Romney's Free Market vs. Obama's Socialism

Thanks to Dave for sending me this.

Got Principles?

I believe that most of the problems facing this country at all levels of government derive from unprincipled citizens electing unprincipled leaders – the blind leading the blind.

When I say “unprincipled”, I mean people who do not understand – or people who reject – the principles of the American form of government: constitutional government. Mind you, unprincipled does not mean “unscrupulous”. Nevertheless, the unscrupulous can easily take advantage of the unprincipled. It is a dangerous combination.

Many people think tea partiers and property rights wonks are a bunch of anarchists. We do not want anarchy; we want the level of limited government that will maximize liberty and justice for all. We believe humans are happiest when we are free to make our own decisions and take responsibility for our own lives.

In the chart below, you can see that self-determination coincides with maximum liberty. Liberty suffers in a totalitarian state, as it does in a state of anarchy. We are called “far right” because in recent decades, the political window has moved so far to the left. We actually want something closer to the center.

This chart is not to scale -- assuming a scale even exists. It is merely to illustrate the relationships being discussed here.
Red is on the far left (of course), and violet is on the far right. Yellow-green is optimal. 

Government derives its just authority from the consent of the governed. Our constitutions and charters are the official specifications for our government. They are the instruments of all government authority. Any regime that distorts or disregards the documents that they swore an oath to uphold and defend are untrustworthy and dangerous. It is crucial that we adhere to these documents, or amend them as needed, with the consent of the governed.

The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield, and government to gain ground. ~ Thomas Jefferson

Elected leaders: I am sure that you have doubts from time to time about some of the votes you cast in session – where you might go either way. When that happens, I would only ask that you please give liberty the benefit of the doubt.

Defining and Avoiding Tyranny

One definition of tyranny is special interests using government to force their agenda down your throat. It doesn't matter if it is the religious right or the loony left. Environmentalists, Wall Street, feminists, oil companies, gays, labor unions, auto manufacturers -- all do it. When we have an activist federal government that regulates our lives and doles out favors and free stuff, you will have special interests lined up around the block, all trying to get their agenda enacted into law, or make the government their benefactor in perpetuity.

After the Tea Parties, one leftist that I correspond with asked me why nobody was this stressed out when the Bush administration was spending like there was no tomorrow, and shredding the Constitution. Many of us were stressed out, but both sides -- all sides -- are guilty of this. Under the circumstances, it is a matter of political survival. It doesn't seem so bad as long as our side is the "in group". But when the "other side" gets in, we get mad as hell. The acrimony will not subside until the federal government returns to the Enumerated Powers specified in the Constitution.

The federal government was originally designed to be a lightweight framework to tie together the various member states, providing basic common services, such as a monetary currency, and diplomatic and military protection. As far as I can tell, the individual states can do pretty much whatever they want, as long as they don't get crosswise with the Bill of Rights. This diversity provides We the People the liberty to move to a state where the weather and the politics suits our clothes.

Attack From the Left: Paul Krugman's Poison Pen

In this Newsweek article Obama's Nobel Headache, Evan Thomas asks "What if President Obama is squandering his only chance to step in and nationalize—well, maybe not nationalize, that loaded word—but restructure the banks before they collapse altogether?"

Which leads me to ask "What if President Obama and congress would butt the hell out and let We the People work it out?" Who says the government is supposed to fix any of this? The controversy underscores the fact that obviously no single individual -- or group of individuals -- knows what to do. The free market has the best chance to react the most quickly. It has a built-in natural feedback mechanism that the government does not.

I am an engineer by trade, and I understand inverse feedback. Systems that lack inverse feedback, or have improperly designed inverse feedback are usually inherently unstable. Government programs suffer from both shortcomings in spades. Note that automatic stabilizers are not the same as what I am referring to in the free market. I am talking about Adam Smith's "invisible hand", as well as concepts by Milton Friedman and many others.

Charity, Prosperity and the Great Society

LBJ's Great Society created a massive increase in government welfare and oppression, in the name of helping the less fortunate. There is no question that any great society would voluntarily help the less fortunate. What is not so great is the government demanding that we help the less fortunate, imposing taxes and inflicting penalties for not doing so. A society that has to be forced by government to help the needy isn't a great society; it is pathetic.

A free and prosperous society will have more resources all around to help the needy. Even if capitalists spend all of their time and money working for themselves, the generated wealth spreads automatically, and no less equally than if government does it.

Charity is necessary to help those who are willing but unable to participate in the free market. A great society cares for these people. However, we are less likely to be charitable when we feel that our government has already taken 30% of our earnings, especially when they spend it on causes that we feel are unworthy. If those who would try to use the force of government to enslave us to further their own agenda, would instead exercise their first amendment right to free speech, they might convince more of us voluntarily to donate to charitable causes of our own choosing.