On Slavery and Colonialism (Note how the rambling student reveals his hand by referring to “so-called” communist countries, and “so-called” democratic countries…)

Morality and Economic Policy:

On the Ford Pinto, and Principled Business:

I attended a lecture once at the University of Oregon that was similar to this. Lots of sign waving and emotional outbursts over the speaker. The conformity of the shouting mob was only drowned out by their self-congratulation for courageously ‘standing alone’ on their collective ideas.

Let’s now take a look at Socialism as an economic philosophy. 19th century philosopher Ayn Rand had some strong words to further define socialism and its nature as an economic and governmental theory:

“Socialism is the doctrine that man has no right to exist for his own sake, that his life and his work do not belong to him, but belong to society, that the only justification of his existence is his service to society, and that society may dispose of him in any way it pleases for the sake of whatever it deems to be its own tribal, collective good.”
- From The New Intellectual

In order to fully understand Rand’s view – we need to clearly define ‘private property.’ In plain terms, Private property is essentially the results (or wages) of an individual’s personal labor. Furthermore, an individual’s labor is basically the sum of a person’s mind, since all that we do creatively and productively is the result of our own mind making free choices to take actions. Therefore, the crucial question each person must ask is, “Does a free individual have the right to the product of their own mind?” Take a moment to internalize this question, because it is simply too easy to think of ‘individuals’ as numbers.

Do you have the right to the product of your mind?

In my view, if you truly believe in personal human liberty – you must answer this question: Yes.

This is where a proper view of taxes becomes important. Part of the problem in America today is that people don’t really view taxes for what they truly are: unpaid labor for the state. Most people are so used to paying their taxes (many times not even seeing them, as they are deducted automatically) that this reality is blurred. You and I pay a certain percentage of our annual wages in tax. What this really means is that we spend that percentage (if you are middle-class, that’s about 30%) of our year working directly for the state and not ourselves or our families. Furthermore – you and I don’t really get to decide what happens with the labor we do for the state. Sure – we get to vote about this or that spending bill from time to time – but at that level, we are so far removed from any real control over how the product of our minds is put to use that it is almost negligible. More realistically, the product of our labor is handed to a government official who then gets to decide what is in our, and society’s best interest.

The conservative rejects this idea totally. And I must point out here that Conservatives aren’t against taxation. What we reject is the idea that a government bureaucracy can possibly know better what is in your personal interest, let alone an entire society of persons.

Rand further elaborates:

“The essential characteristic of socialism is the denial of individual property rights; under socialism, the right to property (which is the right of use and disposal) is vested in ‘society as a whole,’ i.e., in the collective, with production and distribution controlled by the state, i.e., by the government. Socialism may be established by force, as in the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics – or by vote, as in Nazi (National Socialist) Germany. The degree of socialization may be total, as in Russia – or partial, as in England. Theoretically, the differences are superficial; practically, they are only a matter of time. The basic principle, in all cases, is the same.”

- From “The Monument Builders“

So, what about Economic Equality?

Socialism seeks to make all people economically equal through the idea of fairness. In other words, socialism seeks to share the wealth, or create a state of ‘shared prosperity‘ as this is seen to be more fair and compassionate. During the recent campaign, President Barack Obama, then candidate Obama made the remark, “When you spread the wealth around, it’s good for everyone.” Of course, most people (including conservatives) view sharing with those who are less fortunate, as a positive thing. However, it is important to remember we are talking about a governmental philosophy, not personal kindness and charity.  Under socialism, in order to create fairness or shared prosperity, this requires taking the labor of some, and giving it to others. This is, as Rand said, the denial of individual property, and ultimately the control of the product of an individual’s labor.

Socialism is the denial that you have the right to the product of your own mind.

Conservatives believe that this idea is in direct conflict with liberty. How is it fair to take by force the rights of some to promote ‘fairness’ for others? How is this ‘fair’ for those who are more productive? Is that not cyclical reasoning? If you have no right to your own labor and the product of your mind – do you really have the right to your own life?

Furthermore - is it not immoral to justify taking a larger percentage of an individual’s labor and mind, simply because they are more productive than someone else? Not to mention – who among men has the wisdom and the right to decide who is wealthy and who is not? (Note that in contrast, the free market does not discriminate based on wealth, race, sex, status, or any other factor.)

The simple fact is that human rights, and property rights go hand in hand. You cannot have one, without the other. Any governmental philosophy that violates the fundamental right to property is a threat to liberty, even if it’s intentions are noble. Again – Ayn Rand elaborates:

“There is no difference between the principles, policies and practical results of socialism – and those of any historical or prehistorical tyranny. Socialism is merely democratic absolute monarchy – that is, a system of absolutism without a fixed head, open to seizure of power by all comers, by any ruthless climber, opportunist, adventurer, demagogue or thug. When you consider socialism, do not fool yourself about its nature. Remember that there is no such dichotomy as ‘human rights’ versus ‘property rights.’ No human rights can exist without property rights. Since material goods are produced by the mind and effort of individual men, and are needed to sustain their lives, if the producer does not own the result of his effort, he does not own his life. To deny property rights means to turn men into property owned by the state. Whoever claims the ‘right’ to ‘redistribute’ the wealth produced by others is claiming the ‘right’ to treat human beings as chattel.”
- From “The Monument Builders“

(emphasis mine)

Furthermore – the idea that an individual has no right to the product of their own labor is totally at odds with the foundational philosophy of liberty in America.

“Hence it is that such democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths. Theoretic politicians, who have patronized this species of government, have erroneously supposed that by reducing mankind to a perfect equality in their political rights, they would, at the same time, be perfectly equalized and assimilated in their possessions, their opinions, and their passions.”
-James Madison, Federalist Paper #10

“A right to property is founded in our natural wants, in the means with which we are endowed to satisfy these wants, and the right to what we acquire by those means without violating the similar rights of other sensible beings.”
–Thomas Jefferson to Pierre Samuel Dupont de Nemours, 1816. ME 14:490

“…the moment the idea is admitted into society that property is not as sacred as the laws of God, and there is no force of law and public justice to protect it, anarchy and tyranny commence.”
-John Adams

Conservatives agree with this idea that private property, though not the expressed goal of life, is essential to individual rights and freedoms. Though the stated intent of Socialism seems noble, we reject Socialism as an economic philosophy because it substitutes a realistic view of human nature (people are not the same, and thus cannot be made to be the same, economically, socially, or otherwise) for an utopian philosophy (that an authoritarian governing few have the wisdom, authority, and right to legislate ‘fairness’ upon individuals lives).

Also – Socialism requires authoritarian control of the product of some people’s minds, and is thus in total conflict with the liberties of man. In a free society YOU have the right to YOUR productivity – under Socialism, the State and the ‘collective good’ have the right to YOUR productivity. Thus, from the conservative prospective, socialism is ultimatley not liberty, but slavery to the state. (I have to also note here that I find it somewhat contradictory that most people who look positively at socialism, consider themselves ‘liberal’ – as socialism implies a far more authoritarian governing body than say, a fairly libertarian capitalist system. Mark Levin rightly points out in his book Liberty and Tyranny, that a more appropriate name for this view would be, ‘Statist,’ rather than liberal.) Furthermore, even if it weren’t immoral, conservatives reject the notion that a small group of elected officials can possibly comprehend what would be in the best interest of you as a citizen.

President Lincoln adequately summed up these concepts:

“The world has never had a good definition of the word liberty, and the American people, just now, are much in want of one. We all declare for liberty; but in using the same word we do not all mean the same thing. With some the word liberty may mean for each man to do as he pleases with himself, and the product of his labor; while with others the same word may mean for some men to do as they please with other men, and the product of other men’s labor. Here are two, not only different, but incompatible things, called by the same name–liberty. And it follows that each of the things is, by the respective parties, called by two different and incompatible names–liberty and tyranny.”

-Abraham Lincoln, 1864

If you wish to learn more about Economic Freedom – please watch or listen to Free to Choose, by Milton Friedman. This will provide you with a decent overview of the foundations of economic liberty. Also, I strongly recommend reading Frederic Bastiat’s The Law.

In part 3 I will be further discussing the idea that Socialsm’s form of government is in conflict with a democratic republic – and takes on the form of an oligarchy, ultimately resulting in a ‘soft tyranny’.

“We need to focus on what we were set up to do and do it much better than we are doing, instead of every week coming in here, bringing our good intentions and our compassion and every problem we see across the country we say something needs to be done. Then we say: The Government needs to do it.”

Many times, when people see a problem in society – they immediately assume that government is the only solution to that problem. As a conservative, I think this is a huge mistake. Rather than creating an individually motivated solution, people ask the government to create a compulsory bureaucratic one-size-fits-all program in which citizens have no choice to be a part of or not (because these programs are supported through taxes). It’s the classic response, ‘someone else will take care of it’.

True charity springs from self-motivated compassion and free choice to serve, not from the de-humanization of a collective government coercion machine.

Here is the entire transcript of the speech:

======

NATIONAL SERVICE REAUTHORIZATION ACT — (Senate – March 24, 2009)

Mr. DeMINT. Mr. President, I wish to speak for few minutes on the Serve America Act. I think this is a great opportunity to talk about what is good about a lot of the Members of the Senate. I certainly appreciate and applaud the sponsors of this bill for their good intentions and know their hearts are in the right place. Some of my best friends are supporting this bill. But I think, as we look at what is good about the hearts of many Members of the Senate, we need to recognize this bill does represent a lot of what is wrong with our Federal Government today–a lot of our philosophies, and a lot of our departures from a constitutional form of government.

What works in America today is our civil society–a lot of the volunteer groups that many of us have been a part of. I know for years I spent more time in United Way and a lot of the charity groups, being on their boards back in my community, and I saw what the volunteer arts groups and PTAs and health groups did to build a strong community. Civil society works in America. They are small groups. They are the true engines of character in our country. They promote service and patriotism. In this time where we have seen some of our economic institutions let us down, we have certainly seen our Government and our policies let us down, civil society does not let us down. It works in America today.

It is understandable why Congress would want to get involved. We see that passion to serve, that desire to do something that is greater than yourselves. We look at that working in our civil society and we want to get involved and expand it.

Unfortunately, our history shows us when Government gets involved, it tends to take something that is working and make it not work nearly as well. Civil society works because it is everything Government is not. It is small, it is personal, it is responsive, it is accountable. Civil society must be protected from any effort to make it more like Government.

That is what we are doing with this bill today. This bill centralizes control of important functions of our civil society. There is a downside to good intentions here in Government. The Founders created a limited government and our oath to support and defend the Constitution means that is our focus here. Our oath is to a limited government. The Founders wanted the people to be free from our good intentions. Government charity is anathema to what our Founders intended and what our Constitution stands for. Despite our good intentions, where we try to implement those good intentions and our compassion through the force of Government, we are effectively violating our oath of office here.

Well-intended legislation has left more than half of all Americans dependent on the Government. Today in America over half of Americans get their income from the government or a government source. About 20 percent of the country works for the government or an entity that gets its primary source of revenue from government. Another 20 percent gets their income and health care from Medicare or Social Security. Once you add in welfare and other subsidies, you make it so over half of all Americans are already dependent on the Government. This bill proposes to spend nearly $6 billion over 5 years, which means it will be probably $10 billion, probably more, over a 10-year period. It will have nearly a quarter of Americans working for it, which means it will be the 14th largest company, as far as employees, in the entire world.

What have we done here that suggests we can manage anything like that? Do you see anything in our history as a Federal Government that shows we have the ability to effectively manage something like that without extreme levels of waste and fraud and abuse? Look what we have done recently with the stimulus plan and the bailout plans. As soon as it comes to light what is actually happening with that money, people are outraged at what is going on. Despite the good intentions of this bill, we are creating a huge new government entity that will be unmanageable and violates some of the core principles of our civil society. Every time the Government steps in to solve a problem, it creates three new problems in its place.

This bill is everything wrong with how Congress sees the world. Government will make service organizations less effective, less responsive, and less personal. When the French historian de Tocqueville came to the United States not long after we were founded, one of the things that amazed him about our country that was so different from France was that in his home country when there was a problem, people would say: Someone ought to do it and government should do it; but in America we were different. When someone saw a problem, they went and got a friend and formed a small group and solved the problem themselves. Much of that was motivated by religious convictions that our place in this world is not only to help ourselves but to love and help those around us. That was key.

Jefferson called it little democracies, when he saw these little groups all around America voluntarily doing things to solve problems and make communities better. Burke called them little platoons. Most people who understand America know that those voluntary groups are what made our country great and what sustain us even today. Civil society binds communities, not by its fruits, but by its motives–charity, donations, giving without thought of getting anything in return. This is the selfless sacrifice that happens throughout America today. This is what works.

What does not work is what we are doing right here. The big difference is private service organizations exist for the people who receive the aid. Government service organizations exist for the people who give it–in this case, for the people who are paid to do it. You cannot pay people to volunteer and expect the organization to remain focused on its mission. Charity is a private, moral impulse, not a government program.

Government will not and, by definition, cannot strengthen and replace the civil society. Volunteerism is something that works in America. When we think of America, we do not think of Congress and Presidents, we think of Little League games and PTA meetings and bake sales.

Civil society is America. It responds to needs, meets challenges, and solves problems because it is free from Government. Because volunteers donate their time and money, accountability is acute. I have seen it. I have sat on a United Way board. Every year we evaluate every program and every dollar we have given to someone, and we determine is it working or can we make it more efficient.

If the program is not working, the money goes away immediately. That does not happen here. If the program does not work here, we add more money to it. That is going to happen with every program we start, including the one we are talking about today.

Projects that do not work in a civil society get cut. Organizers who lose or abuse funds are dismissed. It is voluntary. So everyone is invested in its success. We know the large groups throughout America, the Boy Scouts, the Girl Scouts, the United Way, the Salvation Army, the YMCA, Catholic Charities, fraternal orders, groups such as Kiwanis, Rotary, Knights of Columbus. These are large organizations, but they work because they are locally controlled.

Smaller groups, local arts councils and community theatres, PTAs, youth sports leagues, the animal rescues, the book clubs, crisis pregnancy centers, soup kitchens, food and other clothes drives that go on, church service groups, they are everywhere.

Those are the little platoons, the little democracies that make this country work. For us to presume, in the Congress, that somehow we are going to reach out into all these groups and make it work better is pretty presumptuous based on our history.

Why now? Why at a time in economic crisis with unimaginable debt and spending do we come in and say: We need to spend another $10 billion over the next 10 years to create another Government program to do something that is already working.

At the same time, we are talking about creating this new bureaucracy to replace private voluntarism with Government programming. We are actually cutting some of the incentives for people to give to charity and for the private sector to work. The President’s budget actually cuts the charitable donations of the people who give the most to charity in this country. So look at what we are doing. We are making it harder for the private sector to work.

You also look at what we have done over the years, forgetting that a lot of private charity and the motivation to serve God and community is a religious-based motivation. What have we done in this country?

We have essentially tried to purge that motivation from our country. Most public schools, or at least a lot of them, used to sponsor Boy Scout groups. But after being sued for years because the Boy Scouts have God in their pledge and they set standards for their leaders that some do not agree with, the threat of lawsuits essentially means our Government schools have thrown out the Boy Scouts.

More than half our astronauts, half our FBI agents, a lot of the most successful people in this country were trained in the Boy Scouts to serve their community, where their character was developed. But this Federal Government has forced them out of public places. For years we purged religion from our society. Religion was the primary motivation for a lot of civic groups, a lot of services, a lot of charities, a lot of hospitals that were formed, a lot of schools.

But we have said that has no place. Because we have unleashed the ACLU and other groups to constantly sue and intimidate groups, that religious motivation has been moved, has been purged in many cases.

Now we are going to come in and help solve the problem we have created. We want to promote voluntarism, we want to promote community service, when what we have done over the last several decades is essentially tried to destroy the motivation for people to serve a cause that is greater than themselves.

We cannot replace private charity with Government programs. If we try, a lot of people are going to miss meals, suffer cold winters, and leaky roofs. I wish to go back to where I started. I appreciate the motivation, the heartfelt sense of compassion and the patriotism that I know my colleagues feel in sponsoring this legislation.

But I think we need to come to a point as a government that we recognize we cannot do everything. That is why we take the oath to the Constitution to defend and protect the very limited form of Government. This Congress, this Government, does not need to start or expand an organization to a quarter million people, when we are paying people to do work that we decided needs to be done and take those decisions out of the hands of millions of Americans who look around every day and see what they can do to make their families, their communities, and their country a better place to live.

These are not Government decisions. We need to focus on what we were set up to do and do it much better than we are doing, instead of every week coming in here, bringing our good intentions and our compassion and every problem we see across the country we say something needs to be done. Then we say: The Government needs to do it.

That is the fatal flaw of the Congress today, is we forget that sacred oath of office that says: We will protect and defend the Constitution which says this Federal Government has a very limited function. And those functions that are not prescribed in the Constitution are left to individuals and to the States.

This is a huge well-intended mistake we are making. It serves a point that we need to realize this Government needs to stop spending and stop borrowing, stop taxing, and let America work.

ht [Ed Morrissey and MM]