Hayek’s Revenge

The European ruling elites are struggling to hold the whole project together...

But the real problems emerge from the technocratic mind-set, from the arrogant gray men who believe they can engineer society, oblivious to history, language, culture, values and place. (NY Times - Brooks)

Nobody has all the answers. And no single person or body needs all the answers. That’s the fallacy: That government must be omnipotent and omniscient. It is neither, and vesting it with power and control as if it were is crazy.

The more concentrated power and decision-making becomes, the more information is needed to feed into the power center. Free markets make decisions and evolve solutions organically; static control centers cannot.

One Size Does Not Fit All

Also, as you make one-size-fits-all decisions for larger and larger groups of people, discontent can only grow among those you are trying to help.  We argue over everything because government has pushed everything in to the collective, making your rights negotiable and subject to snotty bickering.

For example, imagine a Friday night alone. You’re going to settle in for a night of movie watching and you decide to order pizza. Easy. Now imagine you’re snuggled in with your loved one. The decision on movie-night fare is now a shared one. Take it a step further and imagine a houseful of people. They cannot decide on the toppings, or even which takeout place to order from. Worse, some are on a gluten-free diet and want BBQ, while other clamor for Chinese food. The bigger the crowd, the harder it is to reach a decision.

So we are better off making our individual decisions for ourselves and allowing the spontaneous economy to bloom. It works. Don’t believe me? There are literally billions of people in this world who know nothing of growing crops or killing animals, yet they do not want for food.

People and nations can capitalize on specialization, making things that others want, while not worrying about making necessities they know they can buy from others.  And governments' involvement is limited to providing some infrastructure and mediating trade agreements.

How We Got Here

Every emergency has been used by the federal government as an opportunity to take another bite out of our liberties, with expediency as the excuse.  As Hayek predicted, "our freedom" has been "destroyed by piecemeal encroachments."

Hayek was a big proponent of governing from broad principles where possible rather than from narrow, specific laws.

"The argument for liberty, in the last resort, is indeed an argument for principles and against expediency in collective action..."

He foresaw the "fatal weakness" of government leaving free people alone with their liberties:  Uncertain outcomes and glaring inequalities would scare us off our freedoms and into the arms of big daddy government.  Liberty cannot compare to concrete promises and "definite gifts offered to particular individuals" in exchange for some "curtailment of freedom."

That is the fatal seduction.  Not treating freedom as the "supreme principle..."

"...would inevitably prove a fatal weakness and lead to its slow erosion." 

Meanwhile, here in America, where Obama ignored the rule of law and saved GM from a richly-deserved bankruptcy...

The Treasury Department yesterday revised its loss estimate for the Government Motors bailout from $14.33 billion to $23.6 billion, thanks to the company’s sinking stock price.

 Add in the special tax breaks, and...

This means that the total hit to taxpayers, who still own about a quarter of the company, could add up to $38.6 billion. (Reason)

Europe is playing a shell game, and they're running out of suckers.  Here in the US, we're rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic.

The elites have stolen our freedoms in the name of expediency and progress, but their promises of equality and prosperity are just chaff in the wind.  They've led us to the brink of collapse.  As Peter, Paul and Mary used to sing, "When will they ever learn?  When will they ever learn?"

Or, to Paraphrase Ben Franklin, "Those who trade liberty for security end up with neither."

Quotes Taken from Hayek's "The Constitution of Liberty," pp 129-130.

Progressivism vs. Individual Liberty

Progressives do not believe in natural rights as understood by our founders, and they also take a dim view of individual liberty

George Will clarifies...

Oliver Wendell Holmes, whose judicial restraint often expressed his dogmatic majoritarianism, defended “the right of a majority to embody their opinions in law.” He said liberty should not be construed “to prevent the natural outcome of a dominant opinion.”

Holmes' constitution-be-damned judicial philosophy nurtured the fledgling progressivism of the early 20th century, enabling it to grow into the morbidly obese statist monster of the 21st century. His was the opposite of judicial activism. He refused to stand athwart the stampeding statists and shout "stop!" Preferring instead to see individual rights trampled in the name of social hygiene and "progress."

Progressives celebrated Holmes’s gift to government of almost untrammeled police powers. He said courts should defer to economic regulations because the Constitution does not “embody a particular economic theory.”

Princeton’s president, Woodrow Wilson, agreed, dismissing “the inalienable rights of the individual” as “nonsense” inimical to government’s ability to efficiently work its progressive will. So much for the idea that one of the Constitution’s primary purposes is the protection of individual rights against majority tyranny.

See how this encroachment works?  You continue growing government until a citizen cannot turn around without rubbing up against some government project or other.  For the good of greater society, the state must restrict that citizen's action.  They've boxed us in. 

It's the Quacking Marxism, Stupid!

I bring all this up as prelude. I am genuinely thankful for Jersey, Ducky, Jez, Bd, Shaw and other progressives who show up at this blog. Their defense of all that I detest makes us all a little smarter and less sloppy with our arguments. I also believe that our liberal friends genuinely believe they are doing good and bettering the country, attacking the evil rich and fighting against inequality.

Ducky is easier to comprehend once you understand that he is a Marxist. I don't use that term as a pejorative. He himself cops to being a fan of Das Kapital, and I use the term not to associate him with communist regimes, but rather to say he ascribes to Karl Marx's theory of capital, which is inimical to free market capitalism.

Until I realized this, I never knew how to take him. He may not have consciously tried to mask his Marxist beliefs, but they nonetheless remained hidden behind other arguments that never quite rang right, and now I know why. Sources and motives illuminate a debate and bring clarity to it. I am a Dennis Prager fan, and as Dennis says, "Clarity over agreement."

This exchange from last week is telling...

Bastiatarian said...

Jersey and Ducky and Bd, why are you afraid of liberty and people determining themselves what to do with their own property?

Don't be so insecure.

Ducky's here said...

Because "liberty" is a cheap cop-out used by the fringe right to mask their shallowness and irrational support of a kapitalist power structure that is not compatible with democracy.

Because the distribution of wealth under the current system is so inequitable that it will generate social instability and a weakened nation.

Because people who "know what to do with their property" generally only know what temporary itch they want scratched and will go into unsustainable debt to scratch it and ignore the future.

Because it freaking pisses me off that some little right wing snot thinks he has standing to tell me what freedom means to me when there is no reason to believe the right wing slug has ever experienced it.

And that is the crux of the leftist argument, plainly stated by one of the nation's few honest liberals. Progressivism is, at its core, not liberal at all. It is a moralistic crusade on a Quixotic mission to right all wrongs.

I bring this up not to berate Ducky or to make some cheap call for other right-thinkers to attack him (as if any of our attacks could even put the tiniest dent in his impregnable carapace...). No, I congratulate Ducky for plainly stating what he believes and identifying his philosophical sources. If everyone on the left could come clean as Ducky has done, our national debate would gain much clarity.

My response to Ducky

Yes, it's hell allowing those damned, contemptible people to enjoy their liberty and to dispose of their lives and their property as they see fit!

Dammit to hell! How dare we grubby proles presume to chart the course of our own lives while turning a deaf ear to our progressive overlords???!!!

"Distribution of wealth?" That cracks me up.

Who distributes it? Who owns it? Who's entitled to it? How much? How do you divide it? Who decides?

Where is this socialist utopia you dream of, and what would it look like?

Rational Self Interest, Morality & Liberty

How do we reconcile public morality and personal liberty?

“poverty does not create our social problems; our social problems create our poverty.” – Marco Rubio, US Senator-Florida

In a post last week, I observed that the British looters were acting in their rational self-interest, and Bastiatarian took me to task, albeit in a polite and friendly way…

Bastiatarian:
I don't really think the looters are acting in their rational self-interest, though. I believe that they think they are, but it's a very short-sighted self-interest. At the very least, they don't take into consideration the deep and lasting damage done to their characters by such behavior.

So true.  I could not agree more, and I appreciate Bastiatarian's professorial mien.

What I meant was that those lost souls (on both sides of the Atlantic) live in their own narrow world of the id-driven here and now.  Cash, a flat screen and new sneakers are everything, and a little smashy-smashy to get them is just payback to the store owner for being rich.  That is the incentive system the social engineers have put in place.  Get it all while you can, and getting it at someone else's expense makes it all the better, be it free electronics, housing, money or sex. 

We've imprisoned them...
... with shoddy schools and no expectations.  They cannot see over the horizon; there is no future.  We could preach morality, but we have that embarrassing little issue of the DC-NY bandits in suits looting trillions with impunity.


So here we are in the creeping jungle, staring helplessly as it reclaims the space that Western Civilization had cleared

Anyone who has ever raised children or trained animals (remarkably similar activities!), knows that morals are the foundation of individual and societal success.  It doesn't have to be a religious thing.  Simply teaching people age-old virtues that predate Christianity and holding them up as the ideal would get us most of the way there. 

Trestin:
The truth is society needs a combination of the morality championed by social conservatives and the individual liberty championed by libertarians. Freedom does not work without morality, and morality can not exist without freedom.

Bastiatarian:
Exactly right. Without agency (freedom), there is no ability to choose between right, wrong, or anything else. Regardless of the specific system, morality implies that there is also immorality, and vice versa. One requires the opposing other. Otherwise, it would merely be one big clump that is neither morality nor immorality […]

If I have no choice, my actions are neither good nor evil, neither moral nor immoral. They may be beneficial or damaging for somebody, but those actions do not make me moral or immoral.

What about liberty?

Bastiatarian:
Authority without accountability is tyranny.
Accountability without authority is slavery.
Only when authority and accountability are combined can liberty exist.

If the Marco Rubio quote is too high minded for you, here's one from British writer James Delingpole.  He applies it to his home country, but it fits here almost as well:

For those of us who never got to experience the Second World War, this is the beginning of the most dramatic, turbulent and terrifying era of our lifetime. The rules have changed; the old keep-whistling-cheerfully-and-pretend-it’s-all-going-to-go-away political bullshit is no longer valid currency. (Delingpole - What are the Police Good For?)

For an even more provocative take, see conservative David French's short article, The Sources of Poverty.  Be sure to read the comments as well.  Lots of liberal dissenters showed up and made some valid points to the contrary.

For a concise and entertaining treatise on rational self-interest, see:  UNC - Economicae:  Rational Self-Interest 

Progressivism is Collapsing in on Itself, and it ain't Pretty

Why the irresponsible, angry and hateful rhetoric from the left? Because we are winning! 

Why is the poisonous progressive vituperation aimed primarily at the tea party? Because it is The Threat, the biggest gun in the pro-liberty arsenal, steadily pounding away at the walls of the statist citadels.

Gallup confirms that conservatives are consolidating gains, with an incredible 41% of Americans now self-identifying as conservative, and even greater number than the 36% who call themselves moderate. The ragged, saggy ranks of liberals continues to droop, now at 21%.

We're Killing The Beast

I still can’t believe it, but I think we are actually killing the progressive beast. It’s a long way from its final death throes, but we are slowly choking it, and it is now writhing violently, horned head, spiky tail and taloned limbs flailing mindlessly, lashing out at its tormenters. A wounded animal is dangerous. These are perilous times.

The Washington Examiner reports that as a result of the debt ceiling deal, real discretionary spending will decrease for the first time since the Korean War:

There are many reasons for conservatives to be unhappy with the increase in the debt ceiling, but they ought not overlook the very real possibility that it is a milestone in the recognition of the liberal welfare state's unsustainability. (Washington Examiner)

The editors go on to point out that entitlement programs are the real problem, and more and more Americans are waking up to the fact:

The American people understand that these welfare programs are unaffordable. According to Gallup, two out of three Americans believe Social Security and Medicare costs are either already creating a crisis for the federal government (34 percent) or will do so within 10 years (33 percent) (Washington Examiner)

Liberal Blogger Kevin Drum laments that progressive are losing, badly:

But no matter how many times we try to kid ourselves with one poll result or another, liberals just don't have that advantage.

The public is mostly in favor of raising taxes on the rich — though I suspect its support is pretty soft — but on the bigger issues they mostly aren't on our side. They think deficits are bad, they don't trust Keynesian economics, they don't want a higher IRS bill (who does, after all?), and they believe the federal government is spending too much on stuff they don't really understand.

Conservatives have just flat out won this debate in recent decades, and until that changes we're not going to be able to make much progress. (Kevin Drum – Mother Jones)

Liberal WaPo columnist Greg Sargent agrees, and provides as evidence this polling factoid about the agreed-upon cuts in the debt ceiling deal:

only 15 percent think the cuts go too far. (Greg Sargent-The Plumb Line)

He goes on to cite a fellow liberal blogger:

“We will only find success when a majority of Americans agrees with us that government is something worth fighting for,” wrote Jared Bernstein.

These smart and honest liberals have identified the crux of the progressives' problem:

A majority of Americans now agree that government is Not something worth fighting for, but rather something worth fighting Against. 

Keynesian welfare states worldwide are now exposed as wealth-sucking failures teetering on the brink of collapse. We’re not going to support more debt to pay for them. Instead we demand a move away from the dark clouds of soviet-style centrally-planned economies, and towards the light of personal liberty and free market capitalism. Here’s a crumb for the anti-war left: We’re done funding costly wars and global community organizing as well.