Public and Private Unions: Not The Same

Is the much-maligned Wisconsin bill involving public employee unions an assault on all unions?  Listening to opponents of the bill, pundits, and campaign contributions-conscious politicians, one would think so.

Attempting to marry the status and interestes of public employee unions to labor unions in the market economy makes good strategic sense on the part of core opponents of the bill such as the unions and politicians that profit--premature pun intended, tuck that one away--tremendously from the current system.  Such a rhetorical move broadens opposition to the bill by pulling in union empathy nationwide.  And where there is union empathy there will most likely be a shadowy corporate-conspired threat to the existence of the middle class lurking behind the closest tree.  Now you're talking opposition!  

The problem with conflating the tax-consuming interests of public employee unions with the interests of regular, wealth-producing labor union members does not rise above the integrity of  rhetoric.  The two unions operate as differently as those with whom they respectively "bargain," government and private businesses.

For starters, the fundamental management-labor relations paradigm in the free market is completely turned on its head in the public union-state government scenario.  Private labor unions collectively negotiate with company management, a management unions do not have the luxury of choosing.  When public employees sit down with "management," however, they negotiate with a government they had a hand in forming via massive union campaign contributions to the very people representing the government that unions bargain with.  These same politicians draw up the legislation that sets the terms of compensation and benefits for public employees.

This politicized institutional arrangement amounts to a self-perpetuating, legalized system of graft that can only expand with time and tax funds. Tax payers are coerced, via laws that require mandatory dues paid by public employees, to subsidize a union that in turn donates heavy campaign contributions to politicians who, once in office, pass laws eliciting additional tax funds for the salaries that pay the dues that fund the campaign contributions of--you guessed it--their own campaigns.  Higher wages and new jobs means higher taxes and more dues for the union, which means more campaign funds for the union's favorite politicians.  The government and public unions have every incentive to swell the ranks.  Everyone wins except the taxpayer.  It's win-win-lose.

No such arrangement exists for labor unions in the market economy.  (At least unions not affiliated with companies bailed out at tax payers expense.)  The closest labor unions come to this arrangement is donating to the campaigns of politicians who pass pro-union legislation, but that is not even marginally close to the public union-state bargaining government system.

Additionally, private unions seek compensation for their members based on greater shares of the profits their members help to create in business operations.  They negotiate for more of the profits they have a hand in creating.  Consequently, they are wealth and tax creators.

Public employee unions, by contrast, "bargain" for more tax money.  Public employees create neither profit nor wealth; they consume wealth through the taxation required to pay for their compensation.  This is not a slam on public employees.  (Far from it.  Certain public services are a must and society should be prepared to incur the reasonable cost of those services.)  This is just a statement of economic fact that is sidestepped by the conflation of public and private union interests.

One more notable difference: In the market economy, unions and management have a shared interest in making reasonable agreements that do not hazard either the public image or economic health of the business.  Consumers, remember, vote voluntarily with their dollars and can easily switch support to competitors in the market.  Less profits generated freely through the market is bad news for labor unions and management alike.  There is therefore sufficient incentive for both parties to make reasonable labor-management agreements.

Public employee unions and their supportive politicians in government, on the contrary, have no fear of alienating the economic fount of their paychecks and benefits packages.  Except by moving to a different state, tax payers cannot opt to take their funds elsewhere; they are coerced by the force of law--laws lobbied for by public employee unions--to keep the tax-funded promises streaming to governors' desks to be signed into effect.  There is no incentive to make reasonable agreements; on the contrary, as we can see by the situations in most state budgets, the current system is situated for the exact opposite.

It is telling that FDR, the progressive responsible for the monumental labor relations piece of legislation, the Wagner Act of 1935, unequivocally asserted the very idea of public employee collective bargaining was "unthinkable and intolerable." In 1955 the head of the AFL-CIO quipped "It is impossible to bargain collectively with the government." To take the private union model and apply it to tax-funded government just does work.  So, too, with conflating the immediate interests of private market unions with public employee unions.

Debating the validity of public unions and collective bargaining does not equate to denigrating or vilifying public employees.  It should never be inferred from the hubbub in Wisconsin that many public employees do not provide valuable services.  On the contrary, if society deems certain services are worth of the costs they incur, by all reasonable means those services should be appropriately funded. 

Valuable public services should be sustained on the merit of their service to the public, and all public services should not be propagated by an inherently unworkable system that is so susceptible to narrow self interests, graft and the detriment of tax payers. 

Private economy unions do not get to operate that way, and insisting on the perpetuation of such a system is the antithesis of public service.

"It's Not You. It's Me." The George Costanza Guide to a Freer Society

"To the unknown civilization that is growing in America."~~from the dedication page of F.A. Hayek's The Constitution of Liberty

It was a great scheme to initiate a break-up.  Once George Costanza needed out of a relationship he made his own issues and neurosis the core reason for breaking up. 

It's not you; it's me.

How brilliant.  One can imagine the recuperative thoughts of George's exes: "He doesn't want me anymore. He's changed, not me."



I think this pithy ploy would be a great paradigm for a way out of society's dysfunctional relationship with the bloated federal government and concomitant welfare state.  If more of us would have our attitudes about the proper role of government changed and prefer liberty and a freer society, more of us would have one thing to say to those vote-catching demagogues (to borrow from Hayek) who, at every election cycle, inevitably come pandering with all manner of goodies and handouts and incentives to not pay for our own wants and needs. 

"We need to talk. I've changed. We need to end this relationship.  It's not you; it's me."
 
There will always be a number of people disinterested in changing, who have no compunction about being part of the welfare state.  The key, it seems, is persuading that larger number of people who know better but are tempted to follow the siren song that sings: Don't worry about it.  It's some other part of the budget that's the problem. The more of these folks who don't become part of the welfare state, the better.

Consider the unsettling number of people who want the deficit cut but do not, of course, want their entitlements cut.  And gander for a moment at the recent backlash of public sector union members and teachers who believe they have a God-given and constitutionally-guaranteed right to not pay for their own health insurance.  Once enough (too many) people fall into the entitlement machinations of the redistributive welfare State that State becomes a self-perpetuating machine.  It's a simple matter of mathematics: attach the financial self-interest of enough voters to entitlements and those same voters will never break off their dysfunctional relationship with their nanny state.

 For sure, it would be very good to get more limited government, pro-liberty citizens elected to offices of power.  The hope there is, I suppose, to initiate political momentum and reform from within the government.  Rand Paul's recent election to the senate, for example, is encouraging.  As much as I respect Senator Paul, however, it needs stressed that he is now part of Leviathan at large and is therefore surrounded by the institutional incentives to prop up and prod along the welfare state.

The State is the State, no matter who is pulling its levers.  The key is to reduce the levers, not rely on who is pulling (or not pulling) the levers.  (The only real reason we pay attention to that Man Behind The Curtains is that he has the power to confiscate our lives, liberty, and property at his fingertips.)

Paul shows signs of being the recalcitrant contrarian to the welfare State (thank God),  but the sobering lesson of history teaches that depending on getting enough Rand Pauls into the system to change the system is a political pipe dream.  By its own volition, the State will always want to grow and slither and slide past whatever constitutional and legal limits are placed in its path.  The only viable manner of stopping it, or slowing it down, at least, is to starve it of its most fundamental and renewable resource: votes.

Whatever kind of relationship a majority of Americans want with their government, their vote-lusting and reelection obsessed politicians will provide for them.  It's not an easy task, for sure, as more and more people are drawn into the entitlement siren song of the free lunch (mixed metaphors allowed this late in a post), thus creating a vested fiscal self-interest in the perpetuation and growth of the welfare state. 

It also was not an easy task to advance the abolition of slavery or, for that matter, individual liberty with centuries of customs and established authorities determined for the status quo.  Ideas and persuasion changed public sentiment, and public sentiment eventually carried the day.  And besides, the opportunities to engage and converse are everywhere--who isn't aware that something is really screwed up out there? 

Come on, if the delightfully despicable George Costanza can muster the chutzpah to end dysfunctional relationships and reclaim his freedom, we should too.

Republic or Empire? A Book Recommendation: "American Empire: Before The Fall"

I just finished reading American Empire: Before The Fall by Bruce Fein. I highly recommend this book.

Expositing founding documents such as the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, Washington’s Farewell Address, and John Quincy Adam’s July 4, 1821 address to Congress, Fein cogently illustrates the Founders’ shared devotion to a republic devoted to the blessings of liberty and a constitutionally-limited government for Americans at home, as well as their aversion to the empire-building and foreign intervention that has historically led to the downfall of nations.

Fein also lays out the history of America’s rejection of non-intervention abroad and embrace of military projection across our borders and around the globe.  He argues the genesis of Empire started with the fallacious reasons for initiation of war with Mexico in 1848, and the reader sees similar initiations for war through history right down to weapons of mass destruction and Iraq. 

   

Common and deleterious political consequences run through all the wars and foreign interventions, most prominently the aggrandizement of executive power and the unconstitutional abdication of Congressional war-making to the executive.  Other common features of Empire include the crippling of rule of law, loss of civil liberties at home, the squandering of vital defense appropriations, and the building of resentment around the globe as a result of a ubiquitous military presence and flagrant disregard for the sovereignty of other nations.

The international War on Terror adds additional constitutional and political deviations from the Founders’ vision for our Republic.  

Fein notes that the Empire psychosis (my words, not his) rests on two flawed orthodoxies that most Americans reflexively accept as gospel, what he calls “Twin Myths of the American Empire” (the title of chapter 5).  The first orthodoxy is that America must spread democracy and human rights around the globe and then remain in strategically-viable posts in order to maintain global stability.  The premise of this orthodoxy is that the US is obligated to spread freedom abroad and that U.S. security depends on such military globe-trotting.

The second orthodoxy is that an American military umbrella providing international stability is vital to economic growth at home and abroad.  

Fein succinctly obliterates both orthodoxies.  Before and during America’s all-out embrace of global Empire following World War II, history tells a different story that what these orthodoxies hold.  Being the world’s policeman makes us less free and less safe at home and comes with a very high price tag in the lives of American military personnel and foreign citizens.  It also wastes resources and adds to our national insolvency while stoking resentment around the globe.

Interestingly and unfortunately, “Making the world safe for democracy” has become the unquestioned bedrock of foreign policy for both political parties and the cover-all excuse for projecting American force into sovereign nations abroad.  Two years into the Obama administration illustrates presidents of both parties have little interest in returning their office to the constitutionally-limited scope of the Republic.  Sadly, Congress is all too ready to neglect their institutional prerogatives to reign in the president, no matter which party controls Congress.   

(Oddly, many conservatives eagerly evoke the notion of world democracy policing even though it originated with their ideological nemeses, Woodrow Wilsonian Progressives, as a means of cementing “war socialism” at home during times of peace.)

Fein closes American Empire with a call for the restoration of the American Republic.  It is a tall order with steep challenges: 

“For seventy years, the American Empire’s orthodoxies have indoctrinated citizens and leaders alike in the belief that the United States has been obligated by divine Providence to made the world safe for democracy and freedom, and to crush every conceivable foreign danger it germinates.”

Ultimately, as Fein suggests, restoration of the Republic begins with changing the substance of public opinion such that elected leaders will feel obliged to again follow the Constitution and wisdom of the Founders.  It is a matter of persuasion and numbers: the more minds that are changed the better.

Speaking as a citizen who formerly (and unwittingly) parroted the orthodoxies of Empire, I can attest that minds can indeed change for the better.  I have Mr. Fein and a handful of other persistently persuasive, principled, and patriotic lovers of liberty to thank for the wake up call. 

Read this book, pass the word, change a mind.

Republic or Empire?

Republics and Empires cannot coexist; it is one or the other.  The Romans have a lot to teach us about this either/or scenario.

America's greatness rests in her devotion to liberty.  All economic and social blessings derive from this first principle.  The political manifestation of a society so dedicated to liberty is a constitutionally-limited Republic, or representative democratic based on the rule of law, not monarchy or aristocracy or timocracy devoted to military conquest.

The founders envisioned and initiated a Republic and constructed a Constitution explicitly for that Republic.

Currently with well over 700 military bases in over 130 countries around the globe, it is pressing for Americans to revisit the premises of the reflexive notion that we are the world's policeman, and that stretching our military around the globe makes us safer at home. 

From the Future of Freedom Foundation, some thoughts from John Quincy Adams on the subject:

AND NOW, FRIENDS AND COUNTRYMEN, if the wise and learned philosophers of the elder world, the first observers of nutation and aberration, the discoverers of maddening ether and invisible planets, the inventors of Congreve rockets and Shrapnel shells, should find their hearts disposed to enquire what has America done for the benefit of mankind?
Let our answer be this: America, with the same voice which spoke herself into existence as a nation, proclaimed to mankind the inextinguishable rights of human nature, and the only lawful foundations of government. America, in the assembly of nations, since her admission among them, has invariably, though often fruitlessly, held forth to them the hand of honest friendship, of equal freedom, of generous reciprocity.
She has uniformly spoken among them, though often to heedless and often to disdainful ears, the language of equal liberty, of equal justice, and of equal rights.
She has, in the lapse of nearly half a century, without a single exception, respected the independence of other nations while asserting and maintaining her own.
She has abstained from interference in the concerns of others, even when conflict has been for principles to which she clings, as to the last vital drop that visits the heart.
She has seen that probably for centuries to come, all the contests of that Aceldama the European world, will be contests of inveterate power, and emerging right.
Wherever the standard of freedom and Independence has been or shall be unfurled, there will her heart, her benedictions and her prayers be.
But she goes not abroad, in search of monsters to destroy.
She is the well-wisher to the freedom and independence of all.
She is the champion and vindicator only of her own.
She will commend the general cause by the countenance of her voice, and the benignant sympathy of her example.
She well knows that by once enlisting under other banners than her own, were they even the banners of foreign independence, she would involve herself beyond the power of extrication, in all the wars of interest and intrigue, of individual avarice, envy, and ambition, which assume the colors and usurp the standard of freedom.
The fundamental maxims of her policy would insensibly change from liberty to force....
She might become the dictatress of the world. She would be no longer the ruler of her own spirit....
[America’s] glory is not dominion, but liberty. Her march is the march of the mind. She has a spear and a shield: but the motto upon her shield is, Freedom, Independence, Peace. This has been her Declaration: this has been, as far as her necessary intercourse with the rest of mankind would permit, her practice."~~John Q. Adams July 4, 1821

Semi Random Thoughts, CPAC Saturday Morning

Too Much Bipartisanship 

Ron Paul said we've had "too much bipartisanship" over the decades.  Both parties have agreed to get along and legislate us into the entitlement society approaching internal fiscal implosion that we find ourselves to be.  Since the New Deal, we have one party ever ready to expand the centralized welfare state and another party that seems to want no so much of that not as quickly.

Half of the one party (I hope it is at least half) wants no part of expanding the welfare state.  So instead of a two party system it looks like we have a one and a half party system.

I get the impression the half is growing, and the Republican Party is flirting with returning closer to its core principles. 

The Siren Song of Electability

I've heard the "Buckley Rule" tossed around a lot at CPAC.  Support the most conservative candidate that is electable. 

That dogma gave us who, again, as the last three Republican candidates for president?  McCain, Bush II, and Bob Dole.  And what did the one of these three that became president give us?  A vast expansion of the size and scope of government, two unconstitutional and unnecessary wars that are looking more and more like eternal occupations, and a setting of the table for everything that has happened since Inauguration Day, 2009.

Conservative activists interested in returning the party to its core principles are scorned, dismissed, and patronizingly labeled "purists" by the crowd I would call the let's-just-get-any-warm-body-or-empty-suit-Republican-elected.  The paramount goal for this crowd is getting not-Democrats elected and worry about the disastrous policy consequences later.  (Let's cross that bridge over the Rubicon when we get to it, shall we?)

Who are the "purists" again?  They are electoral purists.  Activists interested in a revival of liberty and limited government are principle purists. 

Rather than worry about who is electable, why not work to persuade enough Americans to prefer freedom?  Would votes then follow after principled candidates? Liberty sells; empty suit politicians who offer little alternative to that statism Americans instinctively know is wrong do not sell.

The country knows there is a lot at stake, that government has really left us in a bad place.  Isn't now the time for one big teaching moment?

The Elephant In Denial In The Room

As conservatives, what is upsetting about Barrack Obama?  Take three minutes and talk amongst yourselves...Okay.  Did everything you just jotted down come out of thin air starting in January 2009?

When is the honest public self examination going to take place?

There is an unfortunate reluctance for POTUS aspirants to focus solely on what the Left has been doing since 2009.  What part in the mess has the Republican Party played?  Listening to these speeches and tepid applause responses to same old cliched "They suck, now, don't they?" makes me feel like I'm sitting at the Thanksgiving table of a wildly dysfunctional family that refuses to outwardly acknowledge their dysfunction, looking down at their plates and avoiding eye contact, and counting the seconds until the game comes on and everyone can more easily avoid the gigantic elephant in the room.

Then Dr. Paul bursts in and tells everyone they've got to wake up and he get's cranberry sauce flung at him.

Doesn't matter.  He's not electable anyway.



 

"That's What I Think of When You Say 'Captialism' "

Like road signs, words are symbols.  They have general meanings that our minds share, direct us to act or react in a certain way, and allow us to know what everyone else is talking about.

So what is the common meaning of "capitalism"?  What has that symbol come to represent among every day people?

Last night after the Campaign for Liberty panel with Ron and Rand Paul I heard an unfavorable meaning of the word.  It is a variation I hear all too often.

Leaving the hotel, I stepped past a group of smokers just outside the doors.  "Watch this," a fellow said to the guy next to him, then made a bee line to one of the CPAC attendants standing a few feet away.  (CPAC attendants are readily recognizable in this huge hotel; our registration ID cards hang conspicuously around our necks on a blue ribbon with "CPAC.org" written all over them. )

I surmised the fellow making his way to the CPAC attendant was not an attendant and interested in a confrontation, so I decided to stick around.  I made a quick stop at the curb and acted like I was looking for a cab.

It was a one-sided conversation.  Here's a paraphrase of what the offended party said:

"Some jerk just came up to me with a dollar bill and wanted to tell me about capitalism.  You know what I think of when I hear 'capitalism'?  I think of my 401K.  You're a bunch of selfish jerks."

With that he stormed in the hotel.

From these pithy remarks, I am going to assume this fellow believes that the financial collapse of 2008 that precipitated a drastic fall in his 401 K was the fault of capitalism.  What he believe capitalism to be is central to this belief; the word has come to symbolize, in his mind, something it actually is not.

So many people believe that drastic downturns and booms and bubbles and busts occur in the market naturally and that government and federal bureaucracies have nothing to do with these market anomalies.  Somehow, amazingly, government boondoggles like Fannie and Freddie Mac and their whorish vote-catching politicians in Congress had nothing to do with the financial meltdown of 2008.  What's worse, the Federal Reserve, ostensibly there to avoid bubbles and bust and irregularities in the market, gets a free pass, too.

Basically, the market had become anything but capitalistic.  That is, it was so over manipulated, regulated, goaded and prodded for outside the market--government interference--that a meltdown became inevitable.

Sadly, blaming it all on free market capitalism was inevitable, too.

Educating more people on the fundamentals of capitalism, what it is and what it is not, would go far in coercing our politicians (who are ever-fearful of not being reelected) from continuing to put us on  the same old Keynesian boom and bust cycles then cower behind and manipulate the public's mis-education of basic economics.  That's getting very old.

It would have been wonderful to broach this discussion with the angry fellow, but he was intent on carrying on with his misapplies anger.  He should be angry--just for the right reasons and at the actual culprits, not at the capitalistic system that is responsible for his own high standard of living.

If he only knew better, if only more people knew better--but that's our job.

(Back to CPAC.)

First Principles, Please: CPAC, GoProud, and Gay Marriage

(I wanted to edit this post but decided to leave it as it is, an off-the-cuff rambling of sorts.)

 “Only in the frame of a free society is it meaningful to distinguish between what is good and ought to be done and what is bad and ought to be avoided.”~~ Ludwig von Mises

“What is conservatism all about?” asks your friend who is new to politics.

Quick!  Your friend’s attention span is 140 characters (thanks to Twitter). What do you say?   

Chances are the phrases, Individual liberty and, Limited government, or some analogous expressions of the same, crop up. 

I say “chances are” for a reason. Instinctively most conservatives would respond with these phrases because they are the foundation of what is broadly called the conservative movement.  Other important principles such as Constitutionalism and federalism, free market enterprise, property and gun rights, low taxation, spending restraint, and school choice are derivatives of these philosophical lodestars. 

Chances should also be great that you did not think, More federal legislation and bigger government.  That wouldn’t be “conservative.”

As Grover Norquist at the American Conservative Union would say, the center-Right coalition shares an attitude that sums up these conservative principles: “Leave us alone.”  It is the common thread among the respective political action groups that constitute conservative activism.

Enter CPAC, GoProud, and some social conservative groups at the center of so much hubbub of late.

The acronym, CPAC, stands for the Conservative Political Action Conference.  It is the largest annual consortium of political activists and special interest groups, representing the broad base of a political coalition.

That said, in what kind of political action are social conservatives who are boycotting CPAC interested?  

Their chief political interest is enacting social legislation DOMA, the defense of marriage act, to “protect traditional marriage.“

Such political action in the interest of legislating social values cuts directly against core conservative values.  (Hold on, comment on social conservatism is reserved for the end.)  What happens to the principle of “limited government” if we go to government, hat-in-hand, and ask for the privilege of legislating at the federal level traditional marriage on society? This would be an expansion of government reach at a drastic level, conferring to the federal government a power we’ve erroneously allowed state governments for generations. 

And what about federalism, that long-neglected check on federal government overreach?  DOMA is a further erosion of that principle at a time when many activists are seeking to revive the 10^th Amendment and nullification in response to Obamacare.

Further, what would be the practical implications of DOMA?  Once we’ve further expanded the unconstitutional powers and bureaucratic apparatus of the federal government, is there any guarantee that one day gay marriage advocates will not be in a position to utilize that same power of government?  As history attests, with every increase in the size of government we further place ourselves and our liberties at the whimsical mercy of whatever group of politicians and bureaucrats hold power.  That’s just a very bad idea for political action, and certainly not a conservative one.   As Reagan said with eloquent simplicity, when government grown, liberty shrinks. 

It is worth noting the only reason there is a desire to “protect” traditional marriage is that we’ve allowed state governments the ridiculously inappropriate power to validate marriages.  What business does that state have interfering in a contract between private individuals?  (Remember that whole Leave Us Alone thing?) 

What is really in need of being protected, then, is not the institution of marriage itself but individuals from being forced by the government to legally recognize homosexual marriage.  (Traditional marriages would not cease to transpire or exist, after all.) This is a concern but the threat here is not the vows two men I’ll never meet say to each other and their lifestyle I don’t condone, but the government itself that is so big and so intrusive that it can actually be manipulated to force a legal recognition homosexual marriage, just as DOMA would establish a national standard of traditional marriage.

This being the problem, why would people in the coalition of “leave us alone” want to simply turn the power of government onto others in society in the form of federal legislation? The “us” in “leave us alone” denotes everyone, not just a privileged class who is first in line to use the power of government for their own social preferences.  That’s just not “conservative.”

The problem is too much government in too many places using coercive force on too many individuals.  The solution is less government, not more in the interest of traditional marriage, gay marriage, no marriage, or what have you.

In his postscript to The Constitution of Liberty, F.A. Hayek lucidly described the Old World conservatives who opposed classical liberals who favored limiting the power of government and stressed the primacy of the individual.  It is a lengthy passage but well worth considering in this context.  Hayek says,

 “Let me return…to the main point, which is the characteristic complacency of the conservative toward the action of established authority and his prime concern that this authority be not weakened rather than that its power be kept within bounds.  This is difficult to reconcile with the preservation of liberty.  In general, it can probably be said that the conservative does not object to coercion or arbitrary power so long as it is used for what he regards as the right purposes. He believes that if government is in the hands of decent men, it ought not be too much restricted by rigid rules.  Since he is essentially opportunist and lacks principles, his main hope must be that the wise and the good will rule—not merely by example, as we all must wish, but by authority given to them and enforced by them.  Like the socialist, he is less concerned with the problem of how the powers of government should be limited than with that of who wields them; and, like the socialist, he regards himself as entitled to force the values he holds on other people.” [Emphasis added.]

 Hayek was not describing American conservatives.  I sadly observe, however, that these lines seem tailor-made to describe some social conservative groups vying for DOMA and boycotting CPAC over GoProud’s presence.

On the other side of gay marriage we see activists leveraging the court system urging judicial activism for the sake of imposing a legal recognition of gay marriage on the rest of society.  Would state referendums be better?  Hardly.   Either would force society through the coercion of government to recognize and validate homosexuality.  If people do not wish to recognize gay marriage why should they be forced to?  

Principled, conservative activism would be to oppose this wily judicial activism because it is judicial activism and referendum efforts not because it is being leveraged by gay activists, then work to undo the ridiculous state government requirements to get state approval to get married. 

Getting government out of the middle alleviates the rest of society from legally recognizing gay marriage. If gays wish to get married, why should they not be free to do so?  If they are free to do so I am free to—here’s a concept—leave them alone to do so.   If they wish to do so and not care about legally binding me to condone it, why would I care? (Hold on, talk of social impact of mores coming soon.)

So what of GoProud?  Where do they stand in all this? I called their office to inquire of their view of gay marriage and judicial activism. They would only say they oppose DOMA and a constitutional amendment on traditional marriage on the grounds of federalism and equal rights, and that marriage is a matter for the states.  There was no comment on judicial activism and gay marriage at the state level.

At this point I see both an opportunity and a concern for them.  If they stand by their principles and want to see policy derivative of the principles they profess, they should come out (absolutely no pun intended there) unambiguously against imposing gay marriage on society just as rigorously as they oppose DOMA.  GoProud stands for limited government and liberty, so taking such a stand would be a principled, conservative stance to make and, combined with their stated legislative priorities and core principles, make them a valued activist member of the center-right coalition.  Not doing so, unfortunately, makes them appear complacent in such an important matter.

Here would be a good place to inject that I am a social conservative.  Among other things, I recognize the social benefits of traditional family values.  I do not condone homosexuality.  In fact, socially I see in it a philosophical and moral error.  But not condoning homosexuality should not equate to supporting DOMA if one holds to basic political principles, and opposing legal recognition of gay marriage should not be one labeled a homophobe.  I am simply trying to be intellectually consistent as both a partisan of liberty and the Constitution and a social conservative (one opposed to big government no matter who is in charge).

I also recognize that using government as a vehicle to apply social values—whoever’s social values—destroys the freedom that is a prerequisite to live the moral life that is good for society.  If you are compelled toward holding to a value, how legitimate is that belief?  If you come to that belief through the free exchange of ideas and after someone appealed to your reason and intellect, congratulations, you actually believe it. As Ludwig von Mise reminds us, “Only in the frame of a free society is it meaningful to distinguish between what is good and ought to be done and what is bad and ought to be avoided.” 

If I truly desire freedom for myself and society—to be left alone—that freedom comes at a cost: people will use that freedom in manners that I do not approve of that, as Jefferson would say, neither break my leg nor pick my pocket. Put government in the middle of everything and how other people live their lives will indeed affect me; doing so puts more people in society at odds with other people and gives us incentives to neglect our principles and want the government to do more on our behalf at the cost of other’s freedom.

That’s just not conservative.

I don’t share GoProud’s social values but I certainly share their political convictions, especially if they publically oppose imposing gay marriage through the court system.  I share most of the social values of social conservatives but don’t share the political goal of DOMA.  (Whatever problem social conservatives have with “big government” too often seems to be that the wrong people are in charge, not with big government itself.)

Returning to Hayek:  

“The typical conservative is indeed usually a man of very strong moral convictions.  What I mean is that he has no political principles which enable him to work with people whose moral values differ from his own for a political order in which both can obey their convictions.”

I’m going to go out on a limb here and assert that conservatism is primarily a political movement about freedom and free society.  Conservatism is also a social movement wherein we may persuade and influence others about social mores and what is good for society, but in order for any social impact to be meaningful such persuasion has to transpire freely, in society among ourselves, not at the coercive end of laws and regulations.  Only in a free society can conservative political and social values coincide. 

It will be interesting at CPAC this year.  I hope to come away energized, but above all else I hope to first feel and then feed off a vibrant love of liberty.  I need it.  We all need it.

Since CPAC Is Coming Up, What Are We Conserving?

What exactly are conservatives trying to conserve?  Since CPAC (the Conservative Political Action Conference) is around the corner, I thought I'd repeat this post:

~~~~~~~~

Liberal and conservative, Left and Right, Republican and Democrat, Libertarians, Progressives, Klingons, Druids, Hobbits....

What do all the labels signify?

Presently the term "liberalism" is a generic description of a preference of government-run solutions to problems, real and contrived. Government-run health care, for example, is the solution to health care costs and inefficiencies. Government is the primary answer to most any question of policy and social issues. Liberal policies, therefore, are those that place primary importance of government power, government growth, and government involvement in more and more of the lives of Americans.

This wasn't always what a good liberal preferred.

“Classical Liberalism” was a movement of the 18th and early 19th centuries that stressed the primacy of the individual over the state and individual rights secured through limiting the power of  government.  Competitive free market capitalism and free international trade was the economical fruition of this thought, acknowledging that social welfare and advances in living standards come from freedom in the marketplace, not the dictates of central governments. Furthermore, international peace, it was argued, was more probable through free trade among peoples of respective nations, therefore punitive tariffs damaged whatever degree of both domestic and international tranquility that could otherwise be attained in an imperfect world.

The Founding Fathers are widely viewed as classic liberals.  The Constitution, with its limitations on government powers and protections of individual rights, fits the description quite well.  Also, the Declaration of Independence, our founding document, states in assertively plain terms a clearly classically liberal view of man, government, and justice. Jefferson’s Declaration—with its insistence that governments derive their legitimate powers from the consent of the people—reads like a footnote to John Locke’s Second Treatise, is another lodestar of classic liberalism.

The term, liberal in today’s sense means the opposite of what it originally meant. Modern defenders and apologists for classical liberalism such as Milton Friedman refused to relinquish the title liberal.  From Capitalism and Freedom:

"In the name of welfare and equality, the twentieth-century liberal has come to favor a revival of the very policies of state intervention and paternalism against which classical liberalism fought.  In the very act of turning the clock back to seventeenth-century mercantilism, he is fond of castigating true liberals as reactionary!" [Emphasis added.]

Ludwig Von Mises, in the introduction to the English version of his book, Liberalism: The Classical Tradition,  explains that liberalism today means the opposite of the liberalism he is setting forth to defend:

"In England the term 'liberal' is mostly used to signify a program that only in details differs from the totalitarianism of the socialists.  In the United States 'liberal' means today a set of ideas and political postulates that in every regard are the opposite of all that liberalism meant to the preceding generations."  

On the other side of the ideological and philosophical aisle, classical liberalism and contemporary conservatism (generally) value the primacy of the individual, individual freedom and rights, and free markets.  They are also both suspicious of government activities beyond national defense and the judicial system, and stress the importance of constitutional limits on government power.

Conservatives are therefore doing their best to conserve classical liberalism.

So I'm looking forward to rubbing elbows with a lot of good liberals at CPAC, all confusion about labels notwithstanding.

A New New Deal Is A Bad Bad Idea

"Underlying a lack of faith in free markets is an underlying lack of faith in freedom itself."~~~Milton Friedman

Enthusiasts of excessive control of the market enthusiastically liken President Obama to FDR.  This enthusiastic comparison rests on a flawed premise, that FDR's hyper intervention via the New Deal saved the country from a crushing depression.

The comparison of our current president with FDR is not a flattering one, however, when we take the long view of the Great Depression.  As Jim Powell amply illustrates in his book FDR's Folly, government control and manipulation of nearly all aspects of the economy--and therefore society--turned a depression not uncommon to American history into a deep and abiding depression, lasting over a decade.

If President Obama is the new FDR we have worse economic times ahead.

Put another way, why was this one depression bad enough to be remembered our only great depression?   It was, after all, the only one "great" enough in American history to be remembered by that name. 

A market economy runs primarily on freedom: cooperation among individuals, contractual agreements, entrepreneurship, pursuit of respective self interest, and marginal business growth all require a free society.  In order to create wealth, employment, and a rising standard of living for a diverse population of millions, capital and limited resources with alternative uses must be efficiently allocated and utilized.

Controlled and over- regulated markets have never been up to the task of efficiently meeting the demands of advanced societies; socialism, in whatever degree and form, creates uncertainty in market condition-- lack of freedom, that is--that stagnates growth.  Government obstruction of the freedom required by the market and regulation beyond its proper role (and there is a good role for government) inevitably brings about economic stagnation and high unemployment.

Remember to ask, what and who is "the free market," or what is more commonly tossed around, "the private sector"?  It is nothing less than you, me, and other individuals freely and responsibly pursuing our respective self interests.

As the above quote from Milton Friedman pointedly reminds us, not trusting "the market" is not trusting in freedom itself--it is a distrust of ourselves.  A demand for more regulation of "the private sector" is not a demand to control some faceless entity out there in the murky distance; it is a distrust of and demand to control yourself and your own lives! 

Of course, it's never ourselves and our own liberty we don't trust; it is always some other guy.  In a free society based on a free exchange economy, that someone else is you.  During the New Deal when the federal government ordered millions of pigs slaughtered and acres of wheat plowed under, people everywhere went hungry longer than they needed to because some people were not free to produce the food millions of others demanded.

The more freedom was increasingly needed the more it was repressed, and the depression dragged on and on and on.

So let's make sure we're not in for a New New Deal.