Statist Paternalism

Amit Ghate points to this description of paternalism written by Tocqueville in the 1830's in this Mark Steye editorial. Here is what Amit had to say about this quote,"I've never seen a more apt and eloquent characterization, and I particularly like how he differentiates what a father does from what a "paternal" state does." Here's the quote:

Over these is elevated an immense, tutelary power, which takes sole charge of assuring their enjoyment and of watching over their fate. It is absolute, attentive to detail, regular, provident, and gentle. It would resemble the paternal power if, like that power, it had as its object to prepare men for manhood, but it seeks, to the contrary, to keep them irrevocably fixed in childhood … it provides for their security, foresees and supplies their needs, guides them in their principal affairs…

The sovereign extends its arms about the society as a whole; it covers its surface with a network of petty regulations—complicated, minute, and uniform—through which even the most original minds and the most vigorous souls know not how to make their way… it does not break wills; it softens them, bends them, and directs them; rarely does it force one to act, but it constantly opposes itself to one's acting on one's own … it does not tyrannize, it gets in the way: it curtails, it enervates, it extinguishes, it stupefies, and finally reduces each nation to being nothing more than a herd of timid and industrious animals, of which the government is the shepherd.

The sovereign "extends it's arm" with varying degrees. I have written a bit about the government holding a big stick in its extended arm, which is used liberally in India. So in a lot of countries, even the softening and bending would be a welcome relief. North Korea is another (extreme) example that comes to mind where one can't imagine anybody existing with their wills intact. The level of tyranny is mind boggling — the whole country is like a big concentration camp. Even more mind boggling is the indifference of the rest of the world. I guess most of the world is too busy trying not to get sucked into the same cesspool of totalitarianism. The response of the American government officially, is the suicidal policy of appeasement.

The "paternal state" has its origins in the monarchies founded in power, where the people are treated as the children of the king. We still hear about England's Queen mother — mother of the peasant masses is what it implies. Coming back to U.S., check this Paul Heish article in the Capitalism Magazine about King Obama's regulatory chief 's belief in libertarian paternalism:

The basic premise of libertarian paternalism is that the government should use its power to “nudge” people into acting in their best interest, while leaving them the choice to “opt out.” If the government decides that saving money is good, it would automatically divert a percentage of your paycheck into a savings account in your name unless you explicitly declined. Supporters claim that this preserves freedom because government is only changing the default, while leaving individuals the final choice. It is merely a gentle “nudge,” not a hard push.

However, nudging represents an assault on freedom, because it undermines man’s basic tool of survival — his mind. By creating a default, libertarian paternalism in essence says, “Don’t worry — we’ll do your thinking for you.” Sunstein’s book explicitly compares Americans to a bunch of Homer Simpsons in need of such guidance. If Americans surrender their minds to the government, they become easy prey for demagogues and dictators.

Paul goes on to say that,"every child knows that if you let a schoolyard bully get away with one seemingly harmless “nudge,” he will then escalate into shoving, then punching, then regular beatings." India is one perfect (or should I say horrible) example of that gentle Gandhi-Nehruvian socialist nudge escalating into a bone crunching beating of Nehru's daughter Indira Gandhi's emergency in 1977.

So is there no solution to this problem of overwhelming suffocation and oppression perpetuated by a group of people (government) on rest of us? Is it inevitable that the power corrupts and rest of us have to shrug, suffer, and swallow the bitter pill? No, we don't have to. Ayn Rand defined the nature of the government. She said that men can derive enormous benefits from dealing with one another but only on certain conditions.
The Nature of Government:

If men are to live together in a peaceful, productive, rational society and deal with one another to mutual benefit, they must accept the basic social principle without which no moral or civilized society is possible: the principle of individual rights.

To recognize individual rights means to recognize and accept the conditions required by man’s nature for his proper survival.

Man’s rights can be violated only by the use of physical force. It is only by means of physical force that one man can deprive another of his life, or enslave him, or rob him, or prevent him from pursuing his own goals, or compel him to act against his own rational judgment.

The precondition of a civilized society is the barring of physical force from social relationships—thus establishing the principle that if men wish to deal with one another, they may do so only by means of reason: by discussion, persuasion and voluntary, uncoerced agreement.

(December 1963)

“The Nature of Government,” from The Virtue of Selfishness by Ayn Rand.

Read more about Ayn Rand’s Philosophy.

Obama and Bernard Madoff

Most Americans have still not grasped the magnitude and the far-reaching effects of the national debt. Edward Cline makes an excellent attempt.

To grasp the magnitude of the national debt Obama (and his Republican predecessor) has been ringing up, a comparison should help illustrate the task. Bernard Madoff’s robbery and defrauding investors of some $50 billion can be represented by the diameter of the solar system. The federal government, using the same scamming tactics, is amassing a debt about the diameter of the Milky Way galaxy. Madoff’s scheme can be measured in millions of miles. The federal government's, in almost limitless parsecs. That measurement ought to suffice to dramatize the scale of the hole he is deliberately digging for the country in his role as Community-Organizer-in-Chief.

Where is all the money going to come from? From the productive Americans, who are going to work for Obama whether they like it or not. He has short-sold the American future.

That growing, astronomical debt, however, will serve to shrink the productive sector and make it less productive in exponential leaps and bounds -- off a cliff. It must inexorably reach a point that the productive sector can no longer sustain the debt it is expected to pay. Then we will have reached the economic status of, say, Zimbabwe.

Ed talks about the outraged cry of indignation by the media over Madoff's scam and yet they refuse to apply the same standards to the Obama administration. Why should they? They have become willing accomplices in this scam of horrendous proportions. It will deal a crushing blow to the American way of life - which is - you work hard, be honest, and you will make it big. Now people will work hard to pay-off Obama's debts.

What clashes with the news media coverage of Madoff’s trial, conviction and sentencing for his crime is the studied obtuseness of the news media for the same crime being committed by the government. Madoff, you see, was “greedy” or “avaricious,” and that, according to the morality of altruism and selflessness, is immoral and antisocial. The government, however, is committing the same crime, but that is in order to “do good.” So its orgy of debt-creation, its extortionate policies of roping all Americans into a “dog-eat-dog” welfare state, and its targeting the most productive and the wealthiest in society for special punishment, are all acceptable and laudable.

Even though the news media has knowledge of this multi-trillion dollar scam, that knowledge elicits not an iota of outrage among the photogenic news anchors and highly paid print pundits. No respectable TV or print journalist even thinks of the scam in terms of a continuing and expanding bilking of Americans from their wealth, investments and taxes.

Ed goes on to examine and explain the meaning of Obama's greeting on 4th of July. It is a revealing commentary on the thought process and ideology of a man who will go down in history as the most anti-American president ever. Recent polls have put Obama's popularity at 50%. So half of all Americans are in a state of denial and it's not clear whether the other half fully realises the gravity of the situation. There are some positive signs - the tea parties being organized across America and I take solace in knowing what Samuel Adams said:

"It does not take a majority to prevail... but rather an irate, tireless minority, keen on setting brushfires of freedom in the minds of men."

Amtrak and GM

Let’s learn from history and save free enterprise, before it’s too late!

In 1970, Congress partially nationalized and bailed out America’s passenger rail system for $340 million, forecasting that Amtrak would become profitable by 1975. But government officials, with zero transit experience, got involved in all decision-making. Unable to get tough on unions, they failed to rein in labor costs.
Since its creation 39 years ago, Amtrak has drained $30 billion from U.S. taxpayers. Last year Amtrak lost $1 billion on $2.5 billion in revenues.
So what did Congress do? Our representatives committed another $13 billion in taxpayer bailouts for Amtrak, suggesting that this new “stimulus” will finally “rebuild” Amtrak.
Ignoring this history, the U.S. government has basically nationalized General Motors — astonishingly reminiscent of the Amtrak debacle. The government’s Auto Task Force has zero auto experience, like the federal government’s 1970s Amtrak gang.
But this time we’re spending $50 billion in six months, more than we did in four decades with Amtrak. And the United Auto Workers union owns 17 percent of this new GM (Government Motors)!

Will America learn from Argentina?

Mary O'Grady gives a dire warning in this WSJ.com article "Kirchner vs. The Press" saying "give government 'crisis' power and you won't get it back." She gives the example of Argentina:

In the wake of the country's 2002 economic collapse, the Argentine Congress gave the executive immense powers on the grounds that the circumstances called for extraordinary government action.
Seven years later those powers have not been rescinded and the state dominates the economy as an owner and regulator. Argentina now faces the threat of a further consolidation of control by President Cristina Kirchner through means similar to those employed by Hugo Chávez. As in Venezuela, free speech and the free press are being targeted for increased repression.
Let this be a lesson to any modern democracy that cedes broad power to government in a time of crisis: Granting power to the executive is easy; getting it back isn't.

Today in America there are similarities which should alarm anybody not wanting America to go follow Argentina's authoritarian path. A little bit more from WSJ on Argentina:

Argentina has moved from democratic capitalism -- no matter how weak -- to an increasingly repressive and isolated state-controlled economic system. Property-rights protection has been eviscerated. Entrepreneurs have been cowed into silence by state threats of tax investigations and regulatory harassment. State-sponsored street thugs target businesses that resist the presidency's agenda.

We have already seen the shape of things to come with Banking sector and now with Auto sector. The way Chrysler's secured debt holders were treated can only be called fascist tactics. One of the debt holders was threatened by the White House to back off. WSJ further reports:

From his earliest days as president, Mr. Kirchner tried to keep media critics quiet by using the government's publicity budget to reward supporters and starve those outlets that dared to print criticism.

We have seen the reports of selective closing down of GM dealerships who had supported the Republicans in the elections. With bailouts in fashion and its arbitrary distribution, one financial institution is rescued and other is not. The financial regulations cause the chaos in the markets and then those very regulators decide who stays and who goes. The article also talks about Argentinian government's drafting of a new radio and television law that, if approved, seems sure to quash media freedom. With Obama having made his position clear on media consolidation it's not going to be long before he makes his move in this direction.

Bullion and Bandits

Bullion and Bandits: The Improbable Rise and Fall of E-Gold
E-Gold founder Doug Jackson wanted to solve the world's economic woes, but got an electronic ankle bracelet for his troubles. That's what you get for trying to “advance the material welfare of mankind.” Highly recommended.

Conservatives and liberals- Are they any different?

In my last post "Conservatism- Intellectual backbone wanted" I wrongly assumed that Conservatism could be backed by an intellectual backbone. In his comment on the same post Burgess Laughlin said:

Conservatism, by definition, opposes capitalism. Conservat-ISM is an ideology, the ideology that holds four values as its guide: God (or religion generally), Tradition, Nation, and Family (as in "family values"). Philosophically these values mean supernaturalism, mysticism, and altruism. The step from those to statism is very short -- and it usually involves the nationalistic sort of statism.

Today I read an article "Are you a conservative or a liberal? by Linn and Ari Armstrong which addresses the issue of what exactly do conservative and liberal tags actually mean. They define both as:

What does it mean to be a conservative? Many of the same conservatives who claim to support free markets and liberty also endorse economic protectionism, censorship, welfare spending, corporate welfare, immigration restrictions, prohibitions of various substances and activities that violate nobody's rights, abortion bans, and so on.

Liberalism, one might think, has something to do with liberty. Yet today's liberals endorse political economic planning on a vast scale. They typically want to forcibly redistribute more wealth, impose controls on private property, and impose more “enlightened” forms of censorship.

Many of today's conservatives and liberals find common cause in the belief that politicians should largely control your life.

The above description renders the tags meaningless as they both lead to the same thing- a mixed Government. Armstrong's also mention Thomas Paine's discussions with Edmund Burke in his "Rights of Man" where Paine defines mixed government as:

A mixed government is an imperfect everything, cementing and soldering the discordant parts together by corruption, to act as a whole. In the mixed Government there is no responsibility: the parts cover each other till responsibility is lost; and the corruption then moves the machine, contrives at the same time its own escape.

Paine goes on to offer the alternative.

But in a well-constituted republic, nothing of this soldering, praising, and pitying, can take place; the representation being equal throughout the country, and complete in itself, however it maybe into legislative ans executive, they all have one and the same natural source. The parts are not foreigners to each other, like democracy, aristocracy, and monarchy. As there are no discordant distinctions, there is nothing to corrupt by compromise, nor confound by contrivance.

In the end nobody says it better than Ayn Rand who is quoted by the authors as saying:

“The basic and crucial political issue of our age is: capitalism versus socialism, or freedom versus statism. For decades, this issue has been silenced, suppressed, evaded, and hidden under the foggy, undefined rubber-terms of ‘conservatism' and ‘liberalism' which had lost their original meaning and could be stretched to mean all things to all men.”

George Reisman on demise of GM

Reisman in this post discusses the demise General Motors. He talks about it's glorious history.

It was once not only the world’s greatest and most prosperous automobile company but the world’s greatest and most prosperous manufacturing company. Its success, wealth, and economic power, were symbolic of the success, wealth, and economic power of the United States.

He mentions the reasons for this devastating and depressing loss. He talks about the unfortunate election of the wealth redistributive Obama. Isn't it ironic that the politicians who talk about redistributing wealth are the ones who ultimately cause it's destruction and in the end there is nothing left to distribute. They are like leaches whose bellies are never full and they never drop off. They are the parasites who destroy their host. That's why the countries who choose this path of anti-capitalism have a dark future. We have seen this time and again but it's the ignorance and denial which makes sure that history will keep repeating itself.

I suggest reading George Reisman's Capitalism: A Treatise on Economics. A free pdf replica is available for download. I am reading this book and I can tell you that reading economics with an Objectivist angle (Reisman knew Ayn Rand) is quite unique and illuminating.

Reismans blog is back on blogger. Read about Google's stupid handling of the whole affair.

More Privacy Laws Don't Mean More Privacy Techdirt:
"from the think-this-through dept
There's evidence that we're about to see a big new push in 'privacy' laws at both the state and federal level, and while privacy is important, these laws often do the exact opposite of what they're intended to do."

China warns Federal Reserve over 'printing money' - Telegraph: "China warns Federal Reserve over 'printing money'
China has warned a top member of the US Federal Reserve that it is increasingly disturbed by the Fed's direct purchase of US Treasury bonds."
(via Instapundit)

Free-market capitalist system is the best medicine

An epidemic of cerebral sclerosis: "By RANDY ALCORN — May 26, 2009
While honest debate can be effective in gaining understanding and finding solutions, debate today has too often become a competition of rigid ideologies among adamantine adherents who believe that they have found the ultimate, universal, truth in some grand philosophical doctrine."

This my response to the above article:

I agree with Ted Potts's comment. I live in India where for almost 50 years people suffered due to the socialist agenda of the country. The country saw a huge movement of brain-drain where best of country's talent-doctors, engineers all left for the western countries. In last decade or so with reforms taking place and even with half-hearted moves towards a free-market system we have seen an unprecedented levels of prosperity. I work on a poultry farm where the laborers 10 years ago were barely able to buy food and clothing are now carrying cell-phones, wear western clothing and use DVD players.

It is the current US governments agenda which is driving people back to their home countries. The author implies that freedom causes casualties without any substance. The health-insurance he talks about has become so necessary only because of the socialized medicine. It is the lack of freedom in the health-care which is causing misery and death. Even in India in big cities where the government allows private hospitals (most rural areas have pathetic govt. hospitals) it is very affordable to consult and get treated by the top doctors (some who have practised in US before). The Insurance is still cheap (free competition).

How do you know that free-market capitalist system is not the apex of perfection? It has not been seen by the last few generations. Can you imagine if there was no interference from agencies like FDA and other what kind of discoveries and cures which will be unleashed. Unlike now where thousands die waiting for trials of drugs to fully satisfy the govt. agencies.

Your last sentence needs close scrutiny. "We need open minds, uncluttered by doctrine, uncoupled from selfish special interests, and free to explore new possibilities and find pragmatic solutions." Open minds-but not to reason, uncluttered by Doctrine-even the right one? uncoupled from selfish interest-even if selfishness is a virtue? As for pragmatism, I will quote Rand here,"in pragmatist’s universe, there are no absolutes. There are no facts, no fixed laws of logic, no certainty, no objectivity".

What we need is logic, certainty and objectivity in a very healthy dose to fix the enormous problems of the medical and the political field in America.

Government: Our Thigh Master

Obama's penchant for control is becoming both ridiculous and extreme. In this article Government: Our Thigh Master from The Kalamazoo Objectivist it is becoming obvious that this administration will stop at nothing in trying to exercise control over what Americans eat, drink, spend, when they spend it, let them earn enough to spend it, breathe (CO2 you know). I could go on and on, but this should be enough to give any freedom loving American nightmares.

Mainstream Press Treachery

Canada Free Press has this article about the treachery of American mainstream press. It raises some important points about the lack of balanced reporting. The press in America totally veers towards the leftist view point with no pretense of fair reporting. It says:

Honest unbiased reporting in the American news room has been so absent for so long that most Americans now seek information elsewhere. Americans no longer trust the free press to be their eyes and ears, to keep them abreast of the facts needed to make intelligent decisions about daily life or politics. Sadly, at this moment in history, even Russia has a more reliable free press than America. If Americans don’t read foreign news sources, they have no clue what is going on in their own country, much less the world.

It also mentions some very important stories like the one where US Federal Reserve Inspector General Elizabeth Coleman stated brazenly before the US Congress that she has “no idea” where $9 Trillion of US taxpayer has gone, or who got it (see the video here).

The story is equally applicable to the mainstream world press. Here in India I would not know a thing if I got my news from the press. I get 90% of my news from the Internet. The mainstream media here is completely leftist/anti-capitalist with stories on ever thing from evils of plastic bags to the pollution from industries. The business channels have no interest in questioning the polices of the government. There are no opposing viewpoints presented. At least in U.S. CNBC had the token Peter Schiff (see him predict the recession) to present the other side even though they thought he was a joke.

North Korea- seeing misery with Google Earth

This article in WSJ talks about people like Curtis Melvin, a doctoral candidate at George Mason University in suburban Virginia who use Google Earth to draw a more clear picture of North Korea. It is the most closed, oppressive societies in the world. Check my blog post "Unearthly Earth hour" where in a NASA picture full of night lights, North Korea is one of the dark spots. Well! now there are a bunch of dedicated people throwing light on this dark spot of humanity. It is heartening to see though that common people have not given up on it. How many generations of these poor people will be lost before mankind decides enough is enough.

After the Iraq debacle there is very little hope that this sad, wretched country will be rescued anytime soon. It is doomed to stay in it's dictators clutches for a long time. It is the ultimate symbol of fully controlled society yet we have people in U.S. clamoring for more government control. They are like lost kids bawling for an adult to come and take charge. Grow up people, before your playpen turns into a gulag.

Thomas Paine-Governments right to exist

I am currently reading Thomas Paine's "Rights of man". Some of it was so interesting that I almost forgot the 110 deg. of heat at work today (reading between rounds). The heat is bearable, it's the humidity which was a real killer today. Here is some of what I read today where Paine takes a review of the several sources from which governments have arisen, and on which they have been founded.

They may be all comprehended under three heads. First, superstition. Secondly, power. Thirdly, the common interest of society, and the common rights of man. First was a government of priestcraft, the second of conquerors, and the third of reason.

When a set of artful men pretended, through the medium of oracles, to hold a intercourse with the Deity, the world was completely under the government of superstition. The oracles were consulted, and whatever they were made to say, became the law; and this sort of government lasted as long as this sort of superstition lasted.

After these a race of conquerors rose, whose government, like that of William the Conqueror, was founded in power, and the sword assumed the name of a sceptre. Governments thus established, last as long as the power to support them lasts; but that they might avail themselves of every engine in their favour, they united fraud to force, and set up an idol which they called Devine Right, and which, twisted itself afterwards into an idol of another shape, called Church and State.

When I contemplate the natural dignity of man; when I feel for the honour and happiness of it's character, I become irritated at the attempt to govern mankind by force and fraud, as if they were all knaves and fools, and can scarcely avoid disgust at those who are thus imposed upon.

We have now to review the governments which arise out of society, in contradiction to those which arose out of superstition and conquest.

It has been thought a considerable advance towards establishing the principles of freedom, to say, that government is a compact between those who govern and those who are governed: but this cannot be true, because it is putting the effect before the cause; for as man must have existed before governments existed, there necessarily was a time when governments did not exist, and consequently there could exist no governors to form such a compact with. The fact therefore must be, that the individuals themselves, each in his own personal and sovereign right, entered into a compact with each other to produce a government: and this is the only mode in which governments have a right to arise, and the only principle on which they have a right to exist.

Why Democracy does not work- Idea cellular advertisement on TV

Idea sells it's mobile service using democracy as a recurring theme in a series of ads being shown on TV in India. It shows people in certain situations not being able to decide what to do and taking an instant sms poll using their cellphones. The final decision is whatever the majority decides.

One advt. has a pretty girl who is bumped by a street hooligan and when she objects, he says he can do whatever because this is a democracy. Then she polls using her cell (I assume her friends) giving commando or Gandhi (show the other cheek) as options and when majority says commando -she gives him a commando style kick.

Now the problem with this is the same as problem with democracy- what if their was a third option- lets say slit his throat. Would she have done it just because the majority decided that it was what the hooligan deserved?

Instead wouldn't it be better to have a system where the mob or the majority does not have the power to decide the fate of the individual (the smallest minority) and instead certain principles governed the interaction between individuals. Situations like the one in the ad and in a democracy where individual rights are crushed by the majority should not be allowed to take place. Such a system to prevent these from happening does exist- it is called a republic.

Read the following definition from Ayn Rand Lexicon- The American system is not a democracy. It is a constitutional republic. A democracy, if you attach meaning to terms, is a system of unlimited majority rule . . . a form of collectivism, which denies individual rights . . . . The American system is a constitutionally limited republic, restricted to the protection of individual rights. In such a system, majority rule is applicable only to lesser details, such as the selection of certain personnel. But the majority has no say over the basic principles governing the government. It has no power to ask for or gain the infringement of individual rights.
Leonard Peikoff, “The Philosophy of Objectivism” lecture series (1976), Lecture 9.

Click here to hear Yaron Brook talk about democracy. (via rationalpassion)