Hi Everyone,
This is my first post on this site, and also I’ve yet to explore the resources and threads contained within. I felt compelled to write here for a few reasons not least because I would like to expand my own understanding of certain issues and also I would liked to be challenged and critiqued by those with overlapping interests.
I would like to give you some context of what I have written below. First off I’m an investor, not particularly old or experienced at the tender age of 29. Secondly I am a strong believer in what Ron Paul is attempting to achieve in mainstream American politics and greatly respect the man for his intellectual rigor, tact and perserverence. My journey began when I wanted greater understanding of economic ideas so I could develop more accurate predictive tools. I found that one of Jim Roger’s book resonated with me several years ago, which in turn led me to search out persons with similar track records and ways of analysis (usually centered around monetary policy). Individuals like Marc Faber and Peter Schiff stood out for me with their track records and suddenly this common term ‘Austrian Economics’ started turning up. Of course this eventually brought Ron Paul to my attention and re-ignited my interest in political theory. While I don’t claim to be an academic or have a deep understanding of various schools of thought and thinkers, my opinions are starting to become quite defined and I wish to see if I’m making conclusions too hastily. Anyway I was commenting on Politico the other day after a story ran titled ’ Super PACs And Secret Money: The Unregulated Shadow Campaign’. I preceded to have a ongoing conversation with a supporter of the Democrats. We had a very pleasant exchange and both agreed that Crony Capitalism was a serious problem after each posting many examples. Of course his support of a mainstream party, and mine for Ron Paul, meant that philosophically we were oceans apart. I started writing my final post to make this point however it went on and one and on, and it became more of intellectual exercise of where my true philosophical, economic, and political positions presently stood. It became apparent that it really was too long and possibly innapropriate for Politico. What I hope is that this knowledgeable audience would kindly read through my flow of consciousness below. I would really appreciate any comments on any topics whatsoever as I’ve packed a few in:
@Exhale,
Thanks for your response. Yes I believe we are very close in our recognition of the nasty symptoms we see in the economy because of Government collusion with private businesses. Where I think we differ just slightly is possibly the surface causes of these harmful activities. However where I know we differ hugely is in our underlying philosophic views and the overall remedies we would prescribe. I am very much a believer that a free market capitalist system is the most efficient distributor of goods and services (there is little doubt about this in my opinion). Certainly Government intervention causes imbalances to this system that can be very damaging however I am not an extreme ideologue so I will not totally dismiss a partially mixed economy at this present time. I am also, like the founding fathers of our nation, concerned with individual liberty (not the ‘freedom’ currently exported by our government, which is poorly conceptualized and framed within strict Authoritarian parameters) and the rights of the individual. I do not feel that Big Government can solve these problems because it is in its nature to cause them, hence why I am not an advocate of either the Republican or Democrat parties or their narrow policy solutions. Centralization of power often leads to a ‘might is right’ situation where coercion is exercised and the inalienable rights of the individual are subordinated. I see to current two-party political system as coercion to a great extent particularly as laws and institutions which an individual is subjugate to, and which clearly infringe upon his personal liberties, could be in effect because of the ill-advised and Unconstitutional decisions of Government representatives of the distant past, such as Woodrow Wilson greatly increasing the Authoritarianism of the State during a 5 year period almost 100 years ago.
I would like to point out that despite ascribing to the thinking of the of Economics I draw a line with regards to some of its full philosophical and political extensions. Some of the intellectuals in this field advocate Anarcho-Capitalism as a workable and preferable system. Personally I am highly skeptical of this because of its incompatibility with my views on liberty, in fact I believe without any Government whatsoever we would soon revert back to large groups, in their many forms, which almost always aggrandize power and look to expand whilst at the same time subordinating the individual. These conditions again would naturally infringe on personal sovereignty, barring a mystical universal enlightenment suddenly permeating all mankind thus morally informing the types of groups formed and magically altering all traditional collective behavior dynamics. Also typical of much human dogma there are a few absolutist assumptions made; Authoritarians also always have a cynical view of human nature, while Anarchists optimistically see humans as inherently peaceful and rational. The truth lies somewhere in between and is reliably more transient. Anarchists also tend to ignore the very important behavioral characteristics of groups. For instance it is certainly within the realm of possibility, and precedence, that five thousand relatively peaceful and rational individuals could by alliance to a Group alter their individual nature to a dramatically different collectivist value system. I would like to point out that I feel Austrian Economists and advocates of Free Market Capitalism are totally correct in their instincts about Government and are right to reject it on the grounds that it coercively enforces rule against subjects (Democracy is simply a better and more palatable collectivist system than others). Importantly however these same philosophers whilst excellent at providing worthwhile and perceptive critiques of the current systems of Government become very lazy and ‘pie-in-the-sky’ when presenting their own political ideals. Certainly this seems true of the Austrian Economist Rothbard who termed the concept Anarcho-Capitalism.
The truth is no system will be perfect but the one proposed by the founding fathers of very Limited Government, bound by a social contract called the Constitution, is I believe the most pragmatic compromise and one that strikes a fine balance between prosperity, security and individual liberty. Ron Paul has deep idealistic philosophies but he is certainly also a pragmatist well aware of the direction he is going and the practical steps necessary to get there, not to mention the final outcome (including its potential problems). I feel his key goal has always been the development of independent thought which is something largely subverted in the current collectivist culture. Ron Paul also understands that this intellectual autonomy is the best tonic for real and lasting transition to what he feels would be a far healthier society. Importantly he is also not some naïve idealist that would immediately remove all apparatus of government if given the chance, and then expect individual liberties and happiness to flourish from Capitalism alone. That’s why he advocates in America a shared social context with a common culture stemming from the Christian values of the Ten Commandments (noble ones indeed) combined with a rejection of tyranny, that serve to inform the documented approvals enshrined within the Constitution (further guiding all further approvals in the form of laws) that limits the power of Government. This model of Limited Government would be an Agency of Liberty in a fairly workable sense. And why is liberty considered above all other rights? Well individual sovereignty is quite possibly the only thing that all individuals hold of very high and near equal value.
The key for me is the maintenance of these values. Most likely this would have to take place through education (private) of citizens, and hopefully lead to the venerating of those individuals that fully understand and adhere to these philosophic and intellectual principles. The further hope is the identification of the best custodians (Men like Ron Paul) to safeguard against the continual threat of the Government Group trying to expand and thereby subjugate. This expansion happens most often in times of crisis, and even with what I think is a vastly more stable model than what we have today, these moments of crisis will no doubt come again. How can this be averted? Some would say that as a species we would eventually revert to the corruption of collectivism especially as a Constitutional Republic still retains the structural trappings of Patriarchal Government – and our own history perhaps suggests as much. In my view this does not mean we should passively accept the fate of increasing Authoritarianism (which often self-destructs from one form into slightly different manifestations), but aim for as much freedom from tyranny as can be attained and considers how these ideas and philosophic and political principles can be better entrenched whilst at the same time avoiding any coercive activities to do so. This is the challenge I’m interested in addressing.
I feel that eastern traditions of mindfulness meditation (currently gaining popularity in ) will help in reducing actions fuelled by negative emotional states (anger, greed, jealousy, revenge, hatred) which most often lead to very negative and hastily contrived outcomes. Also contemporary economic schools of thought could perhaps consider Value Creation, no doubt important in a world of finite resources, as a far more central principle of economic activities instead of Output, Consumption and Growth; I know a couple of impressive contemporary thinkers who make this very compelling case from a marketing, sustainable business and behavioral psychology standpoint. So clearly I accept that not all proposals for liberty and prosperity came unequivocally from a small group of men over 200 years ago though unabashedly I would say it remains one of the greatest documents devised by human intelligence and it should be honored as it was meant to be. I would like to be honest and say that I don’t know with certainty all of the missing pieces for this pragmatic Utopia but I’m optimistic they can be found provided a common goal can be set for all the participants: that liberty be utmost in all considerations and power remains primarily with the people, not the government.
Ron Paul describes himself as a ‘Volunteerist’ and some take this to be a synonym for Anarcho-Capitalist. I don’t believe this to be true whatsoever as the man himself usually calls a spade a spade (despite how unpopular what he says may be), and I think his choice of language was very deliberate. By Voluteerism he obviously insinuates that all persons have the full and complete free choice of participation as opposed to coercion from a federal power backed with the threat of punishment. Obviously the most practival way to deliver this at present is through the devolved power of government to a local level, these local jurisdictions would be the states. This competition of ideas would mean movement of population to the state they most agree with and the results of this experimentation will be evident to all. If an individual wants to sign up for redistribution of his/her wealth and welfarism then they simply move to a state with taxes and entitlement programs (perhaps with a sound currency it would be a tolerable and efficient form of Social Democracy). Its very unlikely however that many job creating individuals would remain in these jurisdictions, and no doubt the lower income persons so fond of this forcible redistribution of wealth will become less enamored with the prospect, thus exposing the true fallacy of Socialist ideas (most less wealthy individuals accept the idea that they are entitled to the property of others especially those with greater wealth, however the reverse is rarely true). Other states with more laissez-faire business environments could flourish in comparison thus leading to the migration of people and capital, hopefully setting an example to others.
This competition between states would also provide an obvious testing ground for issues such as drug legalization, which I feel would be the only current road of compromise. Many Americans still feel that the success stories of Portugal or Holland are not compelling reasons at all, and this is also in spite of the views of the present US drugs Czar. What answers have I received for this skepticism? ‘ is different’ and ‘what works there won’t work here’. Obviously rational debate does not lead the agenda on such matters of perceived morality, which are also again permeated by the collectivist thinking of ‘these laws are not for me, because I wouldn’t take these horrible drugs even if they were legal, but we need them to protect others from themselves’.
Overall though, is this the roadmap to success that we should look for? Anything that elevates liberty would appear to be a worthwhile experiment. How we prevent its gradual erosion from ever expanding Groups even at a state level is another matter all together……….. But I believe we should never accept absolute short-term stability at the expense of freedom no matter the risks.
I promise I’ll only kill or imprison them if they resist or try to abolish me.