Symmetry of Waste: Why Aren't Big Government Advocates Pragmatic?

For much of its history, proponents of "state activist liberalism," have claimed that expansion of government is "pragmatic."  This claim was set against three historical patterns.   First, the American ideology until the early twentieth century was freedom.  Expansion of the state could be posed as a more modern alternative.  Second, the pragmatism of William James and Charles Sanders Pierce was popular in the early twentieth century and state activist liberals used its rhetoric.  Third, the public became alarmed at economic developments in the late 19th century, specifically the development of large railroads and trusts that seemed to have economic power.   The large businesses claimed to exercise the right of free contract and laissez-faire in a tone that reflected social Darwinism.  In fact, the railroads and Standard Oil depended on government support.

The response to concerns about big business was big government. This meant legislation like the Sherman Anti-trust Act and the Interstate Commerce Act which aimed to regulate trusts and railroads.  These steps were extended during the Progressive era, when Theodore Roosevelt proposed the Federal Trade Commission and the regulation of trusts.  In his speeches, Roosevelt proposed most of the social legislation that was subsequently adopted during the New Deal.

However, the claim of pragmatism is that what works will be maintained and what fails will be terminated.  One of the earliest laws, the Sherman Anti-trust Act, did not work.  In fact, the Sherman Anti-trust Act resulted in firms growing larger each decade because it illegalized collusion among small firms, providing an incentive for mergers and takeovers. 

Without tracing the ensuing history, government was repeatedly extended, especially in the 1930s, 1960s and 1970s.  Yet, no one ever asked whether any of the programs worked or not.  No one asked whether the Fed was responsible for the greater economic instability and higher unemployment of the twentieth century than of the 19th century.  No one asked why welfare programs induced rather than reduced poverty and dependency.  No one asked why only three percent of government programs are terminated but 80 percent of businesses fail in their first five years.  Failure is an essential component of innovation.  Most ideas fail, and to find a good, workable idea many prototypes must be tried. But government programs never fail, hence they are not tested by reality.  They are not pragmatic.

It is not just that advocates of big government do not reject programs that fail.  Advocates of big government do not even QUESTION whether or not the programs that they advocate work.  There are no mechanisms in place to test whether social security, for example, works better than another alternative; or whether the post office is the optimal mode of mail delivery.  Not only is the information not known, the questions are scrupulously avoided.  To ask pragmatic questions is heresy to "state activist liberals."

In order to understand the reason why questions about program efficacy are avoided one needs to follow the money.  Government functions by borrowing money.  Banks make a profit off the lending.  The Federal Reserve Bank exists to expand the money supply so that the banks can profit by lending to the state. 

Banks do not care if the reasons for their lending work.  They want bigger government because they can lend more. Moreover, expansion of the state leads to monetary expansion and monetary expansion further subsidizes banks' profit margins.  This is so because increased government borrowing leads to crowding out of private sector borrowers.  Interest rates rise, the economy slows and the Fed can justify expansion of the money supply (lowering interest rates) to "stimulate" the economy to "help small business."  The result is that the Fed purchases treasury bonds from banks, and the monetary base expands.  The banks create a multiple of the reserves out of thin air, and business borrows.  Banks collect interest.  Much of the expanded money is diverted to privileged hedge funds, Wall Street and corporations.

In order to create the non-pragmatic version of "state activist liberalism" the government relies on two institutions: the media and the public schools.  The public schools fail to educate children, causing the majority to lack the basic cognitive skills needed to read, write, do basic math or follow a news story.  The graduates of American public schools are sub-literate, sub-numerate and lacking in basic reasoning skills.  At the same time, the graduates are ideologically trained to believe in government; in socialism and in state expansion. "Social justice education" is one of the fundamental goals of the banker-oriented education system.

The more capable, elite students are taught to scrupulously obey direction.  They are trained that the opinions of information sources such as newspapers and television are authentic while the opinions of friends or one's self are invalid.  They are trained to trust mass media rather than common sense.  The "other direction" that David Riesman described in the 1950s was a function of the financification of the US economy.

I've rarely met a "liberal" or left winger who was capable of thinking for him or herself. Rather, they parrot a newspaper or television station.   Many conservatives parrot radio and television talk shows.  Naturally, the newspapers and television stations are financially responsive to or owned by banks or other Fed-related institutions. 

There is a complete absence of pragmatism among both "conservatives" and "liberals".  "Conservatives" applauded the absurd Bush prescription drug plan and the Iraqi and Afghanistan Wars while "liberals" applauded the bailout, the stimulus and the absurdly designed Obama health care law.  Neither ends the other's programs.  The "liberals" have not ended the wars, which they claimed to oppose, and the "conservatives" have not cut back on the massive waste in Washington.  There is a perfect symmetry of waste.  The interest paid to the banking system mounts.

Aristotle on Money and Happiness

                                                             Aristotle
                                                                       
Aristotle was a Greek philosopher, a student of Plato and teacher of Alexander the Great, who lived in the fourth century, BC.  Contrary to Plato, he believed in freedom, although he was not overly fond of democracy. He preferred an ideal kingship, but recognized that few kings lived up to his ideal and that kingship typically turns into tyranny. Democracy, in his view the corrupted form of constitutional government, is not so bad a perversion as tyranny.

He was an advocate of the middle class.  He thought reason to be the way to greatest happiness and  happiness to be the ultimate good.  Morality was based, in his view, on virtues, habits or states of character in accordance with the right rule learned from childhood. Virtues include  moral virtues like courage, temperance and justice.  Other moral virtues include good temper, tact and interpersonal skills, generosity or liberality, the ability to virtuously make (or at least have) money, the magnificence of a generous man of great wealth,  and the ability to succeed in the political world of the Athenian democracy.  He views virtuous behavior as appropriate in a given situation, the mean or optimal way of behaving.  As well, Aristotle emphasized the intellectual virtues of philosophic wisdom, science, intuitive understanding, practical wisdom, and knowledge of crafts or skills.  Practical wisdom involves applying a particular to a general principle. Excellent deliberation succeeds in attaining the ends sought.  There is no conflict between success in what today we would call the economic sense and morality.  Rather, economic success would have been inconceivable to Aristotle as success were it not virtuous. 

Aristotle saw the highest virtue as a life dedicated to philosophy and thought.  But he was a realist.  He did not see money as the root of all evil. Rather, the virtues are a unity. For instance, one cannot be successful without being truthful. That is a far cry from today's post-Enlightenment world, where ethics and the ability to be successful are viewed as contradictory.

 In the final book of his Nicomachean Ethics he discusses the link between money and a life devoted to philosophical wisdom:

"But, being a man, one will also need external prosperity; for our nature is not self-sufficient for the purpose of contemplation, but our body must be healthy and must have food and other attention. Still, we must not think that the man who is to be happy will need many things or great things, merely because he cannot be supremely happy without external goods; for self-sufficiency and action do not involve excess, and we can do noble acts without ruling earth and sea; for even with moderate advantages one can act virtuously (this is manifest enough; for private persons are thought to do worthy acts no less than despots--indeed, even more); and it is enough that we should have so much as that; for the life of the man who is active in accordance with virtue will be happy.  Solon, too, was perhaps sketching well the happy man when he described him as moderately furnished with externals but as having done (as Solon thought) the noblest acts, and lived temperately;  for one can with but moderate possessions do what one ought. Anaxagoras also seems to have supposed the happy man not to be rich nor a despot, when he said that he would not be surprised if the happy man were to seem to most people a strange person; for they judge by externals, since externals are all they perceive. The opinions of the wise seem, then, to harmonize with our arguments.  But while even such things carry some conviction, the truth in practical matters is discerned from the facts of life, and if it harmonizes with the facts we must accept it, but if it clashes with them we must suppose it to be mere theory.  Now he who exercises his reason and cultivates it seems to be both in the best state of mind and most dear to the gods. For if the gods have any care for human affairs, as they are thought to have, it would be reasonable both that they should delight in that which was best and most akin to them...And that all these attributes belong most of all to the philosopher is manifest. He therefore, is dearest to the gods. And he who is that will presumably be the happiest..."

Stop Regulation of the Internet

Mike Marnell just forwarded this e-mail from Americans for Prosperity urging you to write your Congressman and Senators to oppose the Obama administration's attempt to regulate the Internet.  I wrote the following letter:

Dear Congressman Hinchey/Senator Schumer/Senator Gillibrand:

I oppose Julius Genachowski's and President Obama's efforts to squelch freedom of speech on the Internet.  The Internet does not need regulation, especially from a bonehead like Mr. Genachowski.  The very proposal is evidence of the authoritarian, fascistic intent of the Obama Administration and the Democratic Party.

Sincerely,

Mitchell Langbert


>Washington wants to take over everything it can get its hands on. The banks. Insurance companies. Automakers. Our health care.

Now Obama FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski has set his sights on taking over the Internet, and we're launching a major national effort to stop him.

Too many dominoes have already fallen. We need to hold the line. The Internet as is exists now is the most powerful tool for grassroots activism and communication that the world has ever known. We simply cannot risk allowing the FCC to succeed in its efforts to impose heavy-handed regulation by "reclassifying" the Internet as an old-fashioned public utility.

Today we are launching a major national effort to educate and mobilize Americans against this newest threat. Check out our new ad, which is running nationally starting today, on http://www.nointernettakeover.com/.

Robert McChesney, founder of the left-wing group Free Press (whose communications director was hired by FCC Chairman Genachowski to assist his effort to regulate the Internet) is honest about the stakes, telling SocialistProject.ca: "What we want to have in the U.S. and in every society is an Internet that is not private property, but a public utility."

Please take a moment right now to head over to http://www.nointernettakeover.com/ and view our new national TV ad called "Dominoes." If you like the ad, please consider clicking on the donate button. Your donation will help keep the ad on the air to educate and mobilize more Americans to demand that Congress step in and stop the FCC's Internet power grab.

The new site also has a petition that I hope you'll sign, and tools to write Congress and demand they stop the FCC. Chairman Genachowski and his two Democratic allies at the FCC could, with just their three votes, take over a sector of our economy roughly the same size as health care.

Congress cannot let that happen. As the legitimate legislative branch, Congress must step up and take responsibility. And we need to send a clear message that if this Congress will not stop the FCC's Internet takeover, we need to elect one that will.

With your help we can finally stop Washington's takeover streak.

Tim

P.S. Please forward this email to your friends and share our new www.NoInternetTakeover.com site on Facebook and Twitter. We need to make this a major issue so that Washington will understand that we're paying attention and will not accept another big government takeover. Thanks.

Why Might Obama Use a Connecticut-Based Social Security Number?

According to World Net Daily President Obama uses a Social Security number based in Connecticut (h/t Jim Crum).  WND writes that it:

"has copies of affidavits filed separately in a presidential eligibility lawsuit in the U.S. District Court of the District of Columbia by Ohio licensed private investigator Susan Daniels and Colorado private investigator John N. Sampson.


"The investigators believe Obama needs to explain why he is using a Social Security number reserved for Connecticut applicants that was issued at a date later than he is known to have held employment."

Perhaps the most remarkable thing about questions like this is the religious fervor with which the Democratic Party media outlets insist that raising  them is taboo.