Saturday, November 17, 2012

About the Latest RLN's Editorial

Contrary to liberal assertions, including Mr. Allen’s, I am aware of their arguments, including Howard Zinn’s “The People’s History of the United States,” whose frequent references to “working-class” types neglects the research of conservatives like Thomas Sowell, who discovered mobility from one “class” to another. “Class” becomes a meaningless, static moniker, like “race”.
Zinn, like many liberals, puts people into classes and categories which are inconvenient or inconsistent. Racial demographics, or class structures, are useless labels for detailing the greater problems which are afflicting people in this country.

President Franklin D. Roosevelt claimed that “necessitous men are not free men.” He then enumerated a number of rights, which without proper redress would create “dictatorships.” FDR held dictatorial power for twelve years advancing government intervention, which fathered need and poverty against free enterprise. "We have nothing to fear but fear itself" makes no sense, nor does it drive away the fear that afflicts individuals who are looking for something secure. Government cannot provide this relief, as city and state government founder beneath unbridled pension obligations, followed by a national government that cannot say "No!" to voters who want a handout for themselves and a cut for everyone else.

Both FDR and Zinn ignored the unparalleled prosperity during the 19th century, which exemplified the power of free markets to enable free people to prosper. Families in tenements houses rose to greater affluence, while “progressive” anti-trust laws stifled innovative competitors. The "Myth of the Robber Barons" has been exploded by right-thinking and libertarian economists. Monopolies in and of themselves cannot raise the price on goods indefinitely, nor do innovators sit idly by waiting for the prices to go down. During the agrarian prosperity of the late 1800's, foodstuffs sold for lower prices, but the price of land increased considerably. On the surface, the growing immigrant population lived in difficult circumstances, but their lot in this country towered over the state-enforced poverty and privation which they endured in Europe, where national-socialist policies dominated, hurting the poor and underprivileged from advancing into better income streams and a higher quality of life.

Zinn indicted “poverty” for segregating poor minorities in bad schools. Poverty is not a force, but a label, one of many post hoc  fallacies prevalent among liberals. School choice would solve this inner-city problem, but liberals reject it. Poverty is a curse which redistribution of wealth enhances, followed by higher taxation and greater regulation.

Zinn decried “The Crisis of Democracy”. Under President Obama, “The Crisis of Liberalism” (a book written by Charles Kessler) is advancing. By advocating a greater role for government in the life of the citizen, liberalism will face two crises: 1. Government will run out of other people’s money (See San Bernardino, Stockton, and Vallejo) 2. Truth as a mere factor of “race” or “class” vitiates liberalism as a philosophy of government. “Might makes right” overtakes  “the greatest good for the greatest number.” Who defines the proper role of the state and the system ignores the interests, both diverse and distinct, for the very individuals who may support or at least modify these interests.

The Austrian Economists – Ludwig von Mises, Friedrich Hayek, Murray Rothbard – despised the collusion of Big Government and Big Business (as does Mr. Allen). They concluded that beyond moral failings, the inevitable intellectual limits of men frustrate government force to fix societal “problems”. Charles Murray’s work “Losing Ground” convinced liberals to reject government welfarism (which engenders dependence) and support free-market reforms. Voluntary associations, not government compulsion, take people from poverty to prosperity.
While affirming my understanding of “regressive” vs. “progressive”, I looked up “collective human condition”:
“collective” – marked by similarity among or with the members of a group.

“Human condition” --  the positive and negative aspects of existence as a human being.
The human condition speaks to individuals, not a “collective,” Mr. Allen. Such groupthink suggests Orwellian nightmares, not Utopian ideals. People need help, but not from government; by facts, not force. Government does not have a responsibility for others, just as a building or a field have no power or authority in and of themselves to accomplish anything. People can execute responsible action for problems, not government, not agencies, not institutions.

1 comment:

  1. What's up colleagues, its great piece of writing regarding cultureand completely defined, keep it up all
    the time.