The Beginning of Cafeteria Societies

John Locke's Second Treatise of Government* makes the case that governments are instituted by the consent of the governed and that governments are instituted in order to maximize human freedom. Much of Locke's thinking was influenced by the American frontier, and it is evident that the Founding Fathers adapted Locke's work in their thinking about government in part because they saw the Declaration of Independence as a compact to which Americans freely consented. Locke saw the colonies as emerging in this way too. In chapter VIII, "Of the Beginning of Political Societies" Locke discusses how someone can consent to being a member of a political society. He argues that owning land in a nation or living there does not make a man a member of the society:

"this no more makes a man a member of that society, a perpetual subject of that common-wealth, than it would make a man a subject to another, in whose family he found it convenient to abide for some time; though, whilst he continued in it, he were obliged to comply with the laws and submit to the government he found there."

Locke sees the freedom to leave one's country of birth and to pursue citizenship in a different state as possible because of the existence of the American frontier. If one can pick up and move to a Pennsylvanian wilderness, then one has a choice. But such wildernesses no longer exist.

The impetus to adopt the Progressive ideology occurred right at the time that the historian Frederick Jackson Turner claimed that the American frontier had closed. The nineteenth century American belief in laissez-faire psychologically depended on the existence of a frontier. Part of the response to the sense of loss from the closing of the frontier and the end of expansive growth and (mistakenly thought) the beginning of decline, were imperialism and intensification of racism. Thus, the Spanish-American War, Progressivism and intensification of Jim Crow laws all occurred at the same time. These were all the product of a win-lose mentality, a belief that freedom is possible only when physical expansion is possible. Wilson and other Progressives believed that foreign markets would be necessary to sell "overproduced" American goods. A little earlier, economists like DA Wells had argued that "overproduction" was an ongoing problem and that business needed to consolidate. Progressives focused on the need for government to control big business. This way of thinking is the flip side of expansionism. Both are win/lose psychologies.

In a win-lose psychology, one believes that in order to gain, something must be lost. That was a primary assumption of mercantilism, and so the laissez-faire of the American nineteenth century was a mercantilist laissez-faire. It replaced mercantilism's emphasis on community with Lockean individualism but it retained the win-lose psychology of mercantilism. Thus, Jacksonian democracy was racist and focused on land expansion and suppression of the Indians.

The question that intrigues me about Locke's contractualism is whether it would be possible in a non-mercantilist, non-expansionist laissez-faire framework. The expansion necessary for increasing human welfare is mental, not physical. It is not a win-lose process, but a win-win one, whereby technological genius and creativity increment human welfare. This process is possible in all phases of the economy.

But not all Americans agree with this potential. America has become divided into factions. We are no longer a single people. In the nineteenth century there were ideological factions as there are now. Likewise, there were geographic and economic ones. The Civil War was fought for this reason.

But for the most part, the factions of the nineteenth century were not mutually incompatible. This was in part because of the frontier, and in part because alternative modes of government were still possible in the various states. Federalism still permitted considerable discretion among the states. As well, the states diverged on a few key issues, such as slavery, but all Americans shared a belief in individual liberty.

Today, the basic foundation of American culture and government is splitting into the America of liberal collectivism and the America of individualism.

Unlike the nineteenth century differences between the commercial interests of Boston and the agrarian interests of Virginia, collectivism is incompatible with individualism. The most important reason is that the collectivists or Progressives insist on centralization. They have accomplished this through educational systems; creation of an elitist psychology that has enabled the Supreme Court to deviate with respect to values from a large portion of Americans; and emphasis on collectivist federal programs such as Social Security and the income tax that require participation. Most of all, the Progressives have emphasized centralization, and do not tolerate state-level deviation from the broad Progressive program and will violently quell any individual resistance.


Locke argued that citizenship depends on agreement. Those who do not agree with the collectivist program ought to have some rights. So far, they have allowed the collectivists to intimidate them, and have acquiesced in seeing their rights whittled.

What might be a better approach? One might be the creation of cafeteria societies. Might Americans be allowed to choose among several alternative social structures? Why must all Americans make do with the failed ideas that Washington has imposed. In industry, benefit plans have been adopted that give employees a choice. Why can we not have two or three competing social security, welfare, taxation and health insurance schemes? Those who prefer low taxes and less benefits might choose one state, while those who prefer high taxes might choose the other. Democrats and Republicans could each have the system that they prefer. The two systems would be conjoined through a common defense and tariff policy, but Americans could begin to have governments that they believe in.

John Locke's idea of contractual government might point the way to a future that is characterized by flexibility and choice rather than the heavy, violent hand of collectivist Progressivism. America needs to think about how to reassert the basic Lockean compact.


*John Locke, Second Treatise of Government, Edited with an Introduction by CB Macpherson. Indianapolis, Ind.: Hackett Publishing, 1980

Barack Obama's Need for Power

It is normal for politicians to display a trait that the psychologists David McClelland and Henry A. Murray called the need for power. The power need is not problematic unless, of course, it is combined with anti-social or sociopathic patterns. Of course, many politicians display these traits as well. Mr. Obama has repeatedly struck me as a conscienceless liar. His association with Bill Ayers, an alleged felon, Rezko, and two outlandish preachers, Wright and Pfleger, raise red flags stamped with the letter "s" for anti-social.

I received two releases this morning that Obama has already been displaying embarrassingly excessive power needs. First, Bob Robbins forwarded a youtube link to an American Issues Project ad that questions Obama's link to terrorist and progressive educator Bill Ayers. Instead of answering the ad, reports Worldnet Daily, Mr. Obama:

"is warning TV stations and asking the Justice Department to intervene in an attempt to block the airing of an ad by a non-profit group that links him to an unrepentant domestic terrorist."

I wonder how Mr. Obama will react to criticism should he be elected president. Will we see a renewal of the Alien and Sedition Act?

As well, Andy Martin just sent this press release:

>"In my opinion, Obama has a character flaw that compels him to equate differences of opinion with threats to his personal security. He has manipulated the Secret Service into a form of Soviet secret police. To protect him from his imaginary demons.

>"Dana Milbank of the Washington Post wrote recently that Obama now has a "security bubble" larger than President Bush's. http://voices.washingtonpost.com/roughsketch/ Obama only became the official candidate this week. Milbank aptly called Obama the "presumptuous candidate." The bubble will no doubt grow. If Obama is elected--heaven forefend--the bubble will in time come to encompass all of downtown Washington. Who knows what threats could lurk beyond the horizon against a "President Obama?" Better to lock down America than risk Obama.

>"Fear is now the driving force in presidential politics and the presidency. No security measure is too extreme to merit rejection by the Secret Service. Our leaders become more and remote from the led. Is this healthy?

>"When you combine Mr. Obama's paranoia about threats to himself, with his equally self-destructive passion for control and secrecy, we have the making of America's first dictator. An African-American version of Richard Nixon. Democrats were the party that battled President Bush over FISA, but Obama defected from his party and voted for FISA amendments that gave greater power to U. S. intelligence and security agencies, and the president himself.

When you combine Mr. Obama's odd secrecy and lying about his upbringing and adoption; his inclination to associate with fringe, lawless characters, his aggresive efforts to suppress anti-Obama advertisements, and the taste for lying expressed in his book, I am deeply concerned about the mainstream media's incompetent inability to ask questions about Mr. Obama's character. If Obama does shatter democracy, it will be because Americans have allowed their institutions, to include the media but also party politics, dominance by factions and special interest groups and excessive federal power, to rot and wither.

Mairi Isn't Going to Take It Any More

I just received this e-mail from Mairi. How far along the road to serfdom does the United States need to travel before more of us wake up to the farce formerly known as the "liberal consensus"? Going beyond Mairi's suggestion of background tests, I think that all candidates should be required to undergo POLYGRAPH tests on issues voted on by their constituents, with the results publicly posted.

>"My name is Mairi, and you may have seen my e-mail on some recent e-mails you have received.

>I think all of us have learned a VERY valuable lesson from this election. Our government is NOT working! There is no process that verifies the qualifications of candidates. If or when a candidate IS found ineligible, there is no recourse to remedy the situation without filing in court, ( an expensive and frustrating remedy in any event). Having seen the process really "close-up and personal" in this election, one has to wonder if there are others holding office who are legally unqualified to serve. How would we ever know? I think many of us are scratching our heads saying, "How can this be? There are laws, is anyone protecting them?" I believe now that the answer is, "NO!"

>"I believe in my heart that America MUST come up with a viable third party, but that should wait. I think before we go there, we MUST make certain that the process itself changes. We cannot expect our elected officials to step up to the challenge, so the weight of reform will have to rest on the shoulders of brave men and women in this Country, willing to do the hard work, and face the ugly threats and challenges that may accompany it!

>"I am willing to do the work, but it must fall to MANY, and from EVERY State. We need to have term limits initiated in EVERY State for Senators and Congress persons. We have to safeguard the passing of legislation. "By and for" special interest groups and "Big Money" is no longer acceptable. I hope you have read about MBNA and Joe Biden. Just the tip of the iceberg as well we know. The situation in our Capital is "progressively" getting worse. (Hmmmm....is that where they have come up with their "We are Progressives"? terminology do you suppose?) We also MUST demand that all candidates have background checks run. This is an outrage that no one has assumed the responsibility to insure that each and every candidate is legally eligible to hold the office for which he/she is running! Every State must have a board of elections, that not only checks in petitions, but actively and thoroughly verifies the status of every candidate. That same board should have the additional capability to remove from office, any person found to have obtained an office illegally. I know it sounds like LOTS of work, but think what the alternative is.......

>"The use of the internet should help in any endeavor, but it should not be relied upon solely. I think each State needs to have committees set up to force term limits to referendum! I believe the American people are savvy enough to see what is happening in Washington, and I believe they should be allowed to voice their opinion on this horrible situation.

>"Change must start somewhere, and I am praying you are willing to claim, "Let change begin with me!" The cost of sitting back and allowing further injustice, is just too great."

Sincerely,
Mairi"

Has Joe Biden Used Public Monies for His Wife's Private Purposes?

ReUnionPI just sent me the following:

>"Joe Biden's Senate-paid personal assistant, Tonya Baker, uses Biden's Senate office for conducting business for Jill Biden's tax exempt entity. See page 19 of tax return and compare the email address, telephone numbers and street address for Tonya Baker to what is on the Senator's web site at the bottom of the page for the Wilmington office. Examine the history of the federal tax liens of Senate employee Baker"