Ron Paul's Wild West

Topher Morrison

PurpleSerf.com

            As Ron Paul moves West he should grow stronger.  Western states have been traditionally less-establishment than eastern states mainly because of their separation from Washington D.C., but also because as one moves west the more suburban and rural one will most likely find their self.  It is a widely understood phenomenon that cities and especially D.C. tend to be more liberal as they are closer to the spigots of government largess.  

            There is a historical reason why there tend to be more libertarians out West than on the East Coast.  The West identifies itself more with traditional America as a pioneering culture than the East Coast, which has always had a continental feel. Moreover, the frontier experience of American settlers was of rugged individualism, self-reliance, but most importantly the frontier expanded quicker than the federal government could grow leaving most westerners on their own.  This experience is in sharp contrast to those left in New York, Pennsylvania, New England and the South.

From the early 1800s to the last lower 48 territory when Arizona became a state in 1912, the West was relatively untamed.  Private associations called land clubs dominated the scene.  Throughout the statehood process and before incorporation of towns and cities these land clubs enabled settlers to elect local officers and select arbitrators to resolve disputes.  Other than that you were on your own.

The best modern example of libertarian leanings in the West is the Libertarian Party itself, founded by David Nolan in Colorado Springs, Colorado.  He was originally born and raised on the East Coast, but disgruntled with Nixon’s Vietnam policies and his abandonment of the gold standard Nolan established the party of principle in his home in Colorado in 1971. 

Libertine cities like Las Vegas extol legalized and safe prostitution, relaxed gun laws, legalized gambling, strong property rights and manage to allow around the clock drinking 7 days a week all without the sky falling.  The famous libertarian think tank the Cato Institute was founded in San Francisco before moving to Washington D.C.  The libertarian Independent Institute, however, is in Oakland, C.A.  Reason Magazine, a leading libertarian publication, is based in Los Angeles.

            While coastal California, Oregon and Washington don’t necessarily scream for the libertarian economic ideals Ron Paul espouses his libertarian social platform of drug reform, gay marriage, freedom of speech and internet freedom will loom large in contrast with Mitt Romney who has been relatively mum on these issues.  Most of all, however, Ron Paul’s non-interventionist foreign policy will resonate in the libertarian west.  With regard to California, Ron Paul won the California straw poll unfortunately with little mention.

            While Utah is most assuredly in Mitt Romney’s corner with the majority of its citizens of the Mormon faith their strict state’s rights positions are very much in line with Ron Paul.  The state actually flirted with a soft repeal of the 17^th Amendment, providing the popular election of federal senators, in favor of their selection by the state legislature and confirmation thereafter by the people through popular vote.  Ron Paul feels the states were denied their representation as states in the federal system after the 17^th Amendment’s passage in 1913, the same year the Federal Reserve Act was passed.

            Polling hasn’t yet been forthcoming since Romney’s victories in Iowa and New Hampshire, but with other candidates sure to putter out and unable to sustain a nationwide campaign, unlike Ron Paul it will be interesting to see how polls will change in this back loaded primary season.

50 Things I Hate About Romney: PART 1

Topher Morrison

PurpleSerf.com

I created this video just before Newt Gingrich rose in the polls and when he did I didn't feel it appropriate to release considering there was so much to knock him on.  Now that Romney has cemented his front runner position, at least for now, I thought we should take another look at his record.  This first part covers the economy.

If you like the video please "like" it "comment" and "share!"  There is 40 more things I hate about Mitt and there is a long primary coming!

How Drug War Dinosaurs & Traffic Jams Kill Our Economy

Topher Morrison

PurpleSerf.com

How Drug War Dinosaurs & Traffic Jams Kill Our Economy

PART I

Otomotive.net

            Everyone takes it for granted that the federal government is laden with redundancy and inefficiency.  It doesn’t surprise anyone it requires a mountain of paperwork to buy a paperclip, but rarely do many appreciate the other market distortions our lawmakers create in the private sector. A market distortion is simply something someone is doing that they would otherwise not being doing if it government weren't in the picture.  Ironically, even in the Great Recession, because of market distortions, there is a lot of fat to cut outside of the beltway.

The Tax Men and their Elves

According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) there are over 1.6 million bookkeepers, accountants and auditors, one of the largest employment groups in the nation.  Now the personal business or corporate accountant is crucial to understanding the intricacies of a firm’s operations, sales, marketing, payroll, etc., but there are a quarter million people dedicated to tax examining, collecting and preparing alone! 

According to the Tax Foundation the IRS estimates Americans spend an aggregate 6.6 billion hours just preparing their taxes essentially taking us away from life – planning, creating, and spending.  This time is lost forever and every year it is a massive drag on the economy and our ability to compete and progress as a nation.  

We understand taxes are built into the everyday activities of large and small business and have a net effect on every decision made.  We also understand that once we buy a product or service those taxes contribute to the price we pay, but the questions now are what other products and services would be available and how much sooner might a new innovation be made if we could gain that lost time back?  It is no wonder Herman Cain’s 9-9-9 plan got so much attention.  It’s too bad his ladies did too.

The Jailbirds and the Bird Watchers

            The United States, home of the free, is ironically home of the highest incarcerated population on Earth.  Widely known fact, little attention.  According to the U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics (USBJS) in 2010 there were nearly 2.3 million incarcerated and the BLS reported over ½ million correctional officers and supervisory personnel, the USBJS puts them at nearly 800,000.  In either case we literally have 3 million people staring at each other.

            If that were it things would be bad enough, but we also have – brace yourself – nearly 5 million people on probation or parole and nearly 90 thousand probation and “correctional treatment specialists” making sure they’re playing by the rules.  With 1 in 2 returning to jail or prison it is hard to see the effectiveness of this system.  

            How many years are lost on minimum sentencing, three strike and drug laws for both the prisoner and the watchman are next to incalculable.  The financials are a different story with America spending a little more than $74 billion per year on corrections as of 2007, however, the most alarming trend is the federalization of correctional financing.  Year after year local and state governments are spending less keeping people in jail, while Uncle Sam picks up the tab.

Driven Apart – Bumper by Bumper

    Transportation policy is probably the last thing on Americans’ minds, but it is the first thing on every mind at 5pm.  In 2000 the Texas Transportation Institute (TTI) estimated that the 75 largest metropolitan areas experienced 3.6 billion vehicle-hours of delay resulting in 5.7 billion gallons in wasted fuel and 67.5 billion dollars is lost productivity or about 0.7% of the nation’s GDP. 

It has since not improved according to a recent Reason.com poll which reports a majority of Americans believe traffic has become worse over the last 5 years and most believe it will continue to get worse over the next five years.  Moreover, most Americans feel their local infrastructure is in need of repair or in poor condition. 

The country’s infrastructure system has remained nearly unchanged since the Eisenhower era, which along with the 1960s saw the largest expansion in American roadways and along with it economic growth.  We have since been surpassed by China in miles of road.

Recently the TTI reported that since 1982 the amount of delay has worsened by 70% and that the average commuter must endure 34 hours of bumper love per year.  The TTI estimates the cost of congestion to be nearly $100 billion, rush hour is actually become 6 hours of not rushing anywhere and rush hours have found there way into other parts of the day including mid-day and overnight!

Unlike most of our economy our transportation system, with some justification is a public utility, but like other public works infrastructure suffers from the typical bureaucracy, glacial response to the needs of its citizens and political logjams.  According to the Rockefeller Foundation transportation is the 2^nd highest expenditure for the average American, why isn’t this receiving more attention?

       Unfortunately as I mentioned earlier this is the last thing on Americans’ minds and therefore the very last thing on our politician’s agendas.  Regrettably the connection between this and our economy is underappreciated and as the previous topics have shown this is just another barnacle on the hull of our stagnant economy.  A market driven transportation system paid for by the elimination of certain gasoline taxes could do wonders in decentralizing and modernizing this ailing sector.

 NEXT: How the Drug War Dinosaurs and The Military Industrial Entitlement Program drag down our economy.

Rise of the Ron Paul Republican

The GOP doesn’t have a Ron Paul problem 

it has a libertarian problem.

Image Source: RonPaul.com

When the GOP lost Congress in 2006 and weren’t able to install a Republican as president in 2008, overshadowed by the “historic election,” it was back to the drawing board for the party of Lincoln.  But it was in March of 2007, just after the 110^th Congress was sworn in, that Ron Paul began to break ground on a permanent home for the libertarian ideals he had been espousing for over 30 years. 

            Libertarianism, while having been traditionally an esoteric subject, began to manifest as a movement in 1971 in response to Vietnam, its voracious appetite for blood and treasure and a burgeoning welfare state both of which contributed to the abandonment of the gold standard.  (It was President Nixon’s decision to rely wholly on the Federal Reserve for our nation’s monetary policy that spurred Ron Paul into office in the first place.)  

To proto-libertarians, drawn from conservatives, independents, blue dog democrats, the progressivism of the left and the conservativism of the right were merely two features of the same problem – big government happily placating, if not, openly catering to corporate interests.  Between the platforms of war and welfare libertarians established their political beachhead in the “Party of Principle” - the Libertarian Party.

In 1978 the libertarian Cato Institute was founded in Northern California and provided needed conceptual ammunition to the fledgling movement.  By that time the “free minds and free markets” of Reason Magazine was in its 8^th year of regular publication and busy popularizing economic superstars like F.A. Hayek, Milton Friedman, and Murray Rothbard.  If necessity is truly the mother of invention, the malaise of the 1970s was midwife to the birth of libertarianism. From then on the intellectual-political infrastructure necessary to broadcast and mobilize the ideas of individual liberty grew exponentially.

By 1975 even Ronald Reagan seemed to be equally enamored with the prospects of libertarianism.  This from Reason Magazine:

“If you analyze it I believe the very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism [emphasis added].  I think conservatism is really a misnomer just as liberalism is a misnomer for the liberals -- if we were back in the days of the Revolution, so-called conservatives today would be the Liberals and the liberals would be the Tories. The basis of conservatism is a desire for less government interference or less centralized authority or more individual freedom and this is a pretty general description also of what libertarianism is.”

After reading this it should be no surprise why Ron Paul was one of the first to endorse Ronald Reagan for president.  A president who, contrary to revisionist conservatives, didn't always please the hard line neoconservatives.

By the time of Reagan’s rise, however, it wasn’t the libertarians who were to capitalize on the backlash against stagflation and the "new normal" Cater attempted to impose on America, but the Grand Old Party.  Albeit the corruption and tepidity under Nixon and Ford left the party beleaguered and exhausted it was still a dependable and well-financed machine by 1980. 

While Ronald Reagan assumed the ethos of libertarianism and attempted to graft it onto the Grand Old Party some of it stuck, but much of it didn’t.  Reagan too, while previously extolling libertarian virtue fell short of achieving a fundamental restoration of our republic.  The Reagan Revolution was, as many political movements are (think Tea Party and Occupy Wall Street) co-opted by the old guard - the establishment - whom shepherded new energies into old interests. 

From 1980 to 1992 and three Republican administrations the government still grew, foreign intervention persisted even after the demise of the Soviet Union, no departments were cut, and debt increased.  Some of the sound economic decisions bore fruit, which staved off disaster, spurred needed innovation and restored some of America’s confidence, but the course of government expansion was fundamentally unaltered.

The GOP received a second chance in 2000, but after Bush’s restrained foreign policy promises were abandoned and the ill-defined War on Terror began, much of the same occurred under his eight years as had occurred under Bill Clinton. Bush federalized more of the American education system, passed a colossal unfunded prescription drug entitlement program, endorsed massive militarism, sponsored the curtailment of civil liberties and oversaw the unprecedented bailouts of 2007.  All of these decisions echoed the encroachments and profligacy of former Democrats and Republicans alike, hence the Tea Party movement.

Conservativism is not a misnomer as Reagan put it, conservativism is legitimately its own brand and uses a similar tool to progressivism in order to impress its social goals here and abroad - the state.  But unlike progressivism, libertarianism is, as conservativism is, now and for the foreseeable future a part of the "right" and therefore part of the Republican Party.   

Many who call themselves conservatives or conservative independents are in fact libertarians they just don’t know it yet, but they will.  For years libertarians lived in the political backwaters and were never really taken seriously, but since 2008 and the ideological bankruptcy of the GOP they've been called in again as they were in the Reagan Revolution to breath new life into a failing ideology, but this time they're not going away.

Ron Paul has carved out a home for libertarians under the GOP’s famous Big Tent.  After years of proffering an austere voting record, sometimes referred to as academic or impractical, Ron Paul is a living breathing example of constitutional fortitude.  Dr. No, as he is often called will probably be known most for what he stood against than what he stood for, but amidst a government which has for the last 100 years, stood for too much, done too much and grown too large Ron Paul's brand of politics is welcomed.

             The year 2012 bears witness to the rise of the Ron Paul Republican.  From now on those who raise his once lonely banner will have a platform from which to run for office. The libertarian wing is now open for business and will continue to siphon off voters from the Democrats and return disgruntled independents to a still hemorrhaging GOP.  

             There is now a fundable and dependable political machine waiting to propel libertarians wherever they need to go.  Win or lose the nomination libertarians are here to stay – the Ron Paul revolution has just begun.

A Magic Bullet Will be Needed to Kill the 17th Amendment

Paul C. Hansen 
Daily Paul

Image Source: LiveAction.org

  The U.S Constitution "originally" laid out the separation of powers
between the federal government and the State governments in the first paragraph of article 1 section 3. How this paragraph accomplished that goal will become clear later in this article. This paragraph states:

"The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each state, chosen by the LEGISLATURE thereof, for six years; and each Senator shall have one vote."

Then in Article I, section 4 we also find this:

"The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators
and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the
Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the PLACES of chusing Senators."

Those places were to be in the State Legislatures.

This balance of power was then permanently locked in by the last clause of article 5. I call this clause the magic bullet because it can't be stopped by any means that I can see. Article 5 dealing with amendments to the Constitution clearly states:

"... and that NO State, without its consent, shall be deprived of its
equal Suffrage in the Senate."

By including this in the section dealing with amendments, it is obvious that the sections of the Constitution concerning selection of Senators and the suffrage they provided was not amendable unless ALL of States consented and that this was to be a permanent provision. All of the above shows how adamant the founders were about this point by referring to the States representation on no less than 3 occasions.

If even ONE State objected to changes in an area that would affect their suffrage, that change would be invalid. The normal ratification process could not be used to alter this principle. Yet that is exactly what happened when the 17th amendment was adopted.

The father of our Constitution, James Madison, in Federalist 43, further supports this claim. He states that the Constitution was completely amendable with two exceptions only. One of the exceptions dealt with the importation of slaves and became moot after 1808.  The other was the State's equal suffrage in the Senate. 

It appears, then, that this all boils down to definition.  What is the definition of State suffrage? In Federalist 59, Hamilton explains State suffrage as the State legislatures having a voice in the Senate. The 17th amendment effectively canceled that voice and turned it over to the citizens of the States. I submit to you that now, however, this definition has been left entirely to the discretion of the States themselves. The courts have no say in the matter. I will explain this bold statement in detail later. Why do I feel this issue vitally important to restoring States rights? For the same reasons our Founders did, to support the concept of federalism and the balance of power between the States and federal government.

This concept strictly limited the federal governments powers to those specifically enumerated in Article 1, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution. The People, through the Constitution, permitted the national government to exercise certain enumerated powers. By limiting the federal government's power and granting the States nearly unlimited power, the federal government would merely be protecting the States collectively and allowing the States to handle their own affairs.

Federalism allowed the States wide latitude to run their own affairs and by doing so, created 13 laboratories of freedom to experiment and formulate the best system of self-governance. This situation also created an atmosphere of competition between the States. When a State allowed its inhabitants to prosper and keep what they earn, The State would prosper and be allowed to continue governing its people. When the State government became a burden to them, the people could vote out the tyrants during the next election.  Another alternative was for the businesses and the people to move to a State that was more to their liking.  Business leaving the State would cause the tax base to erode and so would the peoples support of that government. Sooner or later, either the State government or the people would wake up and correct the problem.

The 17th amendment took away the States protection from the abuses of federal power allowing the federal government to get away with legislating in areas where they had no business doing so. This was a grave error seriously upsetting the balance of power so carefully crafted into our magnificent Constitution. The concept of Federalism was all but destroyed leading to endless abuses by the federal government from which there is no escape.

The enforcement mechanism against federal encroachment and the 10th amendment prior to the invalid 17th was the States' representation in the Senate. The "Peoples House" i.e. the House of Representatives amply represents the people, while the States were to be represented by the Senate.

The States now have no representation and we are experiencing the folly of this venture toward pure democracy today. We were founded as a Republic not a democracy and now we see why. All the States needed to do in the past was to recall or direct their Senators before a bad law made it to the floor of the Senate for a vote and the damage could be stopped in its tracks. Hamilton's Federalist essay 59 addresses this issue directly. This power has been unconstitutionally snatched from the States by the invalid 17th amendment.

Careful study of the 17th amendments ratification reveals at least 10 states or more that failed to do so. These were 10 that failed to "consent" FL, MS, DE, KY, UT, MD, RI, AL, IA and GA. The clear manner in which article 5 is written places the statement dealing with States equal suffrage in the Senate after the words: "Provided that no Amendment which may be made..." further showing that this was an exception to the rule regarding amendments.

With the failure those of 10 states to ratify the 17th, they were
denied their equal suffrage in the Senate without their consent in
violation of Article 5, thus making the 17th amendment invalid.
However, once any state declares the 17th invalid, based on what
I have pointed out here, that State, even though it had previously
consented to the 17th can withdraw its consent anytime it so chooses.  Any State that previously consented can say "we no longer consent" because Article 5 mentions nary a word about the permanence of any such consent.  The right of the state to withdraw that consent is further fully supported by the clear wording of the 10th amendment:

AMENDMENT X (1791)

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

The power to withdraw that consent is not prohibited by article 5
so the power to withdraw it is reserved and retained by the States. Fits like a glove. All the states need to do is select their Senators in their legislatures and send them to Washington. Simple. And what would the courts say about move such as this? No court can attempt to make the State comply with the 17th because they won't have jurisdiction to try the case. Here's why:

When a sovereign State declares the 17th amendment invalid through an article 5 challenge, the Senate would be unlawfully seated. It would then follow that the Supreme Court is also unlawfully seated as is the entire federal bench because the Senate approves those federal court appointments including the Supreme Court.  Anything decided by those federal courts would be
null and void. The State could simply refuse to recognize the jurisdiction of the court system. The States could argue that the federal judiciary has been confirmed by a Senate that did not have the states best interest at heart. These judges would also have a conflict of interest for which there is no resolution. They would be more reluctant to decide in favor of an article V challenge due to the fact they would be "deciding" themselves off the bench and out of a job.

The only other argument that could be made against the State would be the power of the Senate to be the ultimate judge of their elections and refuse to seat the Senators. However, how can an illegitimate Senate make such a decision? The answer is, they can't.

I have presented these facts in many forums over the years and they have never been successfully challenged. One argument that always seems to arise is this: "Well, all the states do have equal suffrage because they still each have two senators." This invalid argument comes from a lack of full understanding of what "suffrage" really stands for and by a focus on the first term "equal" while ignoring the second, "suffrage." The point of my entire article is that the States (meaning the State Legislatures) are the ones who have lost suffrage. The people of the State now elect Senators and are in possession of that suffrage. The real point is who do these senators now represent? After I make this point, I usually get this: "Well, the people ARE the "State." This is not entirely accurate either. In all instances I can find in the Constitution where it is speaking about the States, it is speaking of the Legislature of the States. The best example I can find that clearly delineates between the two is the last clause of that wonderful 10th Amendment again. That clause clearly lists the "People" and the "States" as two separate entities. If they were the same thing, there would be no need to list them both in the very same sentence.

There are other far-reaching implications of an invalid 17th and I'm
sure that opponents of what's been written here will use them to fight these truths. I will not give them ammunition by detailing what those far reaching implications are. However, I will say this: If we endeavor to rid ourselves of the invalid 17th amendment in the manner outlined above, be prepared for the fight of your lives because there are many entrenched interests that would like nothing more than to never have this information reach the light of day.

There have been many articles written concerning the "repeal" of the 17th amendment. While many of these articles correctly point out the folly of the 17th, they fail to realize that a movement to repeal is nothing more than a pipe dream. The only way to remove the 17th amendment is through outright repudiation using the method I have described above. My next paragraph explains why.

There are 2 methods laid out in Article 5 for amending the
Constitution. One of those methods is through a Convention of the
States. I will not go into details as to why this method should never be used under any circumstances other than to say that if you truly value your freedoms, this method should be avoided at all costs. The other method would be an exercise in futility. To use the method that nearly all the other amendments have used since the 10th would entail having to first convince 67 senators to vote themselves out of a job. Then 290 House members would have to vote for the repeal of an amendment which will make all the laws they want to pass much more difficult to push through the Senate. A senate which as a result of its passage would now be jealously guarding the rights of the States that the House laws frequently trample. If that isn't enough, you need to get 38 state legislatures to vote for repealing an amendment over the objections of the people who would feel like their right to vote was being stolen (a right which never really existed due to an invalid 17th). To educate the masses in 38 separate states that the 17th amendment was a mistake is an insurmountable task. To do it for just one, as would be the case in a move to repudiate it, Maybe. In a repudiation argument, it could be demonstrated to the people that the right to vote for their Senators should have never been theirs in the first place due to the fraudulent manner in which the 17th was adopted.

My first target for a move to repudiate would be done in a State that swings to the right most of the time and where the voters are well informed and leery of the feds. Utah would be my choice since Utah rejected the 17th outright and they have been stung recently by federal land grabs. Please join me in this endeavor to repudiate the 17th and get the concept of federalism firmly back on track.

We must educate ourselves and our posterity in the wonderful documents that founded our great Republic if we are ever to set it back on course toward freedom and prosperity. That is why I'm writing this today. My positions on the 17th amendment are supported by the Constitution of the United States including the 10th amendment and "The Federalist Papers", specifically Madison 43 and Hamilton 59.

Thanks for your attention,

Sincerely,

Paul C. Hanson

Here is a link to where the article permanently resides:

http://www.myspace.com/jimmy_madison/blog/306925433

And here is a link to a supreme court case that actually, as part of the majority opinion, stated that there were 2 exceptions to amending the Constitution and the election of senators was one of them. The case is Dillon V. Gloss. Although the case isn't directly on point, the court did state there were exceptions to the amendment process. Link:

http://supreme.vlex.com/vid/dillon-v-gloss-20019903

Scroll down to sections [Page 256 U.S. 368, 373] and [Page 256 U.S. 368, 374].

Here is the pertinent wording:

"An examination of article 5 discloses that it is intended to invest Congress with a wide range of power in proposing amendments. Passing a provision long since expired,8 it subjects this power to only two restrictions: one that the proposal shall have the approval of two-thirds of both houses, and the other excluding any amendment which will deprive any state, without [Page 256 U.S. 368, 374]

its consent, of its equal suffrage in the Senate."

The words "Passing a provision that has long since expired" (and spoken of in footnote 8) refers to sections of the constitution that dealt with the importation of slaves and direct taxes, and since it only held true until 1808, it had "long since expired" But, in the decision itself, it did not apply that year to the restriction on suffrage in the Senate. To the contrary, it said that restriction was still in force.

Again, Thanks for your time and attention

Paul.

Not Libertarian? You're Probably a Socialist

EDITOR'S NOTE:  If you haven’t read the first part of this series, please do: We are The Planners, Not You.  Government isn’t a Business Either.

Part II

Lawrence O'Donnell of MSNBC hits the nail on the head.

The Left & The Right As Socialists

Both Republicans and Democrats plan.  Off the bat it doesn't sound like a bad thing, think “social safety net”.  But the notion of planning is predicated on the idea that someone else has information you don't, moreover that they have the right to plan for you.  While the former may of course be true, the information age has diluted the strength of this argument significantly.  This brings us to the right to plan.

To “plan” by public sanction is to evince a value desiring the wide recognition of a social goal, think universal health care, a drug free America, a living wage, a stable and friendly Iraq, the War on Poverty, the list is endless because our potential values are endless.  Hence, to enact said “plan”, through whatever political mechanism available is appropriately called - socialism. 

While use of the word socialism might not be politically correct as Lawrence O’Donnell admits, its use per the definition is very much still en vogue.  Considering everything is in some measure societal in nature and therefore social then anything positively enacted which diminishes someone's life, liberty or property rather than precluding encroachment upon these rights is socialism. This is how F.A. Hayek put it in The Road to Serfdom in 1944:

“…Some groups may want less socialism than others…some want socialism mainly in the interest of one group and others in that of another.  The important point is that if we take the people whose views influence developments they are now in the democracies in some measure all socialists.”

F.A. Hayek was echoing a fundamental truth which gripped European politics as far back as 1888 when Sir William Harcourt announced to Britain’s House of Commons: “We are all socialists now.”  Sir William found his modern voice in Republican President Richard Nixon when he proclaimed the same “We are all Keynesians now” referring to F.A. Hayek’s socialist contemporary.

            The fact of the matter is every American ideological movement save one, Libertarianism, is socialist from one degree to another.  In other words, while each party may espouse individual freedom in one arena or another they all require government to do their bidding regarding a small number of particular values and always at our expense.  Often times we call these “special interests.”  This line of reasoning may seem austere, but this merely validates my point.

The New American Century’s Enemy: Gullibility  

            After the fall of the Soviet Union and with it the easy to hate goose-stepping armies and the ubiquitous red flags it was hard for many of us to anticipate how our next enemy might be one of our own creation.  This is not new and was not unanticipated.  F.A. Hayek alluded to how Americans might succumb to similar seductions:

“It seems almost as if we did not want to understand the development which has produced totalitarianism because such an understanding might destroy some of the dearest illusions to which we are determined to cling.” 

            While there has been robust argument over what is more important than another thing, as O’Donnell puts it between good or bad socialism, there has been little progress in restricting the scope of government, regardless of the mountain of rhetoric piled on since the Reagan Revolution.  The beast was never starved, the Keynesians and our Central Bank saw to that.  If you’ve noticed our debt is higher than ever, we owe more than we’re worth.

            The question then is, to what "dearest illusions" are we still holding onto?  Well think of all the social ends I mentioned at the beginning of this article.  All are demonstrable failures, ephemeral taglines tossed aside as easily as they are conjured in favor of more sensational and politically expedient slogans.  It is all mere marketing.

          It's the difference between an arrogant vanguard seeking ever-newer demons to vanquish and the chastened but vigilant guardian seeking to protect the individual so he himself may conquer, create, aid and love.  As O’Donnell astutely points out, Glen Greenwald is timid to show his stripes.  Like the slogans they extol the word socialist has undergone similar metamorphoses: "liberal", "progressive", "neoliberal", "labour", "neoconservative", "progressive-Republican", no doubt reaching into perpetuity awaiting a new banner to raise.

          Uncomfortable in their own skin these political chameleons demagogue our fears and passions in one realm or another and they use our wealth and technology to achieve their current social goal.  More often than not as it goes because it can be done means it should be done!  But this is the "dearest illusion, which we are determined to cling."  Again, think of the social goals I mentioned earlier as you read how F.A. Hayek felt about allowing politicians and bureaucrats to plan for us:

“They would merely make it necessary to choose between gaining a particular advantage by compulsion and not obtaining it – or, in most instances, obtaining it a little later, when further technical advance has overcome the particular difficulties.  It is true that in such situations we may have to sacrifice a possible immediate gain as the price of our freedom – but we avoid, on the other hand, the necessity of making future developments dependent upon the knowledge, which particular people now possess. 

By sacrificing such possible present advantages we preserve an important stimulus to further progress.  Though in the short run the price we have to pay for variety and freedom of choice may sometimes be high in the long run even material progress will depend on this very variety, because we can never predict from which of the many forms in which a good or service can be provided something better may develop.”

In other words our political leaders are not seers.

NEXT: How the governments of the left and right distort reality.

Not Libertarian? You're Probably a Socialist

Topher Morrison

PurpleSerf.com

PART I

pics on Sodahead 

We Are The Planners, not you.

          In March of 1944, amidst the crescendo of World WarII, F.A. Hayek dedicated his seminal work The Road to Serfdom to “The Socialists of All Parties.”  He recognized the carnal desire that spanned the entire political spectrum, which ultimately lead to so much bloodshed – the desire to plan for others.

          All political persuasions will agree government is really good at accomplishing one thing, monopolizing violence, in other words, coercion.  It follows therefore that the largerthe government, the larger its ability to coerce.  We have all leant tothe state this legitimate force except in matters of our own immediate self-defense and while we may have a gun for that purpose the government is designed to always have a bigger one. 

          We lend this power because government’s central role, first and foremost, is protection of life. Liberty thereafter is what our conscience demands and what our hearts desire.  Through liberty we mix our labor with property and create the world in which we live and hopefully thrive.  When government fails at anyone of these junctures tyrannies are invited and are allowed to grow.

          Our representatives, whom were honestly and appropriately called "public servants", are now unfortunately referred to as "officials", "leaders", etc.  They originally had few duties, all mutually boring and tedious, but nonetheless essential to our well being hence, they were in the public'sservice.  

          Life wasn't meant to be sexy as most of their time was to be spent establishing "weights andmeasures", deliberating monetary policy, growing the judiciaries, maintaining diplomacy, and providing for the common defense, in other words, to engage in the eye watering monotony that was public life.  

          It was nevermeant to be a career, but a way of giving back to a nation that afforded the liberty to establish themselves.  It was viewed as a truly philanthropic endeavor of the highest order.  Could anyone today, with little exception, claim that of their representative and do it with a straight face?

          Our servants were to simply guard the institutions charged with executing these fundamental duties from both ineptitude and undue growth.  God willing after a few terms they were then to return from whence they came hence, the citizen statesmen.  When they ceased to function as humble sentinels and begin to act as permanent managers was in our interest and our duty to remove them from office.  At least that was the plan.  Permanent managers is lamentably what they have now become, what we refer to as the "leadership class" or more appropriately the "establishment."

Government isn't a business either.

            You often hear, especially from the right, that government should be run like a business.  Republican candidates Mitt Romney and HermanCain have touted their private sector resume, but why?  Granted, achievements are necessary in defining leadership acumen, however, there is little to justify running government like a business.

          Businesses are meant to grow, set prices, innovate, hire, sell products and services - to compete.  Not many Americans want their government competing with them.  We already have enough of this already we need more of it on Main St. not on Capitol Hill.  This isn't confined to only the right, however.  

          How often does the left laud plans to increase "revenue?"  It is obvious both the left and right see government as some kind of legitimate business, I stress to you it is not.  One cannot simply purchase protective services for rights and liberties from another government.  There are roughly 190 governments throughout the world, and compared with the seemingly infinite number of businesses most of us are pretty much stuck with the government we've got.

          You might argue, however,that beyond the simple and achievable trio of mandates mentioned earlier it is also the role or duty of our leaders to plan for us so we may all enjoy the full expression of life, liberty and property equally.  Sounds reasonable, but there is a clear distinction between planning through coercion and planning to compel others, including government organs, to respect our rights and liberties.  

          It is only by accomplishing the latter do we enable each other to plan for ourselves and therefore enable everyone to enjoy freedom as such, equally.  We are theplanners.  When that role is usurped whether by dictators, our favorite actor, monarchies, technocrats or democracies - we become serfs.

NEXT: The Left & The Right as Socialists