Monday, February 06, 2006

Busting a Myth (Depolarizing Politics Pt. II)

Note: I'm getting radical here, this is my Libertarian Activist side coming out. Just for fun, please check out "The World's Smallest Politcal Quiz."and click on the tab marked "Quiz"
I hate to be the one to break the news to you, but there is no Easter Bunny. And, by the way, there really is no difference between the Democrat Party and the Republican Party. They are two factions of the same mega-party, representing the oxymoronical philosophy of Social Capitalism. This “Demopublican,” or, if you will, “Republocrat” Party represents the Government and stands for rubber stamping the individual, that is, it tends to eliminate individuality and attempts to force everyone to think, talk, and act exactly the same.
“The scariest words in the English language have to be ‘I’m from the government and I’m here to help’ ” - Ronald Reagan
I’m not referring to the individuals within the Administration or Congress, as there are several people of character and integrity within these organizations, who actually do, or attempt to, serve the public. But the Demopublican party, as a whole, is more inclined to serve the Government. The Government, as it stands today isn’t the combination of the Executive, Legislative, and Judicial branches we learned about in Civics, but is a giant amorphous entity made up of these branches plus the huge bureaucracy that has grown within it. It doesn’t matter who is in the White House, or who is in control of Congress, the Government tends to acquire and consume capitol and private property. By way of explanation, consider this: the Federal income tax code defines income tax as a “voluntary” tax. But what happens when you choose not to volunteer? The Government takes your money and your property.
Do you own a car? Only if you don’t leave your driveway. Things that common sense and personal responsibility tell you to do anyway have been made into laws. Mandatory insurance laws have subsidized the insurance companies to the point where they can charge unreasonably high rates. I remember when comprehensive auto insurance was $600 a year rather than $300 a month. You don’t even have to commit a crime to get stopped and checked for compliance. You can get stopped for a crooked or bent license plate, a “soft tire,” or a “cracked taillight.” And then, if your papers aren’t in order, the government gets to keep the money it gets for selling the car at an auction, along with what fines you have to pay.
If you own real estate, you can’t cut trees, build, or hunt on your own property without the government’s permission. You have to have a license, a permit, or sometimes, an environmental impact study in order to use your own property as you see fit.
Eminent domain gives the government the right to take your property, but only if you get just compensation for it and if it is for public use. A park, a highway, or a wildlife refuge would reasonably be considered “for public use,” but a shopping mall, a football stadium, or an oil drilling operation may be for the “public good,” due to tax revenues and added government income, are not for “public use.” Yet recently, there have been several cases of private property confiscation for uses other than by the public. Furthermore, the Government avoids paying just compensation by condemning property and artificially devaluing it.
“You don’t want the Government to ‘legalize freedom.’ They legalized Civil Rights and look how they screwed that up.” - Russell Means
And, yet the Demopublican party goes along with this practice of government as usual. It continues to demand more “food” or money for the Government, so the Government may continue growing. The Government will never have enough money, its hunger for power and control is never satiated. Part of it is our own fault. Rather than deal with a problem at the community level, we sigh, declare “there oughta be a law,” and elect the same status-quo politicians to the same status-quo government. Consider the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina. Because of a combination, and culmination, of mismoves, misjudgement, and incompetence, on both state and federal levels, the evacuation of the flooded areas of New Orleans was seriously mismanaged, leaving thousands of people stranded for days. There arose a huge public outcry that the Federal Government come up with a viable emergency actions plan. The public got what it asked for; in the future, in case of a disaster, the military will wrest control of the stricken state or states from the respective governor(s) and impose martial law. There is nothing wrong with that from the status-quo vision, but it seriously oversteps the bounds and responsibilities of the Federal Government, as outlined in the Constitution.
“A man who is younger than thirty years old and is not a liberal has no heart. A man who is older than thirty and is not a conservative has no brain.” - Winston Churchill
Socialism, as economic policy, has been tried on many levels of Government, and has failed. Socialism requires that the Government choose who gets the money and who doesn’t, thus creating even more bureaucracy. It ties up and delays aid and benefits to those who need it, and restricts industrial innovations and productivity due to lack of incentive. It artificially sets price restrictions, which often creates a supply and demand crisis, and often results in high unemployment and inflation rates. A Socialist economy, in a Capitalist world, will inevitably face gigantic trade deficits.
Free Market Capitalism, on the other hand, has never been tried. Theoretically, a Free Market would be controlled by the laws of supply and demand. Witness, for example, the subtle and deft manipulation of capital supply by the former Federal Reserve Chairman, Alan Greenspan, who successfully avoided inflation of the American economy for nearly 20 years. What Greenspan did was exert a very minute and limited control of the market, and let the economy take care of itself, which it did, in spite of high oil prices, stock market crashes, 9/11, and natural disasters. With Greenspan, we caught a glimpse of what a Free Market could do. Ultimately, the consumer, the common man, if you will, would have some control over the economy, being able to cast a vote with his or her purse as to what prices and product quality are appropriate. I will venture this: It wasn’t Wal-Mart or Home Depot which put Mom and Pop out of business. Instead, it was the combination of payroll taxes, minimum wage, licensing, and other Government restrictions and requirements which restricted the small business’s ability to compete reasonably and fairly.
If there is to be a distiction between the two factions of the Republicrat Party, at least one of the factions must remember that a Constitutional government is one which is “of the people, by the people, and for the people,” rather than the current concept of government of, by, and for the government. A place to start would be to re-create government that works from the bottom up, rather than from the top down. Many of the responsibilities Big Government has taken from the states and the smaller communities, could be returned to the states and the smallest communities possible. Federal bureaucracy, and by result, spending could be drastically reduced. The Government could be eventually weaned from the Federal Income Tax. To head in that direction, with that goal would be a drastic change from the status-quo, but should result in a positive end.

No comments: