Conflicting -Isms, Conflicting Faiths

I own that I am not a friend to a very energetic government. It is always oppressive.

Experience hath shewn, that even under the best forms of government those entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow operations, perverted it into tyranny.

I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them
Thomas Jefferson

The issue is always the same: the government or the market. There is no third solution. Ludwig Von Mises, economist, 1881-1973


Definitions of competing –isms:

Socialism: government control of the means of production

Communism: government control of the means of production. Yes, there are differences between Socialism and Communism but not when it comes to who controls the means of production.

Capitalism: private control of the means of production

Interventionism: so-called compromise between socialism and capitalism, ostensibly taking the best from each of these economic systems. Capitalism and socialism are contradictory systems, both in combat with the other.

“Interventionism” is a misnomer used as a kind of verbal slight-of-hand by proponents of socialism. Karl Marx wrote in his Communist Manifesto that, while interventionism was a necessary step toward total government control of the means of production, it was, in fact, “untenable.” He was correct.

Once government becomes involved in managing any portion of the nation’s economy, it does not withdraw: it only increases its reach. All this talk by politicians about exit strategies and such is only believed by the naïve and the uneducated. As George Will notes in his essay, Upside-Down Economy, to believe that the government will retreat from the marketplace requires that we underestimate “the pleasure politicians derive from using their nation's wealth as a slush fund for purchasing political advantage.”

In a free market economy, the government’s function is limited to keeping force and fraud out of the market place. They are police. Period. An interventionist government replaces the consumer, who is King of the free market, with the elites in D.C.

The historical reality is that each time the government chooses to manage a particular industry, it always operates at a loss. While an entrepreneur can only operate at a loss for a relatively short time, the government can do so indefinitely because it can print money and raise taxes. Given this track record, it baffles the mind as to why so many citizen-consumers would vote for politicians advocating policies that always leaves the nation with more debt, less efficiency and productivity in the affected markets, and that lead to diminished freedoms. “Evidence” and the laws of logic do not seem to matter one bit to these people. Why?

As I have already written in previous posts, there is the destructive nature of envy, the arrogance of the elitists, the preference for security over freedom in so many of our fellow citizens, and the desire of these same people for a savior. The latter, I believe, should not be overlooked.

Whenever I engage in debate with advocates of socialism and its twin, interventionism, I have noticed that these people more often than not refuse to discuss history or the science of economics. It is like speaking with a member of a cult: their sole defense is a mindless “faith” and an appeal to an indefinable “compassion.”

A college professor recently wrote me that while it is true socialism has in the past either severely restricted the economic output of a nation or destroyed it altogether, “This time, that won’t happen.”

Monte: Why not?

Professor: Look at the level of expertise and intelligence in the White House.

Reminded me of Churchill’s remark: “The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter.”

Projecting god-like attributes onto our government is so antithetical to the foundations of freedom within a Democratic Republic that our forefathers went out of their way to ensure that such power could never be exercised. They did this by creating the separation of powers between the judicial, the legislative and the executive branches of government, as well as by establishing the Bill of Rights. But all of this is meaningless, when a large enough portion of the electorate want our nation’s governments to “save” them.

For these people, the nation and, more specifically, the marketplace, are all messed up because we are all so selfish and morally-challenged. Question: If the free market does not work because of human frailties, how is it that human government agents will fare any better? Again … so much for logic.

Thomas Jefferson said, “I know of no safe depository of the ultimate powers of the society but the people themselves; and if we think them not enlightened enough to exercise their control with a wholesome discretion, the remedy is not to take it from them but to inform their discretion.”

People need to be educated. The joy and self-respect that comes from self-reliance and self-governance, the nature of freedom as opposed to the nature (and masks) of tyranny, the meaning of living in a Democratic Republic and other such cornerstones of liberty need to be taught and reinforced at every opportunity. However, given the prevalence of the desire to be saved by the government and the predilection of our government to play the savior, it is also obvious that what is needed is spiritual renewal.

God alone saves: freeing us to become the individuals we were created to be.
The State, given god-like power, enslaves, requiring a suffocating uniformity (a totalization) of the masses.

God alone is our provider and his wealth is infinite.
The State’s only source of revenue is found in the very finite wallets of its citizens.

Faith in God alone gives peace in the middle of chaos and unrest.
Faith in the State brings about the calmness of a prisoner resigned to his fate.

Copyright, Monte E Wilson, 2009