictional societies portrayed in literature. The term is sometimes used pejoratively, in reference to an unrealistic ideal that is impossible to achieve....”
At a recent conference I directed for Freedom Communications, Inc., the criticism that libertarianism is utopian took center stage. It was advanced by a respectful critic, one who was not disdainful but merely doubtful about the soundness of libertarianism as a viable approach to thinking about public affairs. The gist of the doubtful thesis amounted to the claim that libertarianism is altogether too negative about government, indeed, that libertarians tend to hate politics and all that’s associated with it.
I found myself inspired to reflect upon the critic’s charge, especially since just a few weeks ago I penned a column contending that contemporary politics has become thoroughly corrupt. It is now virtually routine for politicians to be panderers, people who seek to be elected to public office on the basis of offering voters benefits that they will deliver at the expense of others. For virtually every politician the first principle seems to be to promote wealth redistribution, taking from Peter and handing some of what was taken to Paul, while keeping a good bit for politicians and their employees, bureaucrats.
Is this evidence supporting the claim that libertarians hate politicians, consider government all bad? Not quite.
When one considers an institution or profession as having been corrupted, it is generally understood that there could be instances of it that are not corrupted. Corruption means having gone bad, having seriously deteriorated from the proper, legitimate sort. Like a bad apple or rotten tomato, corrupt politics assume that there could be a right sort of the thing.
Libertarianism is a political stance that is well sketched out in the Declaration of Independence, a document that the American Founders--mainly Thomas Jefferson--crafted and signed on July 4, 1776. Seeing that the anniversary of this date is the most significant American holiday being celebrated every year in America, and that’s about to happen this year, it may be useful to quote the few lines that lay out the conception it proposes as to the nature of a proper government: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed....”
The libertarian view of government is that this institution has as its purpose to secure the unalienable rights of the citizenry that’s to be served by the government via certain just powers. Government, in turn, becomes corrupt when this purpose is abandoned and others take its place. Politicians, who are supposed to run for offices that contribute to the proper purpose of government, become corrupt when they run for offices that do not contribute to this proper purpose but to others, including coercive wealth redistribution, coercive micromanagement of the lives of the citizenry, coercive regulation of commerce, science, health care and many other aspects of the lives of the citizenry.
Admittedly, this conception of government is not what has been most prominent throughout human history and, indeed, across the globe in our own time. Even in America, where the Declaration was penned and was supposed to guide the drafting of the constitution of the federal government (and even, in time, state governments), the idea is revolutionary. But that isn’t what is vital in this discussion.
What is vital is that for those who see the view sketched in the Declaration as sound, as do most libertarians, government can be understood in positive, benign terms and need by no means be “hated.” Only when governments become corrupted do they become objects of derision, even hatred, mainly because their powers are then utilized for unjust purposes, which is a grave dereliction of their duty.
Think of it like this: Medicine is a wonderful, positive profession but when medical professionals abandon their purpose and utilize their skills--powers--to perpetrate quackery, they have become corrupt and are deserving of criticism, even sanction. That is just what the libertarian thinks about most governments, now or in the past. But the libertarian isn’t deluded into thinking that even the best possible government will be a road to the solution of all social, let alone, personal problems people face in a country. Now that’s utopianism.
Friday, May 23, 2008
Pursuing your Happiness
Tibor R. Machan
When the Founders made happiness part of America’s political fabric they made clear that what each of us has a right to is the pursuit of it. As with all individual rights in this political tradition, the right to the pursuit of happiness is a right to take actions of certain sorts, ones that are aimed at achieving our happiness. Even the most basic right, to one’s life, is a right to take a great many actions. Life, after all, consists of being active! The right to private property, too, is a right to take actions that result in the acquisition of valued items.
Sadly, of course, while the Founders of America did give serious thought to the right to the pursuit of happiness, there was no consensus at all in the country, nor is there today, that pursuing happiness is a good thing, that it is something we all ought to do. Indeed, most moralists have tended to argue the opposite—it is renouncing one’s happiness that makes one a good person! Unselfishness is good, selfish pursuits such as wanting to be happy are bad.
OK, that debate is not going to get resolved here. I will just assume that happiness is something worth pursuing—it isn’t just the right to this pursuit that’s a good thing. But at this point one can ask another question, namely, how one can effectively pursue happiness. It is a big question but I will dodge this one too—almost. Instead I wish to explore just how any individual—almost—can improve his or her chances of being happy, of enriching his or her life in the broad sense of becoming better and better off as a human being. I want to focus on a small part of this kind of self-enhancement, of becoming happy.
One way that our happiness can be improved upon, of course, is technology. Indeed, the central point of technology is to help human beings to become happy or at least happier than they are. Gadgets are a clear, uncontroversial case in point. They reduce or even eliminate chores in our lives, helping us save a great deal of time which we then can spend on a great variety of rewarding activities. But some of the new high tech devices of our day do even more—they make possible some extra enjoyments, ones not available in the past.
Consider, for instance, that if one travels a good bit and has a laptop computer with Internet capability, one is now able to listen to innumerable radio stations from across the globe, including some that play nothing but a great variety of types of musical fare. You can be doing work in Europe or Asia but in the evening spend time not just reading a good book but also listening to your favorite classical, jazz or country music station. (One such Internet offering is called Luckyseven.com and has a dozen plus music stations with hardly any interruptions.) If music isn’t your fare, well there are newspapers and magazines to read “on line.” I personally have a pretty rich collection of photographs, including several dozen very appealing works of art which I can run as a slide show. I personally gain immense satisfaction from having photos of friends and family and places I have visited around the globe and a wide variety of paintings available too look at, all the while listening to my favorite music.
Not everyone will make use of the Internet for such purposes but I am willing to bet that most people can find it a rich source of pleasure that suits their tastes and preferences. There is also the Internet based phone system, such as Skype, that for but a few cents makes it possible to avoid the expense of hotel phones and reach friends and families from virtually anywhere.
Now as I see it if one is just a little bit computer savvy, one has a gold mine of resources for improving one’s life in small and not so small ways. One can keep up with important information, of course, but I am now referring to matters that make one’s life more enjoyable than it otherwise would be.
Indeed, it is arguable that if happiness—which consists of a variety of activities and endeavors—is something that human beings not only have a right to pursue but ought to seek, it is our responsibility to find out how new technology will help us be happier than we would be without it. There is much to be upset about as we go through our lives but there is also a great deal that is quite rewarding, if only we pay attention to the world and take advantage of what all it has to offer.
Tibor R. Machan
When the Founders made happiness part of America’s political fabric they made clear that what each of us has a right to is the pursuit of it. As with all individual rights in this political tradition, the right to the pursuit of happiness is a right to take actions of certain sorts, ones that are aimed at achieving our happiness. Even the most basic right, to one’s life, is a right to take a great many actions. Life, after all, consists of being active! The right to private property, too, is a right to take actions that result in the acquisition of valued items.
Sadly, of course, while the Founders of America did give serious thought to the right to the pursuit of happiness, there was no consensus at all in the country, nor is there today, that pursuing happiness is a good thing, that it is something we all ought to do. Indeed, most moralists have tended to argue the opposite—it is renouncing one’s happiness that makes one a good person! Unselfishness is good, selfish pursuits such as wanting to be happy are bad.
OK, that debate is not going to get resolved here. I will just assume that happiness is something worth pursuing—it isn’t just the right to this pursuit that’s a good thing. But at this point one can ask another question, namely, how one can effectively pursue happiness. It is a big question but I will dodge this one too—almost. Instead I wish to explore just how any individual—almost—can improve his or her chances of being happy, of enriching his or her life in the broad sense of becoming better and better off as a human being. I want to focus on a small part of this kind of self-enhancement, of becoming happy.
One way that our happiness can be improved upon, of course, is technology. Indeed, the central point of technology is to help human beings to become happy or at least happier than they are. Gadgets are a clear, uncontroversial case in point. They reduce or even eliminate chores in our lives, helping us save a great deal of time which we then can spend on a great variety of rewarding activities. But some of the new high tech devices of our day do even more—they make possible some extra enjoyments, ones not available in the past.
Consider, for instance, that if one travels a good bit and has a laptop computer with Internet capability, one is now able to listen to innumerable radio stations from across the globe, including some that play nothing but a great variety of types of musical fare. You can be doing work in Europe or Asia but in the evening spend time not just reading a good book but also listening to your favorite classical, jazz or country music station. (One such Internet offering is called Luckyseven.com and has a dozen plus music stations with hardly any interruptions.) If music isn’t your fare, well there are newspapers and magazines to read “on line.” I personally have a pretty rich collection of photographs, including several dozen very appealing works of art which I can run as a slide show. I personally gain immense satisfaction from having photos of friends and family and places I have visited around the globe and a wide variety of paintings available too look at, all the while listening to my favorite music.
Not everyone will make use of the Internet for such purposes but I am willing to bet that most people can find it a rich source of pleasure that suits their tastes and preferences. There is also the Internet based phone system, such as Skype, that for but a few cents makes it possible to avoid the expense of hotel phones and reach friends and families from virtually anywhere.
Now as I see it if one is just a little bit computer savvy, one has a gold mine of resources for improving one’s life in small and not so small ways. One can keep up with important information, of course, but I am now referring to matters that make one’s life more enjoyable than it otherwise would be.
Indeed, it is arguable that if happiness—which consists of a variety of activities and endeavors—is something that human beings not only have a right to pursue but ought to seek, it is our responsibility to find out how new technology will help us be happier than we would be without it. There is much to be upset about as we go through our lives but there is also a great deal that is quite rewarding, if only we pay attention to the world and take advantage of what all it has to offer.
Tuesday, May 13, 2008
The Way Bullies Think
Tibor R. Machan
It is nearly impossible these days to escape the bullies who are set to run everyone's life. I thought I would visit friends on the Central California Coast to get away from it all for a day but no such luck. No sooner did I settle in with my friends to drink a glass or two of some very fine wine from their and some other cellars, I encountered yet another horror story about the demise of private property rights in the United States of America.
This time it isn't the eminent domain bullies who have been popping up everywhere, insisting on misconstruing the Fifth Amendment to the U. S. Constitution as authorizing transfer of private property by government edict to preferred private concerns. (That is what the outrageous Supreme Court Ruling in 2005, Kelo v. City of New London Connecticut sanctioned.) This time the excuse is a legal fiction called "Smart Growth," whereby powerful politicians everywhere are forcibly imposing their vision of how people should live and use their own land.
In San Luis Obispo and Grover Beach two elected blokes, John Shoals and Bruce Gibson, actually laid out their ill conceived idea in an Op Ed piece for the local newspaper. In it they announce that "As elected representatives … we have spent countless hours considering and planning for the future of our communities."
We can just stop here before continuing with this because already the two politicians manage to show their dirty hands. In a free society it isn't elected representatives who plan for the future of any community. (It isn't, by the way, "their" community, although I guess that is how such bullies like to understand matters.) In a free society it is individual citizens, who have unalienable rights to their lives, liberty and pursuit of happiness--which includes private property rights--who make those plans, alone or in various voluntary associations. It is those who have honestly acquired land, for example, who decide what happens to the land, barring only such actions that violate others' rights. What gave America its unique character and reputation as a free country is just that politicians here are duty bound to "secure our rights," not to plan how we will exercise them.
Smart planners--which, of course, is a grossly question begging label to being with--do not want to acknowledge the fact that they are would be dictators who aren't concerned about the rights of members of the communities in which they serve as public officials. No, smart planners view the community as theirs to order about, as a playground for their own experiments, following their agenda instead of making it possible, as honest public servants in a free society should, for the citizenry to carry out its highly diverse peaceful objectives.
Misters Shoal and Gibson go on to demonstrate how ignorant they are about the principles of a free society when they say, "We believe that smart growth principles are not just fashionable ideas; they are essential values that we must implement to remain a vital and functional place to live [sic]." It isn't smart growth principles that are essential in a free society but the principles identified and laid out by the American Founders and Framers. Among these is the right to private property which, as the Fifth Amendment makes clear, prohibits the taking of land from individuals except if some bona fide public purpose is involved, such as building a court house or police station or military base.
Carving up other people's property so as to suit the vision of a few "elected representatives" is not among the tasks of politicians in a free society! It is decidedly not a public purposes but one imposed on the public by a few zealots who think they have some divine right to make others conform to their ideas and ideals.
Basically, those who have a vision pertaining to the way land should be used in a community have several peaceful, civilized options in a free country: They are free to buy the land themselves. They can form a corporation with others and purchase the land that way. They can persuade the owners of the land they are interested in fashioning after their own vision.
Of course, choosing any of these options will be more difficult than simply forcibly taking the land from others. But then all criminals think that way, don't they--earning what they are after is troublesome, so coercively taking it from those who own it is their easy path to achieving their objectives.
Sadly these days such legally perpetrated crimes are beginning to be a norm. But this is a vicious undermining of the principles--the true essential ones--of a country in which all citizens are supposed to have their rights safeguarded. And especially so when those sworn to do the safeguarding are the perpetrators of the crimes.
Tibor R. Machan
It is nearly impossible these days to escape the bullies who are set to run everyone's life. I thought I would visit friends on the Central California Coast to get away from it all for a day but no such luck. No sooner did I settle in with my friends to drink a glass or two of some very fine wine from their and some other cellars, I encountered yet another horror story about the demise of private property rights in the United States of America.
This time it isn't the eminent domain bullies who have been popping up everywhere, insisting on misconstruing the Fifth Amendment to the U. S. Constitution as authorizing transfer of private property by government edict to preferred private concerns. (That is what the outrageous Supreme Court Ruling in 2005, Kelo v. City of New London Connecticut sanctioned.) This time the excuse is a legal fiction called "Smart Growth," whereby powerful politicians everywhere are forcibly imposing their vision of how people should live and use their own land.
In San Luis Obispo and Grover Beach two elected blokes, John Shoals and Bruce Gibson, actually laid out their ill conceived idea in an Op Ed piece for the local newspaper. In it they announce that "As elected representatives … we have spent countless hours considering and planning for the future of our communities."
We can just stop here before continuing with this because already the two politicians manage to show their dirty hands. In a free society it isn't elected representatives who plan for the future of any community. (It isn't, by the way, "their" community, although I guess that is how such bullies like to understand matters.) In a free society it is individual citizens, who have unalienable rights to their lives, liberty and pursuit of happiness--which includes private property rights--who make those plans, alone or in various voluntary associations. It is those who have honestly acquired land, for example, who decide what happens to the land, barring only such actions that violate others' rights. What gave America its unique character and reputation as a free country is just that politicians here are duty bound to "secure our rights," not to plan how we will exercise them.
Smart planners--which, of course, is a grossly question begging label to being with--do not want to acknowledge the fact that they are would be dictators who aren't concerned about the rights of members of the communities in which they serve as public officials. No, smart planners view the community as theirs to order about, as a playground for their own experiments, following their agenda instead of making it possible, as honest public servants in a free society should, for the citizenry to carry out its highly diverse peaceful objectives.
Misters Shoal and Gibson go on to demonstrate how ignorant they are about the principles of a free society when they say, "We believe that smart growth principles are not just fashionable ideas; they are essential values that we must implement to remain a vital and functional place to live [sic]." It isn't smart growth principles that are essential in a free society but the principles identified and laid out by the American Founders and Framers. Among these is the right to private property which, as the Fifth Amendment makes clear, prohibits the taking of land from individuals except if some bona fide public purpose is involved, such as building a court house or police station or military base.
Carving up other people's property so as to suit the vision of a few "elected representatives" is not among the tasks of politicians in a free society! It is decidedly not a public purposes but one imposed on the public by a few zealots who think they have some divine right to make others conform to their ideas and ideals.
Basically, those who have a vision pertaining to the way land should be used in a community have several peaceful, civilized options in a free country: They are free to buy the land themselves. They can form a corporation with others and purchase the land that way. They can persuade the owners of the land they are interested in fashioning after their own vision.
Of course, choosing any of these options will be more difficult than simply forcibly taking the land from others. But then all criminals think that way, don't they--earning what they are after is troublesome, so coercively taking it from those who own it is their easy path to achieving their objectives.
Sadly these days such legally perpetrated crimes are beginning to be a norm. But this is a vicious undermining of the principles--the true essential ones--of a country in which all citizens are supposed to have their rights safeguarded. And especially so when those sworn to do the safeguarding are the perpetrators of the crimes.
Sunday, May 11, 2008
A Corrupt Profession
Tibor R. Machan
There are those who believe that business is inherently corrupt--communists would be among those, and socialists. The very idea of striving to make a profit is treated by these people as morally objectionable. Of course, some even think medicine fits the bill, or military service. And there are animal rights advocates who believe the entire meat industry is morally base.
For my money the one profession that has indeed become completely, utterly morally irredeemable is politics. Not that even this is necessarily the case--politics could be an upstanding profession in a genuinely free country where those practicing it did what the American Founders believed should be their task: to secure our rights, period. But that has never been the way most people in government viewed their job. Instead these days politicians are hired extortionists. They run for office by promising voters that they will successfully expropriate resources from others and hand it to voters if they only manage to be elected.
Voters, of course, are fully complicit in this--kind of like people who hire killers to do the murder they want done for them. Voters are mostly bent on sending those people to state and national capitols who promise them to use the power of the police to take the wealth of some and hand it to them. For this they will be paid and be able to wield power. Never mind that in the end the only winners are the politicians and bureaucrats because nearly all voters get their comeuppance by being at the losing end of the extortion process. But, just like all those folks who flock to Las Vegas, Monte Carlo, or other gambling centers, voters keep hoping that they will end up winners instead of the house!
In a free society politicians would be like the sheriff in those fictional Westerns who want the job so they can maintain peace and fight crime. They earn themselves a good resume or CV when they achieve this goal and not by being year-round Santa Clauses to the citizens of their towns. For this they receive payment which is collected from something like user fees, funds the citizens contribute by some sort of peaceful, voluntary fashion. That is how freedom works, namely, by systematically precluding all kinds of aggression--brutality, theft, extortion, coercion--from how society works. Taxation, a relic of feudal times, would be banned just as serfdom is, or slavery, however difficult it may be for a while to live without it. But such are the meaning and implication of taking individual rights seriously, seeing them as genuinely unalienable.
But that conception of politics is admittedly the best that's possible and doesn't resemble at all what politics has been throughout human history. Things have gotten a bit better, here and there, by the restraint outright thuggery on the part of rulers--the king or queen, Pharaohs, tsar, Caesar, Sheik or whatnot--and making it a matter, mostly, of the rule of the majority. Yet, of course, majorities can be just as ruthless as dictators. And in such democratic countries, ones in which the rule of law and individual rights haven't gained serious respect, representatives of majorities take what they want from disarmed minorities.
The usual excuse given is that, well, the wealthy or lucky need to help the rest but this is completely misguided because political largess isn't help but loot! When you extort other people's resource--which may have come from luck but more often from a life productively lived--and hand this over to others, that is the farthest thing from generosity or compassion. It is the using of some people, against their will, for the sake of others. And that is exactly what must not be done in a free and just human community. That's because people's lives belong to them, they and not others have a right to it unless they themselves chose to share it.
America's greatest holiday, the Fourth of July, will perhaps some day be celebrated with full understanding of what it stands for. Unfortunately it isn't now. All the pomp and noise surrounding the Fourth seems by now to have lost its point, which was to celebrate the revolutionary insight that politicians are supposed to protect the rights of the citizenry. Instead politicians work in a completely corrupted profession by hiring themselves out as thugs in nice garb. In comparison, people in the business world, even in a messy one which is infected with a lot of politics, are heroes.
Tibor R. Machan
There are those who believe that business is inherently corrupt--communists would be among those, and socialists. The very idea of striving to make a profit is treated by these people as morally objectionable. Of course, some even think medicine fits the bill, or military service. And there are animal rights advocates who believe the entire meat industry is morally base.
For my money the one profession that has indeed become completely, utterly morally irredeemable is politics. Not that even this is necessarily the case--politics could be an upstanding profession in a genuinely free country where those practicing it did what the American Founders believed should be their task: to secure our rights, period. But that has never been the way most people in government viewed their job. Instead these days politicians are hired extortionists. They run for office by promising voters that they will successfully expropriate resources from others and hand it to voters if they only manage to be elected.
Voters, of course, are fully complicit in this--kind of like people who hire killers to do the murder they want done for them. Voters are mostly bent on sending those people to state and national capitols who promise them to use the power of the police to take the wealth of some and hand it to them. For this they will be paid and be able to wield power. Never mind that in the end the only winners are the politicians and bureaucrats because nearly all voters get their comeuppance by being at the losing end of the extortion process. But, just like all those folks who flock to Las Vegas, Monte Carlo, or other gambling centers, voters keep hoping that they will end up winners instead of the house!
In a free society politicians would be like the sheriff in those fictional Westerns who want the job so they can maintain peace and fight crime. They earn themselves a good resume or CV when they achieve this goal and not by being year-round Santa Clauses to the citizens of their towns. For this they receive payment which is collected from something like user fees, funds the citizens contribute by some sort of peaceful, voluntary fashion. That is how freedom works, namely, by systematically precluding all kinds of aggression--brutality, theft, extortion, coercion--from how society works. Taxation, a relic of feudal times, would be banned just as serfdom is, or slavery, however difficult it may be for a while to live without it. But such are the meaning and implication of taking individual rights seriously, seeing them as genuinely unalienable.
But that conception of politics is admittedly the best that's possible and doesn't resemble at all what politics has been throughout human history. Things have gotten a bit better, here and there, by the restraint outright thuggery on the part of rulers--the king or queen, Pharaohs, tsar, Caesar, Sheik or whatnot--and making it a matter, mostly, of the rule of the majority. Yet, of course, majorities can be just as ruthless as dictators. And in such democratic countries, ones in which the rule of law and individual rights haven't gained serious respect, representatives of majorities take what they want from disarmed minorities.
The usual excuse given is that, well, the wealthy or lucky need to help the rest but this is completely misguided because political largess isn't help but loot! When you extort other people's resource--which may have come from luck but more often from a life productively lived--and hand this over to others, that is the farthest thing from generosity or compassion. It is the using of some people, against their will, for the sake of others. And that is exactly what must not be done in a free and just human community. That's because people's lives belong to them, they and not others have a right to it unless they themselves chose to share it.
America's greatest holiday, the Fourth of July, will perhaps some day be celebrated with full understanding of what it stands for. Unfortunately it isn't now. All the pomp and noise surrounding the Fourth seems by now to have lost its point, which was to celebrate the revolutionary insight that politicians are supposed to protect the rights of the citizenry. Instead politicians work in a completely corrupted profession by hiring themselves out as thugs in nice garb. In comparison, people in the business world, even in a messy one which is infected with a lot of politics, are heroes.
Ayn Rand's Anthem
Tibor R. Machan
In 2007 there were several celebrations focused on the 50th anniversary of
the publication of Ayn Rand's blockbuster novel, Atlas Shrugged. It is a
monumental work in which Rand shows, dramatically, how vital the active
human mind is for our survival and flourishing and how one crucial
precondition for this is political-economic liberty. A mind must be free
so it can explore and create and thus lead to a productive and happy life.
And in large measure America is evidence of this fact, both in its
achievements and its follies--the most evil thing about slavery is that
human beings are being used by others without their consent, without their
free choices recognized as necessary in their lives.
Another less well known work of Miss Rand, the novella Anthem, has
recently been rendered as a budding stage presentation. This gem
chronicles the life of a man in a totally egalitarian society where human
innovation and initiative are prohibited and everyone is regarded as part
of a huge collective without even a scintilla of personal identity. The
protagonist eventually comes across an abandoned dwelling containing books
and manuscripts from an earlier time which no one is allowed to mention,
let alone study. He summons the courage to check out his discovery and
comes to learn that a most important, fundamental absence is plaguing his
community, namely, the systematic, official denial of human individuality,
of the "I" or "self" or "ego." The climax
of the novella is the protagonist beautiful affirmation of the
"I"--it is a riveting hymn that Rand has forged that honors the
human self. (Later Ayn Rand's major student, Nathaniel Branden, wrote a
book developing this point, titled Honoring the Self.)
There was a showing the other day of this new staging of Anthem and I was
privileged to be among those in the audience. Although still in an early
phase of development, the staging does capture, with great power and
beauty, the theme of the novella and as I saw this unfold it occurred to
me that Anthem is perhaps one of the best celebration of the spirit of the
American Revolution. After all, what that revolution was all about is the
liberation of the human individual from the centuries of oppression by
monarchs and other rulers. That is the meaning of the Declaration of
Independence's focus on everyone's unalienable rights to life, liberty and
pursuit of happiness. Your life is no one else's but your own, the
Founders made clear, and only if you give others permission do they gain
the authority to intervene in it, as when a doctor or coach gains such
permission by a patient or team member, respectively.
Detractors have tried to derail the American Revolution by caricaturing it
as promoting an unrealistic "rugged" individualism, that is to
say, the silly idea that we are separate from everyone and can survive
entirely on our own, self-sufficiently. That is simply not what the
Founders nor Ayn Rand had in mind. Our social nature is granted but it
needs to be freely affirmed by each of us instead of imposed upon us by
various self-anointed thugs or even democratic majorities. Other
detractors are more sophisticated and have advanced the absurd idea that
we do not exist as individuals at all, that "I" is a
fabrication. In a recent issue of Science News--a supposedly scientific
publication--the editors saw fit to highlight in a special sidebar the
views of Douglas Hofstadter, author of I am a Strange Loop, arguing that
"The 'I' we create for each of us is a quintessential example of ...
a perceived or invented reality...." Others, in the field of
neuroscience, have been claiming that human beings have no free
will nor, indeed, a conscious mind. Instead, we function automatically and
only believe, ignorantly, that when we act we do so guided by our
thinking. Instead, they argue, we areentirely pre-programmed to act!
These attacks on the human self are only the latest in the history of
human reflection being put into the service of dictators and other rulers
who want us all to agree that we are inconsequential as individuals and
that only the collective matters, only the "we" is important in
human affairs. Even though a little reflection shows how transparently
misguided is this notion, many are not inclined or equipped to address
the idea and this makes it simpler for those who want to anoint themselves
as the representatives of "we" to lord it over the rest of us.
Because all such "we" talk is, in fact, nothing but the
"I" talk of those who want there to be just a few ruling egos.
One cannot emphasize enough how significant this dispute really is. After
centuries of oppression a larger and larger segment of humanity has
finally begun to realize that what is really important politically, even
ethically, is the human individual. The rest is not unimportant but its
importance is derivative, secondary. If this is denied, the result is that
just a few will rule the rest because there really is no
"society," a "we," other than a great many egos in one
another's company. Once this is acknowledged, those would be rulers will
have lost their phony rationale to rule. So clearly they are not going to
simply give up.
So as to give these points their dramatic impact one could do much worse
than read or reread Ayn Rand's Anthem. It is a riveting celebration of
the individual human spirit.
Tibor R. Machan
In 2007 there were several celebrations focused on the 50th anniversary of
the publication of Ayn Rand's blockbuster novel, Atlas Shrugged. It is a
monumental work in which Rand shows, dramatically, how vital the active
human mind is for our survival and flourishing and how one crucial
precondition for this is political-economic liberty. A mind must be free
so it can explore and create and thus lead to a productive and happy life.
And in large measure America is evidence of this fact, both in its
achievements and its follies--the most evil thing about slavery is that
human beings are being used by others without their consent, without their
free choices recognized as necessary in their lives.
Another less well known work of Miss Rand, the novella Anthem, has
recently been rendered as a budding stage presentation. This gem
chronicles the life of a man in a totally egalitarian society where human
innovation and initiative are prohibited and everyone is regarded as part
of a huge collective without even a scintilla of personal identity. The
protagonist eventually comes across an abandoned dwelling containing books
and manuscripts from an earlier time which no one is allowed to mention,
let alone study. He summons the courage to check out his discovery and
comes to learn that a most important, fundamental absence is plaguing his
community, namely, the systematic, official denial of human individuality,
of the "I" or "self" or "ego." The climax
of the novella is the protagonist beautiful affirmation of the
"I"--it is a riveting hymn that Rand has forged that honors the
human self. (Later Ayn Rand's major student, Nathaniel Branden, wrote a
book developing this point, titled Honoring the Self.)
There was a showing the other day of this new staging of Anthem and I was
privileged to be among those in the audience. Although still in an early
phase of development, the staging does capture, with great power and
beauty, the theme of the novella and as I saw this unfold it occurred to
me that Anthem is perhaps one of the best celebration of the spirit of the
American Revolution. After all, what that revolution was all about is the
liberation of the human individual from the centuries of oppression by
monarchs and other rulers. That is the meaning of the Declaration of
Independence's focus on everyone's unalienable rights to life, liberty and
pursuit of happiness. Your life is no one else's but your own, the
Founders made clear, and only if you give others permission do they gain
the authority to intervene in it, as when a doctor or coach gains such
permission by a patient or team member, respectively.
Detractors have tried to derail the American Revolution by caricaturing it
as promoting an unrealistic "rugged" individualism, that is to
say, the silly idea that we are separate from everyone and can survive
entirely on our own, self-sufficiently. That is simply not what the
Founders nor Ayn Rand had in mind. Our social nature is granted but it
needs to be freely affirmed by each of us instead of imposed upon us by
various self-anointed thugs or even democratic majorities. Other
detractors are more sophisticated and have advanced the absurd idea that
we do not exist as individuals at all, that "I" is a
fabrication. In a recent issue of Science News--a supposedly scientific
publication--the editors saw fit to highlight in a special sidebar the
views of Douglas Hofstadter, author of I am a Strange Loop, arguing that
"The 'I' we create for each of us is a quintessential example of ...
a perceived or invented reality...." Others, in the field of
neuroscience, have been claiming that human beings have no free
will nor, indeed, a conscious mind. Instead, we function automatically and
only believe, ignorantly, that when we act we do so guided by our
thinking. Instead, they argue, we areentirely pre-programmed to act!
These attacks on the human self are only the latest in the history of
human reflection being put into the service of dictators and other rulers
who want us all to agree that we are inconsequential as individuals and
that only the collective matters, only the "we" is important in
human affairs. Even though a little reflection shows how transparently
misguided is this notion, many are not inclined or equipped to address
the idea and this makes it simpler for those who want to anoint themselves
as the representatives of "we" to lord it over the rest of us.
Because all such "we" talk is, in fact, nothing but the
"I" talk of those who want there to be just a few ruling egos.
One cannot emphasize enough how significant this dispute really is. After
centuries of oppression a larger and larger segment of humanity has
finally begun to realize that what is really important politically, even
ethically, is the human individual. The rest is not unimportant but its
importance is derivative, secondary. If this is denied, the result is that
just a few will rule the rest because there really is no
"society," a "we," other than a great many egos in one
another's company. Once this is acknowledged, those would be rulers will
have lost their phony rationale to rule. So clearly they are not going to
simply give up.
So as to give these points their dramatic impact one could do much worse
than read or reread Ayn Rand's Anthem. It is a riveting celebration of
the individual human spirit.
Wednesday, May 07, 2008
Sentimental Reflections
Tibor R. Machan
My job in writing columns, as I see it, is to attempt to work out how the original American experiment could be extended and improved upon and made to serve the purpose of addressing various emerging political-economic problems. I do not confine myself to just this task but it is one of the more pressing ones for me. I guess one reason I took it on is that I experienced what I take to be the direct opposite way of social life when I was young, namely, Soviet style socialism. Having managed to escape it, I decided I would like to make sure there is no chance for it to reassert itself, especially in America.
Well, this task of mine is important and noble enough but there are times that I simply feel very, very sad about how few Americans find the ideas that distinguish their society from others appealing. Instead of championing and practicing initiative, inventiveness, ambition, adventure, enterprise, and the like, it now seems to me that most Americans have become belated dependents, people who care far more about what others should do for them, how the government should take care of them, how their problems should be solved by politicians and bureaucrats, than about maintaining a system of community life that supports human liberty, the kind of liberty that serves as a framework for personal and community initiative and rejects altogether the notion that people are owed a living by their fellows. And this is really a very sad situation.
For the first time in human history the American founders managed to establish a community the basic principles of which acknowledge individual sovereignty. They began rejecting, officially, the idea that inhabitants of human communities are subjects, subservient to the will of some special bunch of people with fancy titles. This was an extraordinary development and sadly by now most people have no appreciation for it. Instead some of the cleverest and most erudite people in America are hard at work to return the country to its former subservient position, whereby governments made all the decisions, whereby elected officials openly brag about wishing to rule, to run everything, and ordinary folks seem willingly to place themselves at the disposal of these would be rulers.
That really is a very sad thing. It doesn’t have to be but it seems very much the way most folks want it. Await for the state to figure out how one should live and provide various securities and guarantees instead of simply make sure our liberties aren’t trampled upon so we can proceed to help ourselves, alone or with the willing cooperation of others. No, this quintessentially American notion, however incompletely realized so far, is no longer even much of a notion. It is actively demeaned, ridiculed by the literati. Snide comments come from the well educated, and even the not so well educated like those in Hollywood, whenever such American ideas and ideals get some airing--as if what the American Founders began were some kind of silly joke instead of the most important and genuine human revolution in history.
It baffles me why this wonderful conception by the Founders and their followers is derided so much by the self-anointed fancy people--artists, professors, social scientists, and others--who see themselves as so superior to those infantile American Founders who thought every individual is a sovereign being, not beholden to anyone but his or her own conscience. Why is this notion so frightening to so many people so that they spend their lives writing books and essays knocking it? Why would such a wonderful thought become the target of so much sophist aced denigration?
This is a very big country and it has innumerable educated folks living off taxpayers in hundreds, even thousands of colleges and universities and instead of showing gratitude for being able to pursue careers they supposedly love, most of these people appear to be bitter, angry and nasty toward the very folks and system of ideas that provide their support. They never turn down a contribution to their institution from a successful entrepreneur and yet they hold these entrepreneurs in near total contempt!
I shall continue to attempt to inject a different idea into the culture, albeit in venues that are less than prominent. Still, I cannot desist, not while I realize that the American experiment is the most noble one in human social and political history. Perhaps I will be able to pave a bit of the way for a few among the next generation to not give up on the effort, to remain vigilant, so that in time the defeatists, the cynics will become the minority and will not rule the publishing houses, magazines, and higher education. It may happen.
Tibor R. Machan
My job in writing columns, as I see it, is to attempt to work out how the original American experiment could be extended and improved upon and made to serve the purpose of addressing various emerging political-economic problems. I do not confine myself to just this task but it is one of the more pressing ones for me. I guess one reason I took it on is that I experienced what I take to be the direct opposite way of social life when I was young, namely, Soviet style socialism. Having managed to escape it, I decided I would like to make sure there is no chance for it to reassert itself, especially in America.
Well, this task of mine is important and noble enough but there are times that I simply feel very, very sad about how few Americans find the ideas that distinguish their society from others appealing. Instead of championing and practicing initiative, inventiveness, ambition, adventure, enterprise, and the like, it now seems to me that most Americans have become belated dependents, people who care far more about what others should do for them, how the government should take care of them, how their problems should be solved by politicians and bureaucrats, than about maintaining a system of community life that supports human liberty, the kind of liberty that serves as a framework for personal and community initiative and rejects altogether the notion that people are owed a living by their fellows. And this is really a very sad situation.
For the first time in human history the American founders managed to establish a community the basic principles of which acknowledge individual sovereignty. They began rejecting, officially, the idea that inhabitants of human communities are subjects, subservient to the will of some special bunch of people with fancy titles. This was an extraordinary development and sadly by now most people have no appreciation for it. Instead some of the cleverest and most erudite people in America are hard at work to return the country to its former subservient position, whereby governments made all the decisions, whereby elected officials openly brag about wishing to rule, to run everything, and ordinary folks seem willingly to place themselves at the disposal of these would be rulers.
That really is a very sad thing. It doesn’t have to be but it seems very much the way most folks want it. Await for the state to figure out how one should live and provide various securities and guarantees instead of simply make sure our liberties aren’t trampled upon so we can proceed to help ourselves, alone or with the willing cooperation of others. No, this quintessentially American notion, however incompletely realized so far, is no longer even much of a notion. It is actively demeaned, ridiculed by the literati. Snide comments come from the well educated, and even the not so well educated like those in Hollywood, whenever such American ideas and ideals get some airing--as if what the American Founders began were some kind of silly joke instead of the most important and genuine human revolution in history.
It baffles me why this wonderful conception by the Founders and their followers is derided so much by the self-anointed fancy people--artists, professors, social scientists, and others--who see themselves as so superior to those infantile American Founders who thought every individual is a sovereign being, not beholden to anyone but his or her own conscience. Why is this notion so frightening to so many people so that they spend their lives writing books and essays knocking it? Why would such a wonderful thought become the target of so much sophist aced denigration?
This is a very big country and it has innumerable educated folks living off taxpayers in hundreds, even thousands of colleges and universities and instead of showing gratitude for being able to pursue careers they supposedly love, most of these people appear to be bitter, angry and nasty toward the very folks and system of ideas that provide their support. They never turn down a contribution to their institution from a successful entrepreneur and yet they hold these entrepreneurs in near total contempt!
I shall continue to attempt to inject a different idea into the culture, albeit in venues that are less than prominent. Still, I cannot desist, not while I realize that the American experiment is the most noble one in human social and political history. Perhaps I will be able to pave a bit of the way for a few among the next generation to not give up on the effort, to remain vigilant, so that in time the defeatists, the cynics will become the minority and will not rule the publishing houses, magazines, and higher education. It may happen.
Sunday, May 04, 2008
Soros' Follies Again
Tibor R. Machan
In the late 60s I was invited to listen to a fellow Hungarian refugee in Los Angeles discuss communism. I nearly walked out when he began with the refrain about how communism is such a wonderful ideal but, sadly, unattainable in practice. What wonderful ideal? The prospect of a worldwide intelligent ant colony, bound together completely with no individual initiative in play anywhere, all automatically serving humanity--is that some wonderful ideal? It is hell, so far as I can discern.
Well, I tell this story to give you a little idea how it strikes me whenever that famous financier George Soros, himself a Hungarian refugee from the Nazis and Communists, comes out with various political-economic pronouncements. He isn’t by any means someone deluded about the idealism of communism but he does, quite mistakenly, favor a widely regulated pseudo-capitalism.
Soros was interviewed recently in The New York Review of Books and presented his version of the late Karl Popper’s middle way politics, one that’s neither socialist nor capitalist. (Popper was a famous 20th century philosopher of science and political theorist.) As Soros put it,
“Now, we should not go back to a very highly regulated economy because the regulators are imperfect. They’re only human and what is worse, they are bureaucrats. So you have to find the right kind of balance between allowing the markets to do their work, while recognizing that they are imperfect. You need authorities that keep the market under scrutiny and some degree of control. That’s the message that I’m trying to get across.” (TNYRB, 5/15/08, p. 10).
This is a mess. First it tries to build some kind of coherent political-economic idea on the Popperian view that all our knowledge is imperfect, fallible, merely probable; nothing certain. OK but what follows from this? What justification is there for drawing any conclusion at all from such a position since that conclusion will itself only be uncertain, probable, iffy? Second, if the regulators, bureaucrats all of them, are especially imperfect--which is what public choice theory teaches, noting their institutional disorientation as persons-with-power-and-no-rational-restraints--why trust them at all? These “authorities” will only cause trouble and will not help at all with any mishaps in the market place where mishaps tend to be self-correcting, at least over time. (It’s no different in markets from what it is in life: freedom may not work the impossible dream of perfection but it enhances self-responsibility!) Third, of course, “markets” don’t do anything--they are but spheres of human activity, in this case mostly commercial, business or economic, and as such they are homes to innumerable forms of human conduct. No one can possibly control them except to cause them to experience distortions far worse than free men and women ever produce. Finally, how will this “right kind of balance between allowing the markets to do their work” and government regulation come about? Who will do this “allowing”--some king or other “authority” who is wiser than market agents? (This interview is replete with reference to this mythical “authority” that will fix things for us all!)
George Soros no doubt has a knack for global finance--he has proved it big time--although even that applies mainly to highly regulated state financial markets. He has never been tested in a fully free market of money and banking. But this knack gives absolutely no hint of wisdom concerning the broader sphere of political economy, of understanding how human beings think and act as citizens, as friends, as professionals, a vacationers, and as social and economic agents. For instance, while some of us are no doubt ill informed about some matters we ought to know better, it is silly to make a broad generalization that our knowledge is always imperfect. Well, some of if may be but in some other matters we are pretty knowledgeable and certainly this would not be improved upon by having a bunch of “authorities” barge in to mess with our decisions and actions wherever these “authorities” decide to do so.
One can, of course, read Soros’s mentor Karl Popper more generously to mean only that people know well enough but never in some final, timeless fashion. The world is constantly developing, changing, and knowledge will always need to be modified by new information. But nothing from this implies that we need authorities to regulate us--and, oddly, Soros himself seems to realize this when he sees the hazards of bureaucracy. Why he doesn’t draw the right conclusions form that beats me.
Tibor R. Machan
In the late 60s I was invited to listen to a fellow Hungarian refugee in Los Angeles discuss communism. I nearly walked out when he began with the refrain about how communism is such a wonderful ideal but, sadly, unattainable in practice. What wonderful ideal? The prospect of a worldwide intelligent ant colony, bound together completely with no individual initiative in play anywhere, all automatically serving humanity--is that some wonderful ideal? It is hell, so far as I can discern.
Well, I tell this story to give you a little idea how it strikes me whenever that famous financier George Soros, himself a Hungarian refugee from the Nazis and Communists, comes out with various political-economic pronouncements. He isn’t by any means someone deluded about the idealism of communism but he does, quite mistakenly, favor a widely regulated pseudo-capitalism.
Soros was interviewed recently in The New York Review of Books and presented his version of the late Karl Popper’s middle way politics, one that’s neither socialist nor capitalist. (Popper was a famous 20th century philosopher of science and political theorist.) As Soros put it,
“Now, we should not go back to a very highly regulated economy because the regulators are imperfect. They’re only human and what is worse, they are bureaucrats. So you have to find the right kind of balance between allowing the markets to do their work, while recognizing that they are imperfect. You need authorities that keep the market under scrutiny and some degree of control. That’s the message that I’m trying to get across.” (TNYRB, 5/15/08, p. 10).
This is a mess. First it tries to build some kind of coherent political-economic idea on the Popperian view that all our knowledge is imperfect, fallible, merely probable; nothing certain. OK but what follows from this? What justification is there for drawing any conclusion at all from such a position since that conclusion will itself only be uncertain, probable, iffy? Second, if the regulators, bureaucrats all of them, are especially imperfect--which is what public choice theory teaches, noting their institutional disorientation as persons-with-power-and-no-rational-restraints--why trust them at all? These “authorities” will only cause trouble and will not help at all with any mishaps in the market place where mishaps tend to be self-correcting, at least over time. (It’s no different in markets from what it is in life: freedom may not work the impossible dream of perfection but it enhances self-responsibility!) Third, of course, “markets” don’t do anything--they are but spheres of human activity, in this case mostly commercial, business or economic, and as such they are homes to innumerable forms of human conduct. No one can possibly control them except to cause them to experience distortions far worse than free men and women ever produce. Finally, how will this “right kind of balance between allowing the markets to do their work” and government regulation come about? Who will do this “allowing”--some king or other “authority” who is wiser than market agents? (This interview is replete with reference to this mythical “authority” that will fix things for us all!)
George Soros no doubt has a knack for global finance--he has proved it big time--although even that applies mainly to highly regulated state financial markets. He has never been tested in a fully free market of money and banking. But this knack gives absolutely no hint of wisdom concerning the broader sphere of political economy, of understanding how human beings think and act as citizens, as friends, as professionals, a vacationers, and as social and economic agents. For instance, while some of us are no doubt ill informed about some matters we ought to know better, it is silly to make a broad generalization that our knowledge is always imperfect. Well, some of if may be but in some other matters we are pretty knowledgeable and certainly this would not be improved upon by having a bunch of “authorities” barge in to mess with our decisions and actions wherever these “authorities” decide to do so.
One can, of course, read Soros’s mentor Karl Popper more generously to mean only that people know well enough but never in some final, timeless fashion. The world is constantly developing, changing, and knowledge will always need to be modified by new information. But nothing from this implies that we need authorities to regulate us--and, oddly, Soros himself seems to realize this when he sees the hazards of bureaucracy. Why he doesn’t draw the right conclusions form that beats me.
Friday, May 02, 2008
No Miracle at All
Tibor R. Machan
For 20 years I drove a little Volvo P 1800 and I enjoyed the car immensely. It served me and my family very well. At times I would pat it and silently thank the engineers who designed it and the entire team of producers who made it. I was emotional about it, actually. What a nice thing to have and how wonderful to benefit from the works of these people, as well as from the socio-economic system that enabled me to purchase the car.
This morning I was checking out the news on my TV and watched some devastations wrought by this thing many people admiringly refer to as “nature”--actually, the wilds--in various parts of the country, particularly in Texas, where tornadoes reeked havoc and destruction. There was only one known fatality from several of these storms and the announcer mentioned how this was such a miracle. As I heard this piece of information announced, I was looking at aerial views of the regions where the tornadoes struck and it occurred to me that the fact that few injuries occurred was not at all a miracle, not by a long shot.
What is most responsible for the lack of widespread injury and death in these regions? Well, that widely detested element of human society, namely, technological and economic development. You know, those developers who always get derided for producing rows of homes and other structures throughout the country. And all those who manufacture the materials from which these are built. And science and technology in general, all of that is what produces “the miracle” the TV announcer was talking about.
Whenever one learns about earthquakes and other destructive acts of nature in far away regions of the globe, and learns of all the human casualties these produce, it is important to consider how little developed these regions are? How much has science and technology influenced the living conditions in these human habitats? The plain fact is that in most of the regions where acts of nature bring devastation and huge human casualties, development is meager and people live much “closer to nature,” to the wilds, than they do in most regions of America. Even rescue efforts are far more effective in societies with advanced technologies than where people are living “close to nature.”
Whenever I encounter environmentalists who decry the extensive development throughout advanced civilizations, especially America, I focus in on what they are actually favoring as an alternative. Going back to nature. Going back to eras when medicine was primitive, when food supplies barely sustained the small populations, when engineering and building were all at their beginning and the political economic conditions made progress virtually impossible. Even the fact that these environmentalists--for instance Alan Weisman in his disgusting book, The World Without Us (2007)--keep taking full advantage of modern science and technology--by, for example, using the publishing industry’s tools to propagate their vicious message--clearly suggests that there is something very wrong with what they advocate. Just consider all the technology it took to get Al Gore’s “An Inconvenient Truth” on thousands of movie and TV screens across the world! Back to nature my foot!
So you can imagine why I found the spectacle of the television anchor and reporter babbling, about the miracle of the minimal human casualty from the tornadoes, so offensive. The offended are, of course, all those folks who have made the buildings, roads, bridges, etc., sturdy enough to keep the devastation to the minimum. But, as the saying goes, “No good deed ever goes unpunished.” The punishment here is, of course, the utter failure to give credit where credit is due!
I am planning to buck this shameful trend, though. I am planning to drive my SUV today and say a not so silent thanks to the company that produced it so that I can roam about safely doing my errands. And if one of these technology, engineering. or marketing folks happens to be reading my missives, I want it known that I am very, very grateful indeed.
Tibor R. Machan
For 20 years I drove a little Volvo P 1800 and I enjoyed the car immensely. It served me and my family very well. At times I would pat it and silently thank the engineers who designed it and the entire team of producers who made it. I was emotional about it, actually. What a nice thing to have and how wonderful to benefit from the works of these people, as well as from the socio-economic system that enabled me to purchase the car.
This morning I was checking out the news on my TV and watched some devastations wrought by this thing many people admiringly refer to as “nature”--actually, the wilds--in various parts of the country, particularly in Texas, where tornadoes reeked havoc and destruction. There was only one known fatality from several of these storms and the announcer mentioned how this was such a miracle. As I heard this piece of information announced, I was looking at aerial views of the regions where the tornadoes struck and it occurred to me that the fact that few injuries occurred was not at all a miracle, not by a long shot.
What is most responsible for the lack of widespread injury and death in these regions? Well, that widely detested element of human society, namely, technological and economic development. You know, those developers who always get derided for producing rows of homes and other structures throughout the country. And all those who manufacture the materials from which these are built. And science and technology in general, all of that is what produces “the miracle” the TV announcer was talking about.
Whenever one learns about earthquakes and other destructive acts of nature in far away regions of the globe, and learns of all the human casualties these produce, it is important to consider how little developed these regions are? How much has science and technology influenced the living conditions in these human habitats? The plain fact is that in most of the regions where acts of nature bring devastation and huge human casualties, development is meager and people live much “closer to nature,” to the wilds, than they do in most regions of America. Even rescue efforts are far more effective in societies with advanced technologies than where people are living “close to nature.”
Whenever I encounter environmentalists who decry the extensive development throughout advanced civilizations, especially America, I focus in on what they are actually favoring as an alternative. Going back to nature. Going back to eras when medicine was primitive, when food supplies barely sustained the small populations, when engineering and building were all at their beginning and the political economic conditions made progress virtually impossible. Even the fact that these environmentalists--for instance Alan Weisman in his disgusting book, The World Without Us (2007)--keep taking full advantage of modern science and technology--by, for example, using the publishing industry’s tools to propagate their vicious message--clearly suggests that there is something very wrong with what they advocate. Just consider all the technology it took to get Al Gore’s “An Inconvenient Truth” on thousands of movie and TV screens across the world! Back to nature my foot!
So you can imagine why I found the spectacle of the television anchor and reporter babbling, about the miracle of the minimal human casualty from the tornadoes, so offensive. The offended are, of course, all those folks who have made the buildings, roads, bridges, etc., sturdy enough to keep the devastation to the minimum. But, as the saying goes, “No good deed ever goes unpunished.” The punishment here is, of course, the utter failure to give credit where credit is due!
I am planning to buck this shameful trend, though. I am planning to drive my SUV today and say a not so silent thanks to the company that produced it so that I can roam about safely doing my errands. And if one of these technology, engineering. or marketing folks happens to be reading my missives, I want it known that I am very, very grateful indeed.
Egalitarianism Redux
Tibor R. Machan
Just to demonstrate that there is but little difference between Democrats and Republicans, President George W. Bush plans to sign a piece of legislation that aims to deny certain unavoidable facts of reality so as to satisfy the sentiment of fairness. As reported by Amy Harmon in the May 2nd issue of The New York Times, “Democrats and Republicans alike cited anecdotes and polls illustrating that people feel they should not be penalized because they happened to be born at higher risk for a given disease.” So, we are told by Representative Louise M. Slaughter, Democrat of New York, who first proposed the legislation, that “People know we all have bad genes, and we are all potential victims of genetic discrimination.” The measure passed the House on Thursday 414-to-1 and in the Senate 95-to-0 the week before.
Just to be clear what this means, insurance companies will be prohibited from taking into considerations their clients’ potential for illness when they sell them a policy. They must pluck out their eyes and ears and numb their brains and pretend that everyone is risk free, thus proceed to waste the resources of their owners, the investors and shareholders who have decided to earn some income from underwriting policies for clients who want to insure themselves.
Genetics is, of course, a crucial fact of life and health is by no means the only feature of it that it influences. For example, genetics pretty much determines one’s height, eye color, and many other physical attributes, not the least of which is one’s aesthetic--and, yes, sex--appeal. Yes, to a very large extent genetic differences influence who is going to appeal to whom, sexually, even romantically. That famous “chemistry” that so many folks care about and which figures so heavily in the match making industry is mostly determined by people’s genes.
If the bipartisan legislation that the president intends to sign into law makes sense, then surely it should immediately be followed by legislation that prohibits us all from considering the looks of our dates and potential mates. The law might begin by banning the use of photographs on all those Internet dating sites
Indeed, the law ought to follow the egalitarian spirit of that famous Kurt Vonnegut’s play, “Harrison Bergeron,” in which differences of physical appearance are all abolished. And it should make us all get used to abandoning considerations of looks and other favorable differences between people from the earliest age. Parents must be penalized for being delighted when their babies look cute! Certainly all beauty contest must be forbidden. Modeling must certainly be banned. Casting directors in Hollywood must not consider the appearance of the actors and actresses they select to play parts in movies.
But we can all go beyond this. For example, all books must have the same cover as they are sold in bookstores or on line. Reviewers must avoid mentioning the qualities of the books or movies they review since this can definitely lead to selectivity from potential readers or viewers, something that promotes that insidious practice of differentiation.
None of this is to say that those with inherited medical disadvantages should not attempt to find good deals in the insurance market or that insurance companies should not find some way to ease their burdens. In a genuine free market of health care that would be a natural development. What it does make evident is that trying to use the law and government to deny facts of reality is absurd. Throughout nature there are differences; the same is true of human societies.
The late and brilliant Murray N. Rothbard, with whom I do not always agree, penned a very good book on all this. Perhaps members of Congress ought to be required to read his Egalitarianism as a Revolt Against Nature and Other Essays (1977).
Tibor R. Machan
Just to demonstrate that there is but little difference between Democrats and Republicans, President George W. Bush plans to sign a piece of legislation that aims to deny certain unavoidable facts of reality so as to satisfy the sentiment of fairness. As reported by Amy Harmon in the May 2nd issue of The New York Times, “Democrats and Republicans alike cited anecdotes and polls illustrating that people feel they should not be penalized because they happened to be born at higher risk for a given disease.” So, we are told by Representative Louise M. Slaughter, Democrat of New York, who first proposed the legislation, that “People know we all have bad genes, and we are all potential victims of genetic discrimination.” The measure passed the House on Thursday 414-to-1 and in the Senate 95-to-0 the week before.
Just to be clear what this means, insurance companies will be prohibited from taking into considerations their clients’ potential for illness when they sell them a policy. They must pluck out their eyes and ears and numb their brains and pretend that everyone is risk free, thus proceed to waste the resources of their owners, the investors and shareholders who have decided to earn some income from underwriting policies for clients who want to insure themselves.
Genetics is, of course, a crucial fact of life and health is by no means the only feature of it that it influences. For example, genetics pretty much determines one’s height, eye color, and many other physical attributes, not the least of which is one’s aesthetic--and, yes, sex--appeal. Yes, to a very large extent genetic differences influence who is going to appeal to whom, sexually, even romantically. That famous “chemistry” that so many folks care about and which figures so heavily in the match making industry is mostly determined by people’s genes.
If the bipartisan legislation that the president intends to sign into law makes sense, then surely it should immediately be followed by legislation that prohibits us all from considering the looks of our dates and potential mates. The law might begin by banning the use of photographs on all those Internet dating sites
Indeed, the law ought to follow the egalitarian spirit of that famous Kurt Vonnegut’s play, “Harrison Bergeron,” in which differences of physical appearance are all abolished. And it should make us all get used to abandoning considerations of looks and other favorable differences between people from the earliest age. Parents must be penalized for being delighted when their babies look cute! Certainly all beauty contest must be forbidden. Modeling must certainly be banned. Casting directors in Hollywood must not consider the appearance of the actors and actresses they select to play parts in movies.
But we can all go beyond this. For example, all books must have the same cover as they are sold in bookstores or on line. Reviewers must avoid mentioning the qualities of the books or movies they review since this can definitely lead to selectivity from potential readers or viewers, something that promotes that insidious practice of differentiation.
None of this is to say that those with inherited medical disadvantages should not attempt to find good deals in the insurance market or that insurance companies should not find some way to ease their burdens. In a genuine free market of health care that would be a natural development. What it does make evident is that trying to use the law and government to deny facts of reality is absurd. Throughout nature there are differences; the same is true of human societies.
The late and brilliant Murray N. Rothbard, with whom I do not always agree, penned a very good book on all this. Perhaps members of Congress ought to be required to read his Egalitarianism as a Revolt Against Nature and Other Essays (1977).
Tuesday, April 29, 2008
Should We Elect a Problem Solver?
Tibor R. Machan
In his long interview with Chris Wallace on Fox TV on Sunday April 27, Senator Obama asserted that “The American people, what they are looking for is somebody who can solve their problems.”
Wow, have I been wrong all these decades. I thought what the American people were looking for is someone who will protect the Constitution of the United States. Isn’t that what the president swears to when he or she is inaugurated? Does that entail that the president is to set about solving our problems?
I have a bunch of problems. I buy too much stuff, so much at times I haven’t enough funds to cover it. I also have periodic sinus infections. And my neighbor has a huge weed--looks like a regular tree--that blocks the view from my living room and he will not cut it down. And I also have nagging sciatica, as well as a numb left thigh, both of which make it difficult for me to get about.
Oh, but there is more. Sometimes it gets very hot up here in the canyon, where I live, and not even air conditioning cools down my place and I detest working while I am sweating like a horse. And there is no one I know hereabouts with whom I can have an occasional beer or go out to the movies. It’s a bummer all around--so many problems (I’ve only just started the list).
So, I take it, if and when Senator Obama gets to be president--or indeed, anyone else--my problems will be solved for me. Hurrah! I can’t wait. But then I really don’t believe he or anyone else can solve my or anyone else’s problems, actually, since he has to solve his own problems and he doesn’t know me and he lacks the skills needed to even begin to help Americans solve theirs.
Furthermore, if some of the work done by various political economists, for which one has received the Nobel Prize, tells it like it is, politicians and bureaucrats are not really even inclined to try to solve our problems, no matter what they profess. They have agendas of their own, or so public choice theory tells us, which will occupy their attention quite fully throughout their tenure. And that makes very good sense--these folks are much more familiar with their own problems, with what concerns them, with what they would like to accomplish, than with the problems of the American citizenry.
You see, public choice theory teaches us that just as anyone else in society, so politicians and bureaucrats are pretty much bent on furthering the goals they have rather than other people’s goals. Those goals may well be fine and dandy, don’t get me wrong. But when politicians and bureaucrats attend to them, they do so with funds and resources that are not their own and so the ordinary restraints of prudence that tend to guide private citizens and groups of them are easily overlooked. In short, these government folks are spending other people’s money to further the goals they favor and know enough about to help to achieve. So they are naturally more likely to solve their own problems, further their own aims, than those of the American people, and also to overspend in the process.
Then there is the additional problem that the American people are a highly diverse and immense lot, with a great many different problems they would like solved. They are, therefore, less likely to be helped out by people far removed from their lives, living in Washington, DC, for example, or some state capitol. And when the American people do receive some help from these folks, it is usually some special group that benefits, not at all the entire public. These special groups--often called special interests--may be helped out by politicians and bureaucrats so as to secure their political support but not because of brotherly love, fraternity, or some other fellow feeling. And the help is very likely to stop once the political payoffs have been delivered.
What Senator Obama and all the others aspiring to political office should learn is that the American Founders had a very good idea when they identified the function of government to be the protection of our unalienable rights, nothing more. This is the way to restrain politicians to working on what they have at least a chance to succeed at. That is the wisdom in the idea of limited government. But this wisdom doesn’t even come up any longer during election campaigning, not from the media, not from the candidates, and, sadly, not even much from the American people.
Tibor R. Machan
In his long interview with Chris Wallace on Fox TV on Sunday April 27, Senator Obama asserted that “The American people, what they are looking for is somebody who can solve their problems.”
Wow, have I been wrong all these decades. I thought what the American people were looking for is someone who will protect the Constitution of the United States. Isn’t that what the president swears to when he or she is inaugurated? Does that entail that the president is to set about solving our problems?
I have a bunch of problems. I buy too much stuff, so much at times I haven’t enough funds to cover it. I also have periodic sinus infections. And my neighbor has a huge weed--looks like a regular tree--that blocks the view from my living room and he will not cut it down. And I also have nagging sciatica, as well as a numb left thigh, both of which make it difficult for me to get about.
Oh, but there is more. Sometimes it gets very hot up here in the canyon, where I live, and not even air conditioning cools down my place and I detest working while I am sweating like a horse. And there is no one I know hereabouts with whom I can have an occasional beer or go out to the movies. It’s a bummer all around--so many problems (I’ve only just started the list).
So, I take it, if and when Senator Obama gets to be president--or indeed, anyone else--my problems will be solved for me. Hurrah! I can’t wait. But then I really don’t believe he or anyone else can solve my or anyone else’s problems, actually, since he has to solve his own problems and he doesn’t know me and he lacks the skills needed to even begin to help Americans solve theirs.
Furthermore, if some of the work done by various political economists, for which one has received the Nobel Prize, tells it like it is, politicians and bureaucrats are not really even inclined to try to solve our problems, no matter what they profess. They have agendas of their own, or so public choice theory tells us, which will occupy their attention quite fully throughout their tenure. And that makes very good sense--these folks are much more familiar with their own problems, with what concerns them, with what they would like to accomplish, than with the problems of the American citizenry.
You see, public choice theory teaches us that just as anyone else in society, so politicians and bureaucrats are pretty much bent on furthering the goals they have rather than other people’s goals. Those goals may well be fine and dandy, don’t get me wrong. But when politicians and bureaucrats attend to them, they do so with funds and resources that are not their own and so the ordinary restraints of prudence that tend to guide private citizens and groups of them are easily overlooked. In short, these government folks are spending other people’s money to further the goals they favor and know enough about to help to achieve. So they are naturally more likely to solve their own problems, further their own aims, than those of the American people, and also to overspend in the process.
Then there is the additional problem that the American people are a highly diverse and immense lot, with a great many different problems they would like solved. They are, therefore, less likely to be helped out by people far removed from their lives, living in Washington, DC, for example, or some state capitol. And when the American people do receive some help from these folks, it is usually some special group that benefits, not at all the entire public. These special groups--often called special interests--may be helped out by politicians and bureaucrats so as to secure their political support but not because of brotherly love, fraternity, or some other fellow feeling. And the help is very likely to stop once the political payoffs have been delivered.
What Senator Obama and all the others aspiring to political office should learn is that the American Founders had a very good idea when they identified the function of government to be the protection of our unalienable rights, nothing more. This is the way to restrain politicians to working on what they have at least a chance to succeed at. That is the wisdom in the idea of limited government. But this wisdom doesn’t even come up any longer during election campaigning, not from the media, not from the candidates, and, sadly, not even much from the American people.
Revisiting Anti-Americanism
Tibor R. Machan
From the time I was a kid and read a lot of American fiction in Hungarian translations, I had a great fondness for what I took to be the American spirit of individualism and love for life. Zane Grey was my favorite, but I was also very fond of Erle Stanley Gardner’s numerous Perry Mason novels. Then there was Mark Twain, Max Brand, and a host of others, although I was also an avid reader of the German tax evader, Karl May, who wrote numerous novels about the American West as well as the Arab world.
When in time I finally reached these shores, I had no illusions that American was just what these fictitious works depicted. But inspired by the fictional renditions I certainly started out with a favorable attitude toward this country. Not that I was unaware of problems, including some very dark patches of history. But all in all, compared to the places I was familiar with, such as communist Hungary, Nazi Germany, the Soviet bloc in general, what America had to offer both actually and in its promise--by means of the crux of its political and legal systems--certainly very much appealed to me.
I came here when Ike, Dwight D. Eisenhower, was president and followed his 1956 contest with Adlai Stevenson and while my sophistication left much to be desired, I liked Ike more than his rival, mainly because even then I noticed that those supporting Stevenson had a good deal of underlying hostility toward what I took to be central to America, namely its essential individualism and largely free socio-economic system. Compared to other places with which I was familiar America seemed to me to be quite a humane, just, and free society.
Ever since then I had my eyes and ears on those Americans who seemed to me to dislike the country precisely for the reasons I saw so much promise in it. When I entered college and, later, the world of university education, I noticed to my dismay that a great many educators were rather avidly opposed to the country that I found so basically sound, though by no means perfect. Over the years that I have mingled with the higher education crowd I found more and more evidence of a steady hostility among people teaching college and university students, doing research in the humanities, and in the social sciences. To them one could add many journalists and entertainers, I began to realize, and I have dedicated part of my life to studying whether they had a case against America that I was missing and to refuting their allegations which I saw to be essentially groundless.
Just the other day I was perusing the Sunday, April 27, 2008, New York Times and ran across a very typical example of the attitude that I have found so distressing. In an essay titled “The Short End of the Longer Life,” penned by one Kevin Sack in the Week in Review section, reporting on various life expectancy and longevity statistics, I ran across the following opening sentence: “Throughout the 20th century, it was an American birthright that each generations would live longer than the last.” This very same point was then used as a blurb later in the piece, indicating that not only the writer but the editor found the idea valid. But is it?
Are Americans really thinking of a growing life expectancy as a birthright? Do they believe that just because they are born, they have a right to expect to live long? The piece gave no evidence of this at all. The numbers had nothing to do with such a finding. No, this was merely a snide little put down of Americans, contending that they are stupid enough to have come to see a statistical trend as a natural necessity, even a right! If that were true, it would, in fact, indicate that Americans are silly. But nothing in the piece serves to demonstrate it and the only explanation I can think of is that both writer and editor simply wanted to demean Americans.
Why? Why is there this need by so many elite organizations, individuals, institutions to put down a country that is not only comparatively the best for its citizenry but is in fact best for the very people making such snide unfounded observations? Go figure!
Tibor R. Machan
From the time I was a kid and read a lot of American fiction in Hungarian translations, I had a great fondness for what I took to be the American spirit of individualism and love for life. Zane Grey was my favorite, but I was also very fond of Erle Stanley Gardner’s numerous Perry Mason novels. Then there was Mark Twain, Max Brand, and a host of others, although I was also an avid reader of the German tax evader, Karl May, who wrote numerous novels about the American West as well as the Arab world.
When in time I finally reached these shores, I had no illusions that American was just what these fictitious works depicted. But inspired by the fictional renditions I certainly started out with a favorable attitude toward this country. Not that I was unaware of problems, including some very dark patches of history. But all in all, compared to the places I was familiar with, such as communist Hungary, Nazi Germany, the Soviet bloc in general, what America had to offer both actually and in its promise--by means of the crux of its political and legal systems--certainly very much appealed to me.
I came here when Ike, Dwight D. Eisenhower, was president and followed his 1956 contest with Adlai Stevenson and while my sophistication left much to be desired, I liked Ike more than his rival, mainly because even then I noticed that those supporting Stevenson had a good deal of underlying hostility toward what I took to be central to America, namely its essential individualism and largely free socio-economic system. Compared to other places with which I was familiar America seemed to me to be quite a humane, just, and free society.
Ever since then I had my eyes and ears on those Americans who seemed to me to dislike the country precisely for the reasons I saw so much promise in it. When I entered college and, later, the world of university education, I noticed to my dismay that a great many educators were rather avidly opposed to the country that I found so basically sound, though by no means perfect. Over the years that I have mingled with the higher education crowd I found more and more evidence of a steady hostility among people teaching college and university students, doing research in the humanities, and in the social sciences. To them one could add many journalists and entertainers, I began to realize, and I have dedicated part of my life to studying whether they had a case against America that I was missing and to refuting their allegations which I saw to be essentially groundless.
Just the other day I was perusing the Sunday, April 27, 2008, New York Times and ran across a very typical example of the attitude that I have found so distressing. In an essay titled “The Short End of the Longer Life,” penned by one Kevin Sack in the Week in Review section, reporting on various life expectancy and longevity statistics, I ran across the following opening sentence: “Throughout the 20th century, it was an American birthright that each generations would live longer than the last.” This very same point was then used as a blurb later in the piece, indicating that not only the writer but the editor found the idea valid. But is it?
Are Americans really thinking of a growing life expectancy as a birthright? Do they believe that just because they are born, they have a right to expect to live long? The piece gave no evidence of this at all. The numbers had nothing to do with such a finding. No, this was merely a snide little put down of Americans, contending that they are stupid enough to have come to see a statistical trend as a natural necessity, even a right! If that were true, it would, in fact, indicate that Americans are silly. But nothing in the piece serves to demonstrate it and the only explanation I can think of is that both writer and editor simply wanted to demean Americans.
Why? Why is there this need by so many elite organizations, individuals, institutions to put down a country that is not only comparatively the best for its citizenry but is in fact best for the very people making such snide unfounded observations? Go figure!
Obama, A Plus & A Minus
Tibor R. Machan
In his hour long interview with Chris Wallace, on Fox TV (4/27), one I managed to sit through all the way--yes, it was a chore, given how much of it was empty rhetoric--Senator Obama advanced one promising idea and also revealed a rather disturbing tendency.
At one point Mr. Wallace asked whether if he became president Senator Obama could forge any kind of link between himself and Republicans in Congress. To my mild gratification the Senator responded by noting that what he has learned from Republicans over the years is that government regulation of the economy isn’t the desirable policy that many liberal democrats have taken it to be over several decades.
This is not only a hopeful sign but also differentiates the Senator from his rival, Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton, who has been promoting the idea of “a commander in chief of the American economy.” This idea, which suggests a heavily micromanaged economic system that entails nothing but trouble in its ancient and recent history, would pretty much doom America’s relatively productive, innovative, and flexible economy. It is just that idea that brought the Soviet Union’s economy to its knees and is a great threat to all those countries that are only escaping the destructive results by the temporary availability of cheap oil. Without that windfall these countries, like Venezuela, would be extremely impoverished. (And even with oil they aren’t soaring!)
So it is a good sign that at least one of the Democratic candidates who may ascend to the U. S. presidency isn’t hell bent on turning America into a command economy. Of course, this could be nothing more than a ploy, as so many promises of politicians turn out to be. But it is something.
On the other hand, Senator Obama exhibited a tendency to speak in the manner of a monarch. He was constantly using the royal “we” in his answers to Mr. Wallace, as if he spoke not for himself, reported not his own thoughts and conduct, but represented some group or club or family. I couldn’t hear him say one “I did this,” or “I believe that.” It was always, “We went there,” “We want to do this,” etc. What does this suggest?
For one, it seems that Senator Obama does not prefer taking responsibility for anything, either in his campaign for the nomination or as a possible winner of either the Democratic nomination or the general election. Or does it mean that he is trying to appear very humble, not seeming to take credit for anything? But this is pretty much the same thing. Refusing to take credit also implies the refusal to accept responsibility.
The constant use of “we” could also signal a more fundamental stance by Senator Obama. It could mean that he rejects even the slightest association with American individualism, that he is an ideologically committed communitarian who has in his own mind merged himself with whatever variety of communities he belongs to.
If I am asked about a project I am involved in and I always answer with a “we,” this could be appropriate if the project is actually that of a group, say a band or orchestra or corporation, of which I am a part. Such voluntary associations often pursue goals that all of the members share and nearly everything done could well be a cooperative effort. Except why one has joined the group in the first place.
But there was nothing of this in Senator Obama’s replies to Chris Wallace, quite the contrary. Instead he was being asked about his views, his comments on the campaign trail, his plans for the future, his opinions on various geopolitical matters and every single time what came back was “We think,” “We did,” etc. I was getting more and more eager to learn who was being included in “we,” so that when the Senator uses the term one could identify who all is behind the thoughts and actions being discussed. But, sadly, Mr. Wallace didn’t seem to want to go there, to ask, “Who is the ‘we’, Senator, you keep referring to?”
Whatever the ultimate explanation for Senator Obama’s constant use of “we,” it isn’t a comforting sign from anyone, including a politician. Anyone aspiring to high office ought at least to accept the fact that he or she will be in charge of some important decisions and policies and cannot escape accountability by some kind of verbal subterfuge.
Tibor R. Machan
In his hour long interview with Chris Wallace, on Fox TV (4/27), one I managed to sit through all the way--yes, it was a chore, given how much of it was empty rhetoric--Senator Obama advanced one promising idea and also revealed a rather disturbing tendency.
At one point Mr. Wallace asked whether if he became president Senator Obama could forge any kind of link between himself and Republicans in Congress. To my mild gratification the Senator responded by noting that what he has learned from Republicans over the years is that government regulation of the economy isn’t the desirable policy that many liberal democrats have taken it to be over several decades.
This is not only a hopeful sign but also differentiates the Senator from his rival, Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton, who has been promoting the idea of “a commander in chief of the American economy.” This idea, which suggests a heavily micromanaged economic system that entails nothing but trouble in its ancient and recent history, would pretty much doom America’s relatively productive, innovative, and flexible economy. It is just that idea that brought the Soviet Union’s economy to its knees and is a great threat to all those countries that are only escaping the destructive results by the temporary availability of cheap oil. Without that windfall these countries, like Venezuela, would be extremely impoverished. (And even with oil they aren’t soaring!)
So it is a good sign that at least one of the Democratic candidates who may ascend to the U. S. presidency isn’t hell bent on turning America into a command economy. Of course, this could be nothing more than a ploy, as so many promises of politicians turn out to be. But it is something.
On the other hand, Senator Obama exhibited a tendency to speak in the manner of a monarch. He was constantly using the royal “we” in his answers to Mr. Wallace, as if he spoke not for himself, reported not his own thoughts and conduct, but represented some group or club or family. I couldn’t hear him say one “I did this,” or “I believe that.” It was always, “We went there,” “We want to do this,” etc. What does this suggest?
For one, it seems that Senator Obama does not prefer taking responsibility for anything, either in his campaign for the nomination or as a possible winner of either the Democratic nomination or the general election. Or does it mean that he is trying to appear very humble, not seeming to take credit for anything? But this is pretty much the same thing. Refusing to take credit also implies the refusal to accept responsibility.
The constant use of “we” could also signal a more fundamental stance by Senator Obama. It could mean that he rejects even the slightest association with American individualism, that he is an ideologically committed communitarian who has in his own mind merged himself with whatever variety of communities he belongs to.
If I am asked about a project I am involved in and I always answer with a “we,” this could be appropriate if the project is actually that of a group, say a band or orchestra or corporation, of which I am a part. Such voluntary associations often pursue goals that all of the members share and nearly everything done could well be a cooperative effort. Except why one has joined the group in the first place.
But there was nothing of this in Senator Obama’s replies to Chris Wallace, quite the contrary. Instead he was being asked about his views, his comments on the campaign trail, his plans for the future, his opinions on various geopolitical matters and every single time what came back was “We think,” “We did,” etc. I was getting more and more eager to learn who was being included in “we,” so that when the Senator uses the term one could identify who all is behind the thoughts and actions being discussed. But, sadly, Mr. Wallace didn’t seem to want to go there, to ask, “Who is the ‘we’, Senator, you keep referring to?”
Whatever the ultimate explanation for Senator Obama’s constant use of “we,” it isn’t a comforting sign from anyone, including a politician. Anyone aspiring to high office ought at least to accept the fact that he or she will be in charge of some important decisions and policies and cannot escape accountability by some kind of verbal subterfuge.
Friday, April 25, 2008
Multicultural Nonsense
Tibor R. Machan
As an avid reader of Science News magazine I never miss anything offered up by the editors. I often purchase a book they recommend and peruse the letters of the editor routinely. (I’ve had several of my own published over the years.)
In the April 12, 2008, issue a letter appears that puzzled me quite a bit, both for its content and because it was published. Here is what it said:
“I feel that Rachel Ehrenberg was entirely too glib in ‘Digging that Maya blue” (SN:3/1/08, p. 134). The description of an ancient Mayan religious ritual as ‘plucking the hearts from humans and tossing the bodies into the sacred cenote’ is disrespectful. I am sure that Science News would never describe any contemporary religious ritual in this manner. Here is hoping that the editors and writers adopt a more dispassionate eye.”
So now human sacrifices are supposed to be dealt with respectfully! Give me a break. Next we will read from some multicultural fanatic that slavery, female circumcision and other atrocities from the past, and perhaps even the gassing of the Jews by the German authorities just a few decades ago, need to be handled respectfully. Or perhaps just because the Mayan atrocity was at the behest of a religious sect it deserves our respect. Why? Can religions not manifest gross evil just as ideologies often do?
Not all matters from the past can easily be evaluated, that is true. Sometimes the context and circumstances are complicated and the behavior being examined may not fit clearly within moral categories. But human sacrifice? Come on, surely here we can say, with sufficient confidence, that those folks back there did something utterly contemptible. If not, then I suppose the multicultural thesis would imply that we must not pass judgment on anything, including the practice of chattel slavery in the not so far off past of the United States of America.
The irrationality of this viewpoint is obvious just from the fact that advocates of the multicultural viewpoint endlessly moralize about those who refuse to accept their position. Just consider the Science News letter writer who freely chided the editors instead of regarding their stance, well, an alternative cultural stance, one that freely condemns various religious practices of the past. If these editors can be criticized for what they did, so can the Mayans, otherwise what is being done is actually insulting to the latter. Mayans and others in the past were human beings, ever bit as we are, and various moral standards are applicable to understanding how they conduct themselves, just as such standards apply to the editors and writers of Science News.
The intellectually fascinating feature of multiculturalism is just how incoherent it quickly becomes. If one fails to accept multiculturalism, well then one is acting badly; but if one accepts multiculturalism, then no one can be blamed for anything at all since from some, however obtuse, cultural standpoint any conduct can be “justified.”
It would be far more enlightened to figure out some basic standards of human morality and then apply them to any society and culture carefully. The nihilism of refusing to judge is simply unavoidable to us--even that refusal is a judgment and in need of rational support.
The multicultural stance exhibited by the Science News letter writer is not the only one that has the problem of incoherence, of course. All relativist positions face it, as do subjectivist ones. Implicit in all such purportedly tolerant and nonpartisan ethical positions is an intolerance of making moral judgments. Yet for some reason those who advocate these doctrines do not seem to realize it or hope that others won’t notice the problem.
I agree with one thing in the letter from Science News. Being glib can be dangerous when it comes to judging people. But it is also understandable that journalists would toy with glibness--after all they need to make their copy a good read, not simply accurate and relevant.
Tibor R. Machan
As an avid reader of Science News magazine I never miss anything offered up by the editors. I often purchase a book they recommend and peruse the letters of the editor routinely. (I’ve had several of my own published over the years.)
In the April 12, 2008, issue a letter appears that puzzled me quite a bit, both for its content and because it was published. Here is what it said:
“I feel that Rachel Ehrenberg was entirely too glib in ‘Digging that Maya blue” (SN:3/1/08, p. 134). The description of an ancient Mayan religious ritual as ‘plucking the hearts from humans and tossing the bodies into the sacred cenote’ is disrespectful. I am sure that Science News would never describe any contemporary religious ritual in this manner. Here is hoping that the editors and writers adopt a more dispassionate eye.”
So now human sacrifices are supposed to be dealt with respectfully! Give me a break. Next we will read from some multicultural fanatic that slavery, female circumcision and other atrocities from the past, and perhaps even the gassing of the Jews by the German authorities just a few decades ago, need to be handled respectfully. Or perhaps just because the Mayan atrocity was at the behest of a religious sect it deserves our respect. Why? Can religions not manifest gross evil just as ideologies often do?
Not all matters from the past can easily be evaluated, that is true. Sometimes the context and circumstances are complicated and the behavior being examined may not fit clearly within moral categories. But human sacrifice? Come on, surely here we can say, with sufficient confidence, that those folks back there did something utterly contemptible. If not, then I suppose the multicultural thesis would imply that we must not pass judgment on anything, including the practice of chattel slavery in the not so far off past of the United States of America.
The irrationality of this viewpoint is obvious just from the fact that advocates of the multicultural viewpoint endlessly moralize about those who refuse to accept their position. Just consider the Science News letter writer who freely chided the editors instead of regarding their stance, well, an alternative cultural stance, one that freely condemns various religious practices of the past. If these editors can be criticized for what they did, so can the Mayans, otherwise what is being done is actually insulting to the latter. Mayans and others in the past were human beings, ever bit as we are, and various moral standards are applicable to understanding how they conduct themselves, just as such standards apply to the editors and writers of Science News.
The intellectually fascinating feature of multiculturalism is just how incoherent it quickly becomes. If one fails to accept multiculturalism, well then one is acting badly; but if one accepts multiculturalism, then no one can be blamed for anything at all since from some, however obtuse, cultural standpoint any conduct can be “justified.”
It would be far more enlightened to figure out some basic standards of human morality and then apply them to any society and culture carefully. The nihilism of refusing to judge is simply unavoidable to us--even that refusal is a judgment and in need of rational support.
The multicultural stance exhibited by the Science News letter writer is not the only one that has the problem of incoherence, of course. All relativist positions face it, as do subjectivist ones. Implicit in all such purportedly tolerant and nonpartisan ethical positions is an intolerance of making moral judgments. Yet for some reason those who advocate these doctrines do not seem to realize it or hope that others won’t notice the problem.
I agree with one thing in the letter from Science News. Being glib can be dangerous when it comes to judging people. But it is also understandable that journalists would toy with glibness--after all they need to make their copy a good read, not simply accurate and relevant.
Thursday, April 24, 2008
Wesley Snipes, A Victim
Tibor R. Machan
The actor Wesley Snipes, known mostly for so called “action pictures,” was reportedly sentenced to three years in prison, on tax evasion charges, on Thursday, April 24th. This was deemed to be victory for prosecutors by some in the media--so much for objective reporting--because prosecutors “sought to make an example of the action star by aggressively pursuing the maximum penalty.”
And there are those who argue that taxation is voluntary! Bah. It’s extortion and Snipes’ case demonstrates this quite clearly. “If you don’t pay us some of what you earn, we will destroy you.” That’s how extortionists announce themselves as does the tax man.
Of course Snipe is guilty of something. That is being naïve and imprudent. No one who isn’t it dire straits ought to go up against the government blindly, given how powerful it is (mainly because it can arm itself easily with all that money it has extorted from us). If you oppose taxes you are especially misguided to fail to pay up since you are likely to be watched. (Some of us of course don’t matter since we earn too little. Snipes obviously isn’t among those.)
The sentence handed down wasn’t anything related to justice, needless to say. It was a warning by the extortionist to all those who might be considering resisting the extortion. And this is clear from the prosecution’s reported intention to “make an example of the action star.”
Justice isn’t about making examples of the guilty but about punishing them for their crimes. If Snipes were really a criminal--if he were guilty of having violated the rights of some innocent people--there would be no concern about making an example of him. Genuine crimes need to be punished, lesson or no lesson. The role of criminal prosecutors isn’t to make examples of anyone but to convict people who are bona fide criminals. That is the end of it. Snipe’s case goes to show how arrogant are these folks who have the power and legal rationale backing their mendacious conduct.
My advice to the likes of Mr. Snipes is to keep paying but also start supporting all efforts to abolish taxation. As I have been pointing out for a long time, that public policy is akin to serfdom and belongs, with serfdom, in the age of feudalism where kings, queens, tsars, and other thugs lay claim to a country and everyone who lived there. Taxes were collected as payment for the “generous” privilege of living and working in these regions ruled by the thugs.
What has changed is that now the narrative laid out in support of governments extorting us is that we are paying it voluntarily, to ourselves (the government is, you see, us!). Sheer sophistry! In fact nothing but the form of rule has changed. Now it is “democratic,” meaning the majority gets to extort from anyone they want to. (If the majority were only interested in paying its way, there would be no need for taxation--those in the majority are plenty and could easily pay what they think they should.)
Every revolution is costly. Abolishing serfdom was, as was abolishing slavery. These all involved some people confiscating the lives and earnings of others too weak to defend against the thugs. Abolishing taxation will also take some sacrifices. And just as the lords of the serfs and the masters of slaves had to find some other way to get the work done that their victims were made to perform for them, so all of what taxes go to fund will need to be funded in proper, peaceful ways, without resort to extortion. Are there such ways? Well, when serfdom and slavery got abolished it was quickly discovered that paying people got the job done. Free labor amounted to paid labor. And productivity improved, too.
Taxation supports some functions of governments that are proper, even though paid for in criminal ways. Those functions can be funded without those criminal ways. Fees and such can cover the cost, as I have argued in several places (see my “No Taxation With or Without Representation, Completing the Revolutionary Break With Feudalist Practices” in Robert McGee, ed., Taxation and Public Finance in Transition and Developing Economies [New York: Springer, 2005]).
If a way to do something important is a moral abomination, a new way that’s not must be found. Sorry Mr. Snipes that you got caught up with all this. Most of the rest of us haven’t escaped either.
Tibor R. Machan
The actor Wesley Snipes, known mostly for so called “action pictures,” was reportedly sentenced to three years in prison, on tax evasion charges, on Thursday, April 24th. This was deemed to be victory for prosecutors by some in the media--so much for objective reporting--because prosecutors “sought to make an example of the action star by aggressively pursuing the maximum penalty.”
And there are those who argue that taxation is voluntary! Bah. It’s extortion and Snipes’ case demonstrates this quite clearly. “If you don’t pay us some of what you earn, we will destroy you.” That’s how extortionists announce themselves as does the tax man.
Of course Snipe is guilty of something. That is being naïve and imprudent. No one who isn’t it dire straits ought to go up against the government blindly, given how powerful it is (mainly because it can arm itself easily with all that money it has extorted from us). If you oppose taxes you are especially misguided to fail to pay up since you are likely to be watched. (Some of us of course don’t matter since we earn too little. Snipes obviously isn’t among those.)
The sentence handed down wasn’t anything related to justice, needless to say. It was a warning by the extortionist to all those who might be considering resisting the extortion. And this is clear from the prosecution’s reported intention to “make an example of the action star.”
Justice isn’t about making examples of the guilty but about punishing them for their crimes. If Snipes were really a criminal--if he were guilty of having violated the rights of some innocent people--there would be no concern about making an example of him. Genuine crimes need to be punished, lesson or no lesson. The role of criminal prosecutors isn’t to make examples of anyone but to convict people who are bona fide criminals. That is the end of it. Snipe’s case goes to show how arrogant are these folks who have the power and legal rationale backing their mendacious conduct.
My advice to the likes of Mr. Snipes is to keep paying but also start supporting all efforts to abolish taxation. As I have been pointing out for a long time, that public policy is akin to serfdom and belongs, with serfdom, in the age of feudalism where kings, queens, tsars, and other thugs lay claim to a country and everyone who lived there. Taxes were collected as payment for the “generous” privilege of living and working in these regions ruled by the thugs.
What has changed is that now the narrative laid out in support of governments extorting us is that we are paying it voluntarily, to ourselves (the government is, you see, us!). Sheer sophistry! In fact nothing but the form of rule has changed. Now it is “democratic,” meaning the majority gets to extort from anyone they want to. (If the majority were only interested in paying its way, there would be no need for taxation--those in the majority are plenty and could easily pay what they think they should.)
Every revolution is costly. Abolishing serfdom was, as was abolishing slavery. These all involved some people confiscating the lives and earnings of others too weak to defend against the thugs. Abolishing taxation will also take some sacrifices. And just as the lords of the serfs and the masters of slaves had to find some other way to get the work done that their victims were made to perform for them, so all of what taxes go to fund will need to be funded in proper, peaceful ways, without resort to extortion. Are there such ways? Well, when serfdom and slavery got abolished it was quickly discovered that paying people got the job done. Free labor amounted to paid labor. And productivity improved, too.
Taxation supports some functions of governments that are proper, even though paid for in criminal ways. Those functions can be funded without those criminal ways. Fees and such can cover the cost, as I have argued in several places (see my “No Taxation With or Without Representation, Completing the Revolutionary Break With Feudalist Practices” in Robert McGee, ed., Taxation and Public Finance in Transition and Developing Economies [New York: Springer, 2005]).
If a way to do something important is a moral abomination, a new way that’s not must be found. Sorry Mr. Snipes that you got caught up with all this. Most of the rest of us haven’t escaped either.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)