Little Tirade

My friend Greg wrote a comment replying to my Peanuts post. I ripped off a little tirade in response, but I thought it was too long to post as comment, so I'm turning it into a new post. You may want to read his comment here to get a little more understanding of the incoherent rambling in this post. I did respond to his comment with a snarky little quip. Here (in a slightly altered form) is the tirade:

Contrary to what some people may think, I am not of the opinion that if only we had Ronald Reagan back as president we could all live in some euphoric Ayn Randian utopia. Nor am I of the opinion that Obama is going to usher in an era of peace and joy. Liberals tend to think that I am a right wing nut, and conservatives think I'm a left wing nut. I have no simple answers. It is the simple answers which generally frustrate me.

The post entitled All or Nothing points out that government programs are not all bad - it is good to have safety nets. The problem in the US is that we have the bad side of liberalism (big brother, high taxes) and the bad side of capitalism (no support from the government for the poor and needy).

The post on health care makes the same point - give us free trade or give us the benefits of government-controlled trade, ie let the government help the people. The simple argument that the conservatives make that "free market makes health care better" is simply a deluded or dishonest assessment of American health care.

I don't subscribe to the "the free market will solve all our problems" mantra. Nor do I subscribe to the "Government will solve all our problems" mantra. We are condemned to live this life in a state of struggle. Republicans want you to think that they will give us utopia. But dominating the federal government from 2001 - 2007, they did almost nothing towards improving either government or society. The Democrats have their chance again now, and I don't have a lot of hope that they will do much better. Libertarians think that they can do better, but they, too, will be corrupted by power if they ever get it. To have any hope in government, we must constantly battle it back. The government is like water - we need it to live, but if we don't shield ourselves from it, it can drown us.

I don't buy the argument that the financial mess is due to too little (or too much) regulation - I think it is due to a system that is inherently messed up. But that system is implemented and supported by the government. It is a system, much like the medical industry, which the government does in fact control, but people pretend it is free. The government injects capital into the system, manipulates interest rates, and encourages, discourages, requires or forbids many behaviors that would happen in a genuinely free system. People who are already "in" the system know the ropes, and can use the system to their own benefit. And those people will tell you that this is the free market, and it is the fairest way of doing things. But an honest eye will tell you that it is not a free market.

Claiming that either too much or too little government regulation has been the cause of the collapse of our financial system is just a badge of honor according to the side of the debate you happen to stand on. It misses the point entirely. Both contentions are untrue, because both contentions are based on an artificial and incorrect model of what the financial system really is. But regardless of the causes, we now can make a choice - we can either call ourselves capitalists and free marketeers and let the system sort itself out, or we can call ourselves socialists and let the government take over the failing institutions and create a giant safety net for everyone. What we will in fact do is much worse than either of those choices. We will claim to be capitalist free marketeers, while the government throws about money that it doesn't have with abandon, while the government prevents the free trade between farmers and customers, while the government regulates thrift shops and small toy makers out of existence (http://cpsia-central.ning.com/profiles/blogs/cspia-and-nais), while the government restricts constitutionally ensured freedoms. France is the favored punching bag of the right because of their socialist tendencies, but the government does give in return for what it takes. Which do you prefer, that system or a feudal tyrant, taking what it wants from the serfs, letting them keep at best a meager living, and giving nothing in return. I have the feeling that our taxes are something like protection money - pay it so your windows don't get broke.

In any case, it is a bit of a baffling work of logic to suggest that "people are evil in groups" and "it is clear that regulations favor the wealthy" then suggest that the biggest group going - the government that created the regulations in the first place - would fix the industry through further regulation. We cannot use regulations to create a perfect system, and an unregulated system will not purify itself. The system in question is a system designed for the purpose of amassing wealth. To use regulation to force it to distribute wealth defeats the purpose of the system. To remove all regulations from the system allows the powerful to take by force all that they want from the weak, and it is the very purpose of the civilization to prevent that.

Under Bush's watchful eye, we took the worst possible route to solve our financial trouble - we handed stupid quantities of money to the incompetent people whose failing companies were the cause of the larger economic meltdown, which they in turn used to pay themselves bonuses while firing many of the people in the bottom rungs of the companies who had performed their jobs dutifully for years. This is the perfect case of a corrupt capitalist. I am not surprised that Bush took this path, but I am surprised that there were so few conservative voices screaming from the rooftops against this outrage. Of course, most of the mouthpieces of the conservative movement either directly benefited, or are in the pockets of those who benefited from that abominable theft of funds from American coffers. If Bush really supported the rights of the unborn, he would never have saddled them with the debt he did.

Under Obama, we are getting the next worst path - spend stupid quantities of money in various wasteful and unhelpful ways. I am disappointed that Obama has not taken a more conservative path. I've been wanting to give him the benefit of the doubt, but this economic plan that he has promoted is not encouraging.

Greg's summary question was "what kind of system will give individuals, groups, and our collective body the freedom to do as much good as they want, while inhibiting as much evil as possible?"

I would propose that this is the wrong question. There are certain evils that we can inhibit, but in general, it is the role of the government not to inhibit evil, so much as define and punish it. The government cannot measure the hearts of men, only their actions. Laws should exist for the purpose of drawing the lines around unacceptable actions, and responding to those who choose to step over those lines. Laws should make it clear what actions are unacceptable. But in general, the government should not "inhibit" evil. Discourage, perhaps, but not inhibit. The law should not say "you can't have a gun, because you might use it to shoot someone." Rather, the law should say "you can't shoot someone, and if you do, you will face harsh consequences."

The former approach attempts to make it impossible for someone to commit a crime. It means that all people, whether or not they are inclined to do evil, are constrained by the law. The latter approach assumes that most people will remain within the limits of the law, whether due to adherence to a moral constraint, or fear of the consequences of the law. It means that only those who are inclined to do evil are constrained by the law. It means that people can be free.

The choice is to build a cage around the crime, or building a cage around the people. Either way, the bad guys are going to cut the fence and commit the crime. But in one case, we give people freedom with a few exceptions (do not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil). In the other case we put everyone in prisons, and slide under the bars the few things that we have approved for their use.