Lately I’ve been kicking around various statist ideas. If I were to create my own political movement, this is what I would want the platform to look like, calling it the Social Governance Movement or SOGOV:
(A) Anti-War
Opposition to all forms of armed conflict, not necessarily never engaging in any as a majority party itself but making war “uncool” politically, where populists and imperialistic statists oft whip the public into a bloodthirsty frenzy over “the enemy” and his actions. I think this is socially irresponsible on the part of a government. Who wants to live in a society of people who generalize entire nations of other people, after all? We’ll try to change that.
(B) Lower taxes
Taxation, if but a necessary evil, must fluctuate with the economy. During times of stable and continuous economic growth, taxes might be allowed to rise. But during recessions, anything short of lowering taxes is obscene for a number of reasons. The program calls for the elimination of most State-sponsored registration fees and other barriers to market entry for entrepreneurs and innovators. It also cites the total elimination of capital-gains taxes and more specifically taxes on derivatives in the market. Tax brackets are to be lowered. Progressive taxation is a sound concept, but it must not punish success and it must not punish the middle and working classes for their lot in life.
(C) No welfare for Too Big To Fail corporations
This one is tricky. If you oppose the evenly-rotating economy then this pillar of SOGOV doesn’t matter. But to those for whom it is relevant, indefinitely propping up or propping up at all failed businesses I think is obscene and a completely irrelevant business strategy. Loaning your buddy’s carpet business that makes shitty carpets is not going to make his carpets better. And you, as a loan officer, really have no idea how to make carpets, so you really aren’t in a position to tell the man how to better produce his product. Hence, why nationalization has no special advantage over private enterprise, other than to tap into a wellspring of government debt, which by the way, shouldn’t exist either.
(D) Mostly laissez-faire towards economy
In agreement with neoclassical and specifically Austrian thinking, consumer confidence might be restored in a recession more quickly if people had a larger share of take-home pay. Along with that, businesses more money to make investments with, which as everyone knows is good for mostly everything. Demand management is best left up to the people whose sole purpose is measuring and wagering on profits. Trade barriers must be lowered, if not eliminated completely. Trade agreements might be renegotiated. We also propose curtailing the monetary powers of the Federal Reserve to control inflation. Artificial inflation or supressed inflation due to interest-rate flimflammery is, oft times, of to absolutely no benefit by itself on the economy. And by “mostly” laissez-faire, I will address later, implies subsidies for two major things… alternative energy R&D and environmentally-conscious business operations.
(E) Proactive welfare & unemployment policy
Another tricky one. Do you think welfare creates dependency? I do. Most of us do. But while the mantlepiece of SOGOV is that it is non-interventionist with markets, there is a softer.. more egalitarian… and quite frankly humane element to the program. We suggest enacting massive tax-cuts during recession, and deficit spending specifically on welfare programs. Why would one do this? Well, there are quite a few advantages if you stand back and look at it: In recession, the price of many commodities might fall dramatically, reflecting lower consumer demand and devalued stocks. Coupling that with more supplemental income from the government, people would have a little more security and a little pocket change to either save and have it collect interest, or spend in the market which in turn would increase investor confidence and eventually kick-start hiring for the private sector once the ball was rolling again. We say that if a government fancies itself apt to manage a national economy, it should know when to cut the imbilical cord on consumers. Once the economy is calculated and more-or-less unanimously agreed upon to be growing with an onset of job creation, welfare and unemployment will basically cease to exist. Welfare is a life-line, not a life-style.
(F) Alternative energy R&D and environmental consciousness
A boon for eco-communists? Think again! SOGOV’s purpose in this market intervention is to promote an advancement for the private sector, not to take the credit or control people’s lives. Instead of punishing those who fail to live up to specifications, SOGOV will reward those who do… with grants, preferential loan treatment, etc. And will phase out subsidies once and if alternative energy and environmentally-conscious self-management by corporations gain demand in the market.
(G) Audit the Fed
Yes, this is self-explanatory.
(H) Not legislating morality
We oppose all positive legislation that attempts to define, arrange, or prohibit the behavior of citizens in such a manner that is clearly anti-Libertarian and reduces good men and women to second class citizens. This includes gay marriage, drug usage, and sex acts, among other things. The spirit of this pillar is dedicated to freedom of action by way of thy neighbor’s non-interference in one’s own life. If one is not causing some sort of damage to his or her fellow citizens, such laws are entirely obscene and inappropriate displays of power-play by a tyrannical majority and their tyrannical representatives.
More to come… What do you think?
