Paragraph Polemics#9:THE REAL ISSUE WITH IDENTITY POLITICS

THE REAL ISSUE WITH IDENTITY POLITICS:

The ancient wisdom of Aristotle radiates from the quote “ The worst form of inequality is to try to make unequal things equal” pithily  and precisely  expressing an enduring aspect of natural law. Ludwig Von Mises asserted in his magnum opus Human Action that inequality is inevitable, that inequality in skill is what enabled trade specification which is related to increases in productivity. Many subscribers of the ethos of social justice and identity politics find such notions to cancerous core of our current capitalistic society. Since the dispossessed of society that have little in the way of marketable skills struggle to get by. However, the scope of the aims of the social justice transcend the purview of economic concerns.

 

Many proponents of this ideology also favor extending equalizing legislation into the realm of social policy. Exemplified by a litany of anti-discrimination laws and veering into the territory of favoring policies that enforce compelled speech (i.e. laws coercing people to use the proper gender pronoun).  The bridge from EBT Cards to the proposal of compelled speech ordinances demonstrates the principle of government power begetting government power.Hastening an already deep descent into authoritarianism. Some may say such conjecture is subject to the slippery slope fallacy, I would staunchly repudiate this notion.  Renown economist F.A. Hayek demonstrates the reality of this principle in his flagship book The Road to Serfdom. The book details how regulation has a trickle down effect, where planned economies while invariably lead to oppression in every other aspect of life. If the state can control our economy, it is not a stretch that it can obtain control over other sectors of society. Some living examples of such outgrowths of authoritarianism include the Soviet Union, Nazi Germany, Maoist China, etc. There is certainly some historical precedence supporting this notion as a reoccurring theme throughout history.

 

I would speculate that this principle of governmental control bleeding into quasi and full totalitarianism can have a starting point that it is not economic.  Operating under the assumption that the United States is engaging in “Capitalistic” trade policies, it can be derived through a priori reasoning that this descent into an oppressive government can have a non-economic point-of-entry. Seems feasible considering the propensities of bureaucratic institutions. However, the United states is not practicing Capitalism in the sense of absolute purity. Like most other countries the United States has a mixture of socialistic and capitalistic policies, in other words, a mixed-economy. It would not be a quantum leap to expand to a fully planned economy and or relinquish total control to another sector of life to the federal government. Beyond that you do not need legislation to allow “marginalized populations” to live filling lives. You just need to have a government that protects natural and property rights. However, the unfortunate part is that the government laws expands it authority beyond that function. If anything, a lack of governmental authority would give individuals the ability to self-identify and live their lives as the opt to. Such individuals would be able to freely live their lives and not at the expense of the rights of others.  Hence, why it piques my curiosity when people claim that you need oppressive policies to impose social justice.  It places a child-like faith in the same structures that are flawed and have the power to oppress. The hope of the social justice crowd is that their policies only oppress those who are at odd with their agenda.

 

 

 

Advertisements

Paragraph Polemics#8: THE WARFARE STATE IS THE WELFARE STATE

THE WARFARE STATE IS THE WELFARE STATE:

 

Many are acquainted by president Eisenhower’s farewell address where he directly warns us of the dangers of the “military industrial complex”. Eisenhower’s words did not reflect the confusion of a conspiratorial idealization, but rather a largely ignored reality. It is a form of corporatism that has achieved privileged status among the various forms of crony capitalism. It is cloaked by the guise of patriotism, but for those who can look past the fervor of nationalism can clearly see the charade at hand. Companies such as Raytheon, Lockett and Martin, Boeing, etc. assist with prorogating and proliferating pro-war propaganda for their own benefit. However, the profits are not the byproduct of free market capitalism, but a socialistic relationship with the U.S. federal government. Operate with the scruples of thieves as they continuously plundering the American taxpayer through standing in solidarity with war hawks that largely support preemptive provocation. Was the 2003 invasion of Iraq truly necessary? The executives at Raytheon thought so, along with the congressmen whom work in unison with such companies. Unnecessary armed conflicts instigated by warmongers and the armament industries is theft, a multi-layered form of theft. Through the tax revenue extracted and the currency printed to support such conflicts, which acts as an implicit and regressive tax. While it is quite evident that this form of trade constitute theft, however, how does it entail welfare? Much like social welfare were tax dollars are extracted from American citizens to provide finical stability, instead of an individual it is supporting the livelihood of an enterprise. Which indirectly acts as an individualized welfare, when you consider all the employees on the payroll. The thinly vailed justification for many of the recent conflicts the U.S. has been involved in would hint towards government favor of such companies.  The armament industry owes a great debt to their cozy relationship with the government analogous to the debt owed by who live in Section 8 housing, merely a different application.

Paragraph Polemics#7- Welfare is Only a Prison

WELFARE IS ONLY A PRISON:

 

The old biblical adage “… give a man a fish he eats for a day, teach a man to fish he eats for a life time..”  does convey a significant amount of archaic wisdom. Even I must admit this a firm skeptic of religion. It succinctly describes how handouts really do not help an individual long term, analogous to putting a band aid over cancer. Instead of being ineffective it is harmful. There is a deeply entrenched subculture that runs tantamount among individuals that receive welfare benefits. That is a culture of entitlement, loss of ambition, and a culture of counterproductive consumption. While consumption is a requirement of a fully functioning economy, in communities where most of the citizens are receiving public assistance you have a severe lack of production. Without productive labor consumption just further deepens local, state, and federal debts. Many individuals are less apt to make wise purchasing decisions if they have a guaranteed income regardless of the amount of effort they expend. If a large overarching institution is giving an unwavering bail out regardless of the contingencies of the hardship the potential for abuse by recipients is high. Due to this dependency on the state for finical stability the individual becomes a ward of the state. They have relinquished their right to self-ownership and self-determination for the comfort and guarantee of government assistance. This makes the welfare state a modern form of serfdom where the lord of the estate is bureaucrat.

Paragraph Polemics#6- The Trap of Nationalism

THE TRAP OF NATIONALISM:

 It is often underscored how nationalism endangers individual liberty. Many Americans see that liberty can only on the hallowed grounds of American soil. Erroneously if there is something inherently special about this country. It isn’t national boarders or a geographic boarder that give us liberty it is ideas and the individuals willing to act upon them that gives us liberty. The Founding Father’s of the United States in a sense treated the postulations of the Scottish Enlightenment like an active social experiment. Their experiment was successful for approximately the first century, until governmental authority exceeds constitutional limits. The problem with nationalism is that it causes people to dogmatically accept detrimental ideas that then yields detrimental political policies. One particularly salient example in the era of the War on Terrorism was the Patriot Act. A plethora of self-professed red-blooded patriots fully endorsed a policy, under the guise of safety and patriotism, opened the floodgate to the modern surveillance state.  The concept of the old bait-and-switch sales tactic comes to mind. Many Americans were deceived into believing that it was patriotic to create the illusion of safety at the expense of the Fourth Amendment. The relinquishment of such rights does not make anyone any safer. Rather it a descend the slippery slope of state sanctioned oppression.  Preservation of our natural rights devolves into a pedantic game of red rover, where the private citizen always loses. The self-proclaimed patriots and flag wavers to handcuff themselves to soil over to resolute principles have absolved their capacities for critical thinking either by their own volition or by the nature of their cognitive faculties. As much as they posture about forming militias to combat an oppressive government, if their intentions were genuine they would have done so years ago. In turn makes such grandstanding mere rhetoric.

Paragraph Polemic#5: What is Money?

WHAT IS MONEY:

Few people question what constitutes money, yet it is an inquiry that should be thoroughly explored. President Nixon’s 1971 abolition of the gold standard for currency was widely ignored and did not shake America’s steadfast faith in the U.S. dollar. Incredulity did not start to sweep the public until the finical crisis of 2008, when the failure of our finical institutions became more apparent. The role of the U.S. dollar as a vehicle of exchange is often confused. Initially paper currency was meant to act as a receipt for gold that could be literally redeemed. After the end of the Bretton woods agreement in 1971, our currency went from being partially back by gold to having its value completely derived by the word of the government. Now having been off the gold standard for 40 plus years, the idea of going back to the gold standard has been come an outlandish notion. So much so that former Chair of the Federal Reserve Ben Bernanke erroneously claimed that gold was not money back in 2011. Boldly and unrelentingly making such a claim requires an insurmountable amount of hubris. The core properties of money such as general acceptability, portability, durability, homogeneity, divisibility, malleability, and stability of value are all attributes of gold and silver [1]. What once a mere receipt for redemption has now become our main unit of exchange and it does not even having any value. Is continued to depreciate do to chronic debasement engender by consumption based monetary policies. Even in an era where there is the foreboding threat of hyperinflation, the idea of gold being money is laughable. Such arrogance and ignorance will resolute cannot not be strong enough of a buttress against economic collapse. Is gold money? Yes, it is Mr. Bernanke! yes, it is.

 

Footnotes:

1. http://www.economicdiscussion.net/money/top-8-qualities-of-an-ideal-money-material/609

Paragraph Polemics#4: City of Berkeley and The Prioritization of Compelled Speech Ordinances.

Public policy quite often veers into the territory of frivolity, rather than substantive concerns. It is well established the poor stewardship of government institutions regarding resource allocation. Even if most of policies are based on misconceptions, at least the illusion of utilitarian application is tenable. When governments utilize legislative power (even at the local level) to reinforce morality not only is it trivializing the enactment of law, but it also enters the realm of being repressive. Social justice categorically falls under an off shoot of moral posturing. Hence why the town of Berkeley, California passing a local regulation that requiring that in city code all terms being gender neutral. Eg.) A manhole now being morphed into a maintenance hole. Such policies are more about political rhetoric than it is about actually resolving issues. Even at that I believe that the clear majority of the “services” provided by the government could be provided by the private sector. I am not going down the conspiratorial rabbit hole to proclaim this “cultural Marxism”. It is certainly a waste of time and resources. I fully empathize  with the informed tax payers (if any) of Berkeley are being subjected to such nonsense.  Much of these absurd and unrealistic ordinances are more for keeping up appearance in Progressive political circles than    actually resolve any problems within the community. Fixation on such fringe issues (only impact a minuscule minority of people)  further validates the inefficiencies of solutions through bureaucratic channels. Serves more as moral posturing for the virtues of social justice than addressing the concerns of regular citizens. If the municipality of Berkeley really wanted to help it’s constituency, the work aim to lower tax burdens and to increase individual freedom. Much of which has the propensity to fall of deaf ears.

Paragraph Polemics#3- Economic Law over the Edicts of the Experts

ECONOMIC LAW VS. THE EDICTS OF THE EXPERTS:

A peculiar assumption of economic interventionists, namely those who favor government involvement in economic matters, is the faith in human judgement. Even the most accomplished and seasoned experts are not infallible. These same individuals who favor centrally planned economies ridicule and malign those who place their faith in the cadence of markets. While markets are not ideal, no system achieves for perfection. However, there are resolute and withstanding natural laws that facilitates market behavior. Instead of bureaucrats attempt to predict the unpredictable off of historical data and then direct economic behavior in that direction. However, the laws governing markets is infinitely true. Their validity was established and unwavering and cannot be superseded by the manipulation of by the wishes of man. The Law of Supply and Demand cannot be altered by policies, one great example is in the realm of monetary policy. If you print more money (increasing supply) it will be less valuable (it will be less preferred to other forms of currency or money, i.e.  decrease in demand). In contrast, planned economies are subjected to the ever-changing will and impulses of man.  Economic policies such as price controls and minimum wages do not have any notably enduring effectiveness or efficiency. If anything, fiat monetary policies have a proven track record of abject failure. While markets are imperfect, their fallacy is far less detrimental than that of human judgment and history fully illustrates this point. All you need to do is look at the failure of the Roman Empire if you want a truly conspicuous example that mirrors the errors of the United States.