Most people have heard of Karl Marx. Most do not realize Marx had 2 visions for his economic philosophies, one early on in his life, and another towards the end of his life. Most know beyond the nuances, however, that he believed in a centrally planned economic system that forced equality of economic condition across a people, played out as Marxism, Communism, Socialism, and Fascism. Regardless of the form of ism that Karl can be noted for, all have turned out to create oppression of some kind and led to the greatest slaughter of man in the history of the world.
The other Carl, I bet, would not be known, if you asked a thousand random people. A few may recognizing the name, but confuse him with his son who was an important mathematician. I am referring to Carl Menger. His ideas led to the idea of marginal utility, developed a system of value and price based on reality, and created what is known today as the Austrian School of Economics. This school is the most fervent advocate of capitalism in economic thought.
Even though their lives overlapped not more than a few hundred miles from each other, their outlooks on economic theory, human philosophy and the way to a better world could not have been further apart. While Marx espoused the idea of centralized forced equity, Menger believed a free market was the most fundamentally fair and virtuous system of economics.
An unusual difference between Marxism and the Austrian School of Economics is in epistemology. Epistemology is the idea that there are basic truths in economics and it is more important to 'know that' than 'know how'. At first one would assume, Marxism is the epistemology, however that would be inaccurate. Although there is a dogma to Marxism, it focuses on the incessant need to change the natural order to create their utopia. However, this is precisely what gets the philosophy in trouble. Breaking down natural social order and overlaying an unnatural institution to force equity ends in tyranny. No one argues that there is a need to know how, but that should be reserved for the non-social sciences where experimentation does not lead to mass murder. The Austrian School believes there are some universal truths to a society and to "know that", man can focus on the tools that bring about the greatest social value.
The fundamental difference between the left and right today is this epistemology. The left want to "dial the knobs" and are hell bent on finding a solution to mans suffering and continually create crisis to force social equity and move towards their elusive utopia. The right believes once you start forcing anything outside the 3 Natural Laws, societal benefits break down and oppression follows. In other words, "knowing how" to create a better society has given us Stalin, Hitler, Mao, Pol Pot and the French Revolution. The "knowing what" gave us Jefferson, Washington, Paine and the American Revolution.
Despite the media elites, universities, and some in our governments love affair with interventionist economics, and the knowing how, Carl Menger gave us the knowing what. We need to go back and learn as much as we can about the realities of economics and human nature to do a better job to promote those economic thoughts that brings about a better world - that of capitalism. And we should thank people like Carl Menger, Ayn Rand, Ludvig Von Mises, Murray Rothbard, among many others as great defenders of liberty and laissez-faire government as the greatest opportunity for man to thrive.
We are compelled to restore our country to her principals of Liberty and a Judeo-Christian Culture from the secular progressive agenda. Blind justice, Limited government, and a faithful, virtuous people are what makes us a Great Nation.
Saturday, July 25, 2009
Saturday, July 18, 2009
Institutions vs Individuals
The best example of how large institutions cannot produce a "common good" without oppression is the inability for the worlds largest Church to achieve consensus among its parishioners on the most fundamental issue of abortion, let alone stop the murder of innocent life. Our Vice President, Speaker of the House, and Illinois Senator claim to be Catholic yet support the killing of innocent life which is clearly against their claimed Faith. The Church is in a conundrum, they want to be the driving force for positive change, but can not be oppressive towards those affiliated or opposed to them, or they are becoming the very thing they are trying to stop. Individual responsibility, compassion, love and faith is what has been the engine for positive progress in this world. The apostles went out 2 by 2, not all together. Jesus turned to Peter and said to him upon this rock, not to all of them collectively. As a Catholic, the self sacrifice of the saints and martyrs are those things honored in our traditions. Man institutionalizes in the beginning for all the right reasons. They begin with consensus for the purpose of progress and recognize the power of institutionalizing to bring about positive change quickly. However with the power of institutionalizing comes corruption and oppression. Once consensus breaks down within an institution, factions of consensus grab power to put forth their agenda to the detriment of the rest. In other words, institutions can not be successful long term without consensus because they lose the power of the institution. Therefore, institutions that want to continue to have influence result to oppression of others to move the factions agenda forward.
Society is different from an institution and a wonderful gift from God. It is a natural collection of individuals interacting, competing, working together, influencing, educating, loving and sharing. Institutions are not natural. Once a formalized structure is created it designates an unnatural pecking order, natural societal relationships break down and all the negatives associated with centralized power begin. The path to a more compassionate, charitable, loving world is decentralization, not centralized institutions. In a decentralized world, if a person feels oppression within their local affiliations, they have the ability to look not too far to find an affiliation with whom, they have consensus. In a centralized world, those oppressed have no place to go.
With individual liberty comes the responsibility to think and act. Relying on large institutions creates intellectual laziness, a herd mentality and always leads to powerless bureaucracies or oppression. Institutions are not the driving force of long term positive change in this world, rather the oppression of man. Therefore, it is important to recognize that we must focus on those things where consensus can be reached and fight against those things that create oppression. Our founding fathers knew this oh so well. George Washington could have been President for life, but he stepped aside knowing even the best intentions lead to problems down the road. The Tea Party Movement is not one looking to grab power, but rather decentralize power for the purpose of limiting oppression and instilling the liberties our country once knew.
Society is different from an institution and a wonderful gift from God. It is a natural collection of individuals interacting, competing, working together, influencing, educating, loving and sharing. Institutions are not natural. Once a formalized structure is created it designates an unnatural pecking order, natural societal relationships break down and all the negatives associated with centralized power begin. The path to a more compassionate, charitable, loving world is decentralization, not centralized institutions. In a decentralized world, if a person feels oppression within their local affiliations, they have the ability to look not too far to find an affiliation with whom, they have consensus. In a centralized world, those oppressed have no place to go.
With individual liberty comes the responsibility to think and act. Relying on large institutions creates intellectual laziness, a herd mentality and always leads to powerless bureaucracies or oppression. Institutions are not the driving force of long term positive change in this world, rather the oppression of man. Therefore, it is important to recognize that we must focus on those things where consensus can be reached and fight against those things that create oppression. Our founding fathers knew this oh so well. George Washington could have been President for life, but he stepped aside knowing even the best intentions lead to problems down the road. The Tea Party Movement is not one looking to grab power, but rather decentralize power for the purpose of limiting oppression and instilling the liberties our country once knew.
The Philosophy of Liberty
This is a wonderful representation of how we need to start with the basics and throw out the layers of "good intentions" in this world. The only fight worth fighting is to fight for 3 fundamental human rights - protection of all life, liberty (freedom from oppression), and property.
Monday, July 13, 2009
No Such Thing as Left and Right
The terms left and right have their origins in the French Revolution. The left were the social collectivist revolutionaries that ended the Revolution with a Reign of Terror and ultimately the formation of a Dictatorship. The right were the ones that favored a constitutional monarchy and individual rights. Many of those on the right eventually lost their heads in the guillotine to the left. These terms have morphed over the years to mean liberal (social collectivists or progressives) on the left and conservative (traditionalists or individualists) on the right. Regardless of the nuances of definition, the idea of a continuum from left to right does not paint a complete picture of competing philosophies. A more accurate portrayal of how philosophy intersects with government style work better on a two dimension XY axis chart. The X axis is the difference between respect for the individual vs the desire for social conformity. Regardless if the social conformity is racist, classist, religious or nationalist it always has the same effect, benefit to some, oppression for others. Not to say there is not danger on the opposite extreme where respect for the individual taken to the extreme can lead to an anything goes situation unless there is consensus among individuals as to what "rules" apply to all. Therefore, you can not have a good understanding of left and right unless you input the idea of centralized vs decentralized authority on the y axis. The reason is, whatever a persons ideology is of utopia, there either needs to be consensus or forced consensus to move towards the ideology. The authority moves from decentralized to centralized.
An example of the continuum is the individual, family, extended family, neighborhood, church, community group, the town, the township, the county, the state, confederation of states, country, confederation of countries, world. I have noted some examples of various groups, presidents and philosophies to give and understanding of the axis. Note that Fascism is not the same as Communism. There are different nuances to the 2 philosophies, but the outcomes are similar - centralized authority which creates oppression to a group or groups of people. Not everyone will agree on each President's place along the axis, but it is good thought provoking exercise. I challenge people to read history on the reign of Woodrow Wilson and his personal philosophy and contrast that to someone like Mussolini. The similarities are eerie.
Looking beyond left and right it is very important, because of the consequences to those philosophies. Centralized most often move with left philosophies and right philosophies to remain pure must stay within decentralized governments.
The United States was originally founded as a confederation of states, but was too decentralized to insure protecting the liberties of those within and between the states. The US Constitution was the answer to balancing between individual liberties, states rights and a uniquely American Country culture. Unfortunately, our country has moved right to left and from top to bottom throughout the years to a point there are some very real similarities between our current political system and a classic fascist government.
An example of the continuum is the individual, family, extended family, neighborhood, church, community group, the town, the township, the county, the state, confederation of states, country, confederation of countries, world. I have noted some examples of various groups, presidents and philosophies to give and understanding of the axis. Note that Fascism is not the same as Communism. There are different nuances to the 2 philosophies, but the outcomes are similar - centralized authority which creates oppression to a group or groups of people. Not everyone will agree on each President's place along the axis, but it is good thought provoking exercise. I challenge people to read history on the reign of Woodrow Wilson and his personal philosophy and contrast that to someone like Mussolini. The similarities are eerie.Looking beyond left and right it is very important, because of the consequences to those philosophies. Centralized most often move with left philosophies and right philosophies to remain pure must stay within decentralized governments.
The United States was originally founded as a confederation of states, but was too decentralized to insure protecting the liberties of those within and between the states. The US Constitution was the answer to balancing between individual liberties, states rights and a uniquely American Country culture. Unfortunately, our country has moved right to left and from top to bottom throughout the years to a point there are some very real similarities between our current political system and a classic fascist government.
Friday, July 10, 2009
Say No to Common Good
"Common Good" is at best a Noble Lie at worst a prevarication. What is good for one, is rarely good for all. "Common Good" is a man made tool to control behavior, make people sacrifice something or take something away from them. Unlike "Common Good", Universal Good is a Divine Truth with 3 principals - the protection of life, liberty and property of each individual human. Also known as the Natural Laws of Man and the basis for our Declaration of Independence.
The "Common Good" tool is used to sacrifice all or part of a Universal Good. Entitlements, progressive taxation, "sin taxes", the draft, Obama's volunteer bill, price fixing, stimulus packages, universal health care, are just a few examples of legislation under the guises of "Common Good".
The Hippocratic oath says "do no harm". This oath taken by physicians, obviously does not apply to politicians. "Common Good" legislation always ends up hurting someone, sometimes the very people it was intended to help. Once governments trys to protect anything outside the Universal Good, they become oppressive. "Common Good" is politicians way to excuse themselves from responsibility for their actions as they manipulate people into sacrifice, service or obligation. "Common Good" is code for "I am about to infringe upon your life, liberty or property, for my personal idea of Utopia".
Rather than sacrificing for the "Common Good", I am asking you to fight for the Universal Good of the protection of Life, Liberty and Property. As Edmond Burke said, all that is necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.
The "Common Good" tool is used to sacrifice all or part of a Universal Good. Entitlements, progressive taxation, "sin taxes", the draft, Obama's volunteer bill, price fixing, stimulus packages, universal health care, are just a few examples of legislation under the guises of "Common Good".
The Hippocratic oath says "do no harm". This oath taken by physicians, obviously does not apply to politicians. "Common Good" legislation always ends up hurting someone, sometimes the very people it was intended to help. Once governments trys to protect anything outside the Universal Good, they become oppressive. "Common Good" is politicians way to excuse themselves from responsibility for their actions as they manipulate people into sacrifice, service or obligation. "Common Good" is code for "I am about to infringe upon your life, liberty or property, for my personal idea of Utopia".
Rather than sacrificing for the "Common Good", I am asking you to fight for the Universal Good of the protection of Life, Liberty and Property. As Edmond Burke said, all that is necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.
Thursday, July 9, 2009
Greed vs Avarice
The term greed is used ad nauseam by populist politicians and others wanting to denigrate the idea of mans natural desire to better themselves. Where it becomes a negative is only when it comes at the detriment of others. That word is not greed but avarice.
Avarice means covetousness. In other words accumulating wealth through control, manipulation, fraud and force of others. It is not the desire for more that is the problem, it is the desire for more to the detriment of others that is the sin.
Capitalism is based on the desire for more, but has nothing to do with avarice. Capitalists know avarice is damaging in the long run to the capitalist system and is seldom practiced. For this reason, institutional avarice seldom occurs in the private sector for very long. However, avarice rears its ugly head in the Public sector constantly.
Let me be clear. There are crooks and flawed people that allow money to control them to the point of harming others rights or property. But in the private sector, this is the exception, not the rule in a free society. The only place where avarice is allowed to flourish unfettered is in the Government. To better understand that point, look at all the legislation that penalizes success, redistribution of wealth with the progressive tax code, all the entitlements for only certain people of a ethnic, racial, economic, and even sometimes political standing. Note the report that came out today that counties that voted for the Democrat candidate for President in the last election are averaging double the stimulus money per person as those states that voted for the Republican candidate. Conspiracy - no, ideological favoritism and avarice - yes.
Avarice appears to be a corner stone of certain economic philosophies. Socialism uses class warfare, Fascism uses ethnic or labor divisiveness, Keynesian's use the "we know better" for the "better good" position. All display avarice. When the individual is dehumanized into the collective, avarice runs a muck. Avarice is that utopia where man gets to play a god and determine who gets what.
The next time someone says you are greedy, ask them, if they know the difference between greed and avarice.
Avarice means covetousness. In other words accumulating wealth through control, manipulation, fraud and force of others. It is not the desire for more that is the problem, it is the desire for more to the detriment of others that is the sin.
Capitalism is based on the desire for more, but has nothing to do with avarice. Capitalists know avarice is damaging in the long run to the capitalist system and is seldom practiced. For this reason, institutional avarice seldom occurs in the private sector for very long. However, avarice rears its ugly head in the Public sector constantly.
Let me be clear. There are crooks and flawed people that allow money to control them to the point of harming others rights or property. But in the private sector, this is the exception, not the rule in a free society. The only place where avarice is allowed to flourish unfettered is in the Government. To better understand that point, look at all the legislation that penalizes success, redistribution of wealth with the progressive tax code, all the entitlements for only certain people of a ethnic, racial, economic, and even sometimes political standing. Note the report that came out today that counties that voted for the Democrat candidate for President in the last election are averaging double the stimulus money per person as those states that voted for the Republican candidate. Conspiracy - no, ideological favoritism and avarice - yes.
Avarice appears to be a corner stone of certain economic philosophies. Socialism uses class warfare, Fascism uses ethnic or labor divisiveness, Keynesian's use the "we know better" for the "better good" position. All display avarice. When the individual is dehumanized into the collective, avarice runs a muck. Avarice is that utopia where man gets to play a god and determine who gets what.
The next time someone says you are greedy, ask them, if they know the difference between greed and avarice.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)