Much of the argument today for a move toward socialism is around fairness. While free market capitalism is not purely a “fair” system, it is the only system that has a true element of fairness.  Socialism or any form of planned government will use equity, equality, or fairness as a rouse to bring people in by the heart.  In the end, however, it will prove much less equitable than our system of free markets.

The socialist today will do their best to avoid the argument of facts all together.  It is quite interesting to me that even the word “socialist” is being used. Politically, it used to be a dangerous word to use. Today, it’s almost chic.   Of course, it’s lovely and comforting modifier “democratic” as in Democratic Socialist makes it seem less gulag and more “amber waves of grain”. The fact is the socialist  would have you argue that the socialist versus capitalist argument is between everyone getting what they “should” or what they deserve based on some universal and absolute standard of what is right  (the socialist version of socialism) verses individuals shares being determined by good or bad luck(the socialist version of capitalist/free market). If one reads this argument as the truth, the only “fair” option is to seek to “control” luck by planning.  Afterall, working hard, risking time, health, energy and resources for simple luck doesn’t seem like a good bet when the “government” can guarantee an outcome. This argument, as Hayek points out has significant flaws.  Hayek argues that the true argument or choice is between a system where a few people decide who gets what and when (planning/socialism) and one where it depends on the enterprise and ability of the people as well as an element of the unknown (free market capitalism). So rather than an altruistic government harnessing luck and spreading it fairly throughout the land, the government of the planner, the socialist, picks winners and losers.The challenge in intellectual circles, especially on college campuses, is that we aren’t arguing with the same set of facts. True discourse and understanding, or argument, starts at a mutual understanding of what it is we are arguing. Before we can get to an honest discussion with proponents of socialism, we must first help define socialism itself.

As I stated earlier, it’s hard to win and argument against a socialist if we are using their definition of socialism and free market capitalism. The entirety of The Road to Serfdom does a good job of this.  Listen to my episode “The Problem with Central Planning” [Click Here to Listen] for some basics on this. I’ll summarize it a bit here.

As I’ve discussed in previous posts, the government of the planner is limited in information and is bound by time and location.  Remember, that to achieve anything close to a socialist utopia (which is the stated goal of any socialist, or at least the attempted “end”), they must be omniscient and omnipresent.  They must have more information and be better able to communicate it to everyone than all the business owners, shopkeepers, bankers, delivery men, and everyone else who makes moment by moment decisions that affect the economy, in order for the best of the best socialist argument to be possible.

What does this look like in everyday life?  As Hayek argues, the socialist aims more to control the means of production rather than overtly telling you where to shop.  In a fully socialist state, there is no nuance here.  Rather, the state controls everything because the citizen has very little purchasing power.  This is either because inflation is so high as to nullify the power of one’s paycheck, or the taxes are so high that there is not much left over, or both. Remember that the argument that gets us in this situation is that for fairness. The socialist argument that he can “guarantee” the outcome rather than leaving th...

Planners will tell us that the world has gotten so complicated, so busy, and so “smart” that we should no longer concern ourselves with the mundane troubles of work.  They will tell us that we shouldn’t concern ourselves with economic “stuff”.  These, in their minds, are the things that bring about pain, poverty, and ugliness in society.  The free market doesn’t work and is proven to be a failure by the sheer numbers of people in poverty.  They will tell us that worrying about “economic things” gets in the way of the “higher” things in life.  They will tell us that we should give up some of our freedom, but not all of it.  By only giving up economic freedom, that is by giving the planners control over the economy and the means of production, we will be even freer to pursue more “important” ends. These “ends” as they call them are the leisure and joys in life.  The things we must work so hard to obtain.  For me it’s camping with my family, for you it may be the theatre and for another it may be traveling to far off lands.

This argument is appealing. Afterall, if I didn’t have to stress about work (or at least the money portion of work), and could write all day, or camp, or think all day, I would presumably feel much more freedom than I do now. This concept has caught the attention of some of the most intelligent in society over the years. It’s basically a call for utopia. Again, they tell us not to be worried about losing freedom, we are only giving up the “economic” sense of freedom and nothing else.

Arguing for this fracturing of life sounds like a fantastical utopia.  It sounds that way because it is fantasy.  Hayek argues, that you cannot separate economic ends from other ends.  This is the case because, in essence, there is no such thing as economic ends.  He argues that economic “motive” as he calls it, is “merely the desire for general opportunity, the desire for power to achieve unspecified ends”.  Our economic ends are actually a means to an end and not an end in and of themselves. I don’t work for money.  I work for money to use as I see fit. I work for financial compensation to purchase things. He uses “unspecified ends” to bring home the point that everyone has different “ends”, different things that they want to use their money for. As an aside that can certainly be approached deeper at a later time, he points to the fallacy of detractors of money.  People say “money is the root of all evil”, he points out that money is the root of all freedom. Before money was a thing as it is today, the means to move forward in society were less tangible. Sure money or currency existed in one form or another, but there was so much more to societal movement.  Usually things people could not affect such as birthright and status. Sometimes it was property ownership (while most people were actually precluded for such ownership).  In reality, someone else (a king or governor) chose what people were able to obtain. Choice was very limited if not non existent.  Money has leveled the playing field.  It’s not perfect, and some people have tougher access to earning it than others. It is however the tool to achieve all material status and no one is inherently precluded from obtaining and using it for their wishes.  Unless, of course, the planners win this argument.

The ends, the new currency, of the planned society would not be money.  Or at least money would not be the primary compensation or reward. Things such as status, power over others, travel, better food, better education would be the rewards.  The problem is not so much these rewards, although they can be a part of the problem, the biggest problem is the lack of choice for the recipient. The planner would decide what the reward would be and that would be that. Considering this in light of what man’s true end is poses a great challenge when it comes to freedom.  Remember that man does not work for money, he works for what money can do for him.

This week Rocco discusses a recent blog post: You Think They are Wrong and They Think You are Evil: Discourse in America.

A new and more appropriate title and focus to the show.

Hayek tells us ” Hitler did not have to destroy democracy; he merely took advantage of the decay of democracy and at the critical moment obtained the support of many to whom, though they detested Hitler, he yet seemed the only man strong enough to get things done”.   It seems that even today, we use this statement with modern politicians in similar fashions.  “He is the only Republican that can get elected”, “we need someone who can shake up the system”, or yes “we need someone strong enough to bring this country together”. There is so much to unpack here that it could fill volumes of books.  My focus in this episode is an attempt to bring us back to the basics. Back to the rule of law.

 

I’ve decided in recent months to try to avoid discussing current issues so as not to get lost in the weeds on arguments or points that aren’t “principles”.  I’ll try to stay true to this here. I see in the current political climate a “team sport” mentality.  I have been just as guilty as the next guy supporting or not supporting something because the guy on my side of the aisle is touting it.  Usually it’s even less than some congressional act.  The talking head on Fox News supporting the “republican” side of the story is the “good” guy and the other guy is the “bad” guy.  This intellectual trap ultimately was the primer to me reading and thinking deeper on issues.  When I realized I was a “useful” idiot with a degree on the wall, it was embarrassing.  I may still agree with the republican a majority of the time, but I can do it without knowing who is the Republican and who is the Democrat, and I can articulate why I agree with him. While, I’d like you to agree with me, I’d be satisfied with clarity in our disagreement rather than personal attacks or simply refusing to argue. The “team sport” mentality today is dangerously close to win at all costs.  This of course misses the low hanging fruit of “my guy isn’t going to be in charge forever”.  It clearly misses that fact that power continues to rise to the top and that is a bad thing.

Economic planning, socialism, or whatever you wish to call it lives and dies by changing the rules to pick winners. Democracy is a challenge to the planner. We must “agree” on everything for the planner to work his plan.  He must be able to make decisions at anytime anywhere.  Remember the all knowing, all present, and decision making planner of previous episodes?  The puppet master dictating the economy, of course can’t achieve this omniscient and omnipresent existence.  That would make him God. He, of course is not God.  So instead he becomes a “democratic dictator” and will ultimately destroy freedom.  He must have arbitrary powers.  He can’t be bound to a set rule of law or he won’t be able to make quick decisions.  Sounds a bit like Executive Orders, but that is for another discussion. Planning ultimately, and in a tiny step by step fashion will ultimately lead to dictatorship.  Dictatorship, after all, is the most effective way of coercion and enforcement of ideals.  Planning (AKA socialism) is nothing more that an enforcement of ideals. Inevitably we will all agree with some of the “ideals” and disagree with many others. Special interests will continue to nip at the heels of the planner in order to have their “ideals” enforced.

Where does the rule of law play into all this?  It is actually everywhere.  It is the fabric of our society.  In my podcast episode, I use a baseball game as an analogy to living by a set of rules. If the rules of the game are changed in the middle of the game to benefit one team over the other, eventually the teams will stop showing up to play.  When this happens in an economy,

This week I read the definitive poem written by Leonard E Read that was cited by Milton Friedman. Listen to the words with an open mind and you’ll get a sense of the totality of people involved in the building of a simple pencil.  All these people are coming together, without a puppet master or grand orchestrator.  It seems almost improbable…but it happens everyday in every industry.

“I, Pencil: My Family Tree as told to Leonard E. Read”

by Milton Friedman Leonard Read’s delightful story, “I, Pencil,” has become a classic, and deservedly so. I know of no other piece of literature that so succinctly, persuasively, and effectively illustrates the meaning of both Adam Smith’s invisible hand-the possibility of cooperation without coercion-and Friedrich Hayek’s emphasis on the importance of dispersed knowledge and the role of the price system in communicating information that “will make the individuals do the desirable things without anyone having to tell them what to do.”

Central Planning, as Hayek refers to comes as us with different disguises. This is important to understand because most politician in America and around the free world are not going to ask for your vote for “central planning”.  This is something that comes in chunks.  Mostly from special interests (which sound ugly and political) and “important” causes (which sound important to many people). Understanding what the ultimate goal and the ultimate end is when the government either through a single “leader” or a group of leaders gets involved in aspects of the economy that are better left to individuals is paramount to preserving our freedom, as well as those cause we seemingly think the government can solve.

What is Central Planing?

Central planning is the coordination, organization, resource allocation, and focus of growth and attention directed from a central authority (king, president, dictator, administrator, etc).  In a society centrally planned, the individual is merely a player who will be allocated resources and coerced (or moved) to action based on instruction from the central authority.

Why do people think Central Planning is important?

The argument arose as society was becoming more complex.  As cities and industries grew to enormous sizes with many different wants and needs, the supporters of Central Planning saw Central Planning as the only means to prevent such a large society from devolving into chaos. They believed that only by a large state (or administrator) can all the moving parts coordinate to meet all the needs of the people. They believed this not possible when directed by the individual.

Why it is Wrong and Why smart people go all in on it?

I argue that this idea is actually a good idea. Why not have an all knowing, all present, all loving and all caring “omniscient dictator” direct traffic for all mankind.  The only problem is that this is impossible. It seems as though the only “person” with this ability is God, and He likes giving us choice and free will. The “next best” choice is far inferior to God.  In simple terms, the only way to make an economy perform the way to meet the most needs for its people, is by having instant knowledge of all things at all times, and in all places as well as understanding local customs, nuances and needs. This too is impossible. No one person or board of people can make these decision or even begin to process all the information even in one large city. This is best left to the individual.  Hayek states that individuals, “coerced” or driven by competition and the want to succeed are best suited to make decisions on a moment by moment basis.  Powered by prices, the free market (competition) will instruct or dictate where people move their resources and how they coordinate, organize, and focus. It is amazing to see this in action on a day by day basis in every city in America. Perhaps it’s a bit scary to realize that there is no one actually controlling this orchestra.  Of course, maybe more scary would be to actually see someone attempt. As in the Soviet Union, or Venezuela.  It never works.

As I wrote in my previous post Freedom, A Victim of Its Own Success?, a free society tends to produce generations of people who are so removed from the struggles to obtain freedom and the desire to understand freedom since there’s no “visible” threat to it, that they become complacent. People who don’t understand or even belive in tyranny are destined to hand over their freedoms to tyrants under the guise of “special interests” or “causes”. Hayek calls many of these people “technicians”.  Powerful technicians see the possibility of their cause (whatever it may be) being achieved if and only if the entire focus of human...

More from Hayek’s The Road to Serfdom.  The arguement is that economic success has come because of freedom and not in spite of it.  Hayek points out early in his work that people in a free society sometimes forget that freedom leads to success. Some people want more success, and think gaining some control over the market with help from the government is the ticket to success. While success of the turn of the 20th century was nice, it was slow (and consistent). More and more people wanted more and more success. Turn the clock forward to today. Does that sound familiar?  Of course it does. I want more and more myself. Most ambitous (and non-ambitous) people are never really satisfied with the economic success we obtain. Long periods of success can lead to some apathy as to the freedom that leads to the success. Hayek writes that people take their freedom for granted. Instead of an eagerness to understand freedom, and the cause of freedom, as well as the threats to it, people take up causes that only slightly relate to freedom, at the expense of understanding the unintended consequences of their causes. Causes that in the end, seemingly have only one solution, governement intervention. Thus, the freedom Hayeks warns we take for granted is not “stolen” from us, it is freely handed away.

 

As a bonus, I touch a little on emergent order.  Russ Roberts does an amazing job explaining this in the video attached. Emergent order is in Russ Robert’s words ” The hidden harmony that is all around us.  The semmingly magical way that we anticiapte and meet the needs of each other without anyone being in charge”.  This, of course, is in direct contrast to government intervention and central planning.  The fear that we will sell our freedom for our causes as we walk down the “road to serdom”.

 

 

Russ Roberts Video on Emergent Order

Home | It’s a wonderful loaf

No Description

In this episode I gain some inspiration from Hayek’s The Road to Serfdom.  Hayek had a knack for having a larger perspective than most people of his time. We say we are striving for “something”, whatever it may be as a society.  We say we stand for things, yet we stand “on” those things (free speech, diversity, etc) in order to shout louder than those with whom we disagree. Regardless of where you stand on the political spectrum, on most issues of freedom, we are going in the wrong direction.

Writing and speaking on political issues (any issue for that matter) has taught me one valuable lesson:

I am not always right.

If I can enter any discussion with that in mind, I would probably find myself right more often…if that statement makes any sense.

While writing on tough and divisive issues in a very polarized political environment, have been slapped with a dose of reality and perspective. I am a constitutional conservative, politically speaking…but I am much more than that. You may be a liberal, moderate, conservative, or undecided, and you are more than that as well. I started my show with the notion that everyone should believe exactly the way I do.  Of course, I didn’t really say it that way or consciously think that, but that’s basically how I felt. Over the past few weeks, people who have read and heard me speak have reached out to share their thoughts and experiences. Some in nicer ways than others, but all appreciated.  From reading and listening to people, I found a common thread on both sides of political issues.

People are not stupid. People are afraid. This fear comes from experience, real and completely justified fear from what is happening today in society, ignorance or not understanding issues (I often fall into this trap), and many other reasons, I’m sure. The paradigm for me is that starting from a point that others are afraid of something opens my heart to understanding. If I  shoot down those fears as “unjustified” I am only fueling the anger that exists.  I am dehumanizing the struggle of others and will never do any good.  It is possible to empathize with the fears of people I don’t agree with or even understand. This is not a “selling out” of my principles.

There are right and wrongs on both sides of issues.  There are very few absolutes (although there are some), and very few clear-cut answers to society’s problems. Even the founding fathers argued over issues that are “sacred” to the American way of life. In this week’s audio, I discuss two paradigm shifting (for me at least) articles.  The first is Federalist 1 by Alexander Hamilton and the 2nd is an Op Ed by Glenn Beck in the New York Times.

Alexander Hamilton is speaking in support of ratifying the Constitution.  He shares some insights specific to the argument of the day as well as some that transcend. He ultimately argues for a “vigorous government” vis a vie the Federal form of government espoused by the constitution versus the confederacy (or weak connection between separate nation-states) as the surest way to ensure the safety and liberty of the people. That discussion is better left for another day. What I took in context of understanding those I disagree is stated best by him:

“So numerous indeed and so powerful are the causes which serve to give a false bias to the judgment, that we, upon many occasions, see wise and good men on the wrong as well as on the right side of questions of the first magnitude to society. This circumstance, if duly attended to, would furnish a lesson of moderation to those who are ever so much persuaded of their being in the right in any controversy. And a further reason for caution, in this respect, might be drawn from the reflection that we are not always sure that those who advocate the truth are influenced by purer principles than their antagonists. Ambition, avarice, personal animosity, party opposition, and many other motives not more laudable than these, are apt to operate as well upon those who support as those who oppose the right side of a question.

It’s not breaking news to suggest that the rhetoric in America today is filled with political tension. I’ve written about it before.  The political memes on Facebook daily berate this guy or that guy.  Protestors burned buildings and assaulted people because of a political speech at Berkley they disagreed with. We are reaching a point where discussion is discouraged because both sides believe they are dealing with the devil and discussing issues is pointless. I spoke with a friend about this issue, trying to get some understanding or perspective as to why the second I say Black Lives Matter as a conservative, I get pummeled as a racist before I even get a chance to make my point. Why, as a conservative, it is assumed I want all refugees to drown and all gays to die.  If you’ve read this far, you know that stuff is not true about me or most (99.9999%) of all conservatives. My friend made a great point about the absolute madness about this country.  The people protesting, mostly those on the left are not just protecting entitlements or gifts from the government, they are not just protecting “stuff.”They, in their minds at least, are defending their rights. People get upset when they lose entitlements, they go to war when you step on their rights.

What does this mean to us on the right? We have a few options. First, is to fight to win. While my show is still young, I have already made a few of those “fight to win” posts. I’ve challenged the left with truth.  I have videos of white liberals “protecting” blacks from voter id laws for various reasons.  Most of the reasons are summed up to the white Berkley liberals assuming blacks are too stupid to get an id. Blacks interviewed in the same post are shocked at the reasons.  Did anyone comment thanking me for shedding light on this issue?  Ha ha, of course not. I was deemed a racist. Does this reaction mean we should stop sharing the truth? No.

Writing on challenging social issues is teaching me more about human nature than my 17 years working in sales. Fear is a powerful emotion. Fear of losing one’s rights has the unfathomable power of a nuclear bomb. To be sure, I do not believe that these people [the vast majority of those protesting and liberals as a group]  are having their rights taken away. I do, however, want to understand them as more than just a bunch of cry babies.  The majority of the weapons being used are social media memes and posts. Friends are working hard to make other friends look stupid. We all do it, from both sides of the fence. We aren’t intending on making others look stupid, we believe with all our heart, mind and souls that we are right. We are fighting not just to win the war of ideas, but to “save the souls” of our friends on Facebook. Well, my friends, this is stupid.

This brings me to the second option. This involves a level of maturity lacking in America today.  One that takes every ounce of my being to exude for even a short period of time.  This option is “seeking first to understand before being understood”.  I’m not going to go too deep into this concept in this post as book after book has been written.  I believe there are some apocryphal writings that Francis of Assisi wrote a prayer begging God to give him this ability. Don’t worry if you don’t master it.

What does this all mean? Can I, as a white, conservative, Pro-life, friends with actual real life policemen, evangelical Christian reach out to supporters of Abortion? Can I reach out to Muslims, illegal aliens, black people? Gay people? When people see me online, they see a right wing conspiracy to steal their rights.  It DOES NOT matter if they are right or wrong.  Please understand this.  Telling people they can’t get angry because they are WRONG isn’t going to help anyone.  When we approach these people in this manner (using the “winning” option) it throws gasoline on the fire. While I think it is important to expose the wrongs in society, and the hypocrisy,