However, I completely dissociate myself with the means discussed in the editorials. These means will lead to increased bloodshed and tyranny, less freedom and prosperity. These means are full of hatred, force, and violence than cannot be used to fix anything. These means are antithetical to the teachings of Jesus Christ that many of these “nuts” claim to espouse.

The environment we are in is similar to that in Athens during the Peloponnesian War. Thucydides describes it thus:

Words had to change their ordinary meaning and to take that which was now given them. Reckless audacity came to be considered the courage of a loyal ally; prudent hesitation, specious cowardice; moderation was held to be a cloak for unmanliness; ability to see all sides of a question, inaptness to act on any. Frantic violence became the attribute of manliness; cautious plotting, a justifiable means of self-defence. The advocate of extreme measures was always trustworthy; his opponent a man to be suspected…The fair proposals of an adversary were met with jealous precautions by the stronger of the two, and not with a generous confidence. Revenge also was held of more account than self-preservation…Indeed it is generally the case that men are readier to call rogues clever than simpletons honest, and are as ashamed of being the second as they are proud of being the first. The cause of all these evils was the lust for power arising from greed and ambition; and from these passions proceeded the violence of parties once engaged in contention. The leaders in the cities, each provided with the fairest professions, on the one side with the cry of political equality of the people, on the other of a moderate aristocracy, sought prizes for themselves in those public interests which they pretended to cherish, and, recoiling from no means in their struggles for ascendancy engaged in the direst excesses…Meanwhile the moderate part of the citizens perished between the two, either for not joining in the quarrel, or because envy would not suffer them to escape.

Thus every form of iniquity took root in the Hellenic countries by reason of the troubles. The ancient simplicity into which honor so largely entered was laughed down and disappeared; and society became divided into camps in which no man trusted his fellow.

These editorials give the sense that the times Thucydides describes are either here, or are fast approaching. The fear and distrust that permeate our political environment is disturbing. Is power to be distrusted? Absolutely, that’s why checks and balances in government are absolutely essential. Have some of those checks and balances been destroyed or ignored? Yes. So how do we go about fixing things?

We engage in the conversation, instead of angrily getting into a bunker mentality. We talk to those running for office and make clear our views and ideas in an appropriate and non-threatening, non-violent tone. We discuss options for changing the current political structures to sure up the checks and balances that are tipping.

But if you are convinced that the government is stealing your money by taxing you, have the guts to stop paying your taxes, as Henry David Thoreau did. If you are convinced that certain laws are unjust, violate them and spend time in jail to prove your point and bring others around to your point of view.

If you aren’t so convinced of your position to be willing to stake your own life non-violently, why are you willing to stake someone else’s life violently? There is nothing Christian about threatening violent revolution, or rebellion. If you disagree so adamantly with what the government is doing, stop cooperating with it. Don’t take Medicare or Medicaid. Don’t send your kids to public schools where they will be indoctrinated by “the socialists”. But do something. Better your health. Join with others in cooperative schools and health systems. Don’t just condemn the government and crawl into your bunker.

And don’t ever take up a weapon of aggression in order to make your point. (Perhaps even consider turning the other cheek in the face of aggression). Aggression has been tried in the history of the world, and it is the least effective method of changing things and in fact it can be argued that aggression doesn’t change anything.

So long as we allow fear to motivate our actions, it will lead us down the road to violence, oppression, war and tyranny; it also leads us down the road to bad legislation, poverty, and debt.

The reason for the American Revolution was that the American colonists had no representation, no say, in their government. However some may feel that this is the case today, our situation has not yet arrived at this point. Participate. Engage. Expand your knowledge base. Expand your circle of friends. Talk to people you disagree with or you think are different from you.

The forms are still in place. The dialog is still more free than in any other place. But please, please, do not buy into the fear-mongering, the hate-mongering, the idea that violence will fix anything. It will only further enslave and tyrannize.

Education

According to Aristotle, education is the foundation of a society’s constitution. If the constitution of a society is to be changed, the education is the place to affect that change. Jefferson laments the changes in the quality and content of Virginia education from the 1750’s to the 1810’s. His answer was to implement an educational system, funded by the public, that would “bring into action that mass of talents which lies buried in poverty in every country, for want of development…” I have seen in the deepest poverty, the inherent genius in children. These young ones are quick, observant, sharp, and longing for knowledge. However, because of the lack of resources, they are likely to become another back on which the aristocracy can place the burden of labor without ownership.

What needs to be taught in this educational foundation of liberty? Thinking, creativity, whole-ness, reason, morality, virtue. The skills will take care of themselves when the means are correct. Children will learn to read, write, and calculate as the natural end to the processes.

This is almost the 180° opposite of today’s public education system. How can the change be brought about? Because without a quick and thorough change, our freedoms will more and more rapidly be carried away on the ever blowing breeze of aristocratic dependency. It must start with recognition of the problem and realization that the situation can be changed, fundamentally at home. Once enough families are making these changes at home, their influence on the system will be such that curricula and methods will have to change. This will then impact those children whose parents aren’t aware of the problem or are unable to make the transition on their own. This is a start; however, the effects will not be seen for a generation. The result will be an educated mass that understands where rights come from and that those rights are inseparable from duties. This will preserve the power to the mass.

Governmental Forms

The second influence that must be recognized is the forms of government that we live under. J. Adams’ main contention about the aristocracy (which he feared and recognized as the greatest threat to liberty) was that in order to control it, it must have a place at the table. It must be above board. If the aristocracy has no prescribed, defined power, it will find a way to have unlimited power. Jefferson disagreed, feeling that giving them power only allowed for the abuse of that power. Adams argued that everyone tends to abuse the power they have and it is the job of the other entities in government to exert checks on the power given the aristocracy.

The problem with Adams argument is that in a representative democracy, all the representatives quickly begin to “represent” the aristocratic interest. Adams argued that you could put all the aristocrats into the Senate and they would waste their time arguing with each other. That’s true if you only have 100 aristocrats. The other 10,000 are going to be influencing the system in anyway possible. Believing that by having a Senate a country is “checking” the aristocracy is naïve and ignores history. Both Jefferson and Adams recognized that Rome’s governmental structure, even during the Republic era, was antithetical to freedom and open to abuse by the “aristoi”.

Giving power to the Senate provides a great check on the president and the rapidly changing (at times) make up of the House. However, let’s not think that it really checks the aristocracy. What it does is gave the people (at least those who understand the reasoning that Adams uses) a false sense of security by assuming that this form works for checking the “aristoi”.

The only check on the aristocracy is for the mass to jealously guard its freedoms. Term limits and firm lobby reform (not by the lobbyists) must be enacted. This requires an education and economic forms that will keep the aristoi from over-running the prosperity of the people.

Economics

The most powerful mechanisms the aristocracy can use to keep political control are war, banking, inflation and debt. Jefferson spends many long and complicated letters explaining these evils. He uses England as an example of what not to do. England’s economy (because it is an island-nation) was based on trade and finance, what Jefferson collectively refers to as commerce. Because England had to ship and finance shipping, they developed a powerful banking system that was easily and readily manipulated by the commercial and political interests of England. They also indebted the nation in order to build up a powerful navy to protect their shipping interests. Jefferson foresaw the day in which England and the United States would work side-by-side for freedom in the world because England would return to its roots by observing the example of the U.S. as the beacon of freedom and liberty and sovereignty throughout the world.

What Jefferson saw (these two Anglo-Saxon countries working together) came true. However, it wasn’t because England became like the U.S. It’s because the U.S. became like England, embracing the banking system, relying on commerce, and then with the Mexican-American War and later the Spanish-American War, exerting the same imperialistic oppression the Founders hated so much in English foreign policy.

The aristocracy in the U.S. saw that there was an incredible amount of money to be made in a capitalistic system that keeps certain countries as providers of raw materials and as markets for finished goods, keeping their manufacturing and agricultural sectors at a minimum.

Only by changing our fundamental economic premises in this country can the mass starve the beast that is the aristocracy. The economies must become local and sustainable. The laws must be revised to either eliminate tax breaks for retirement funds or eliminate the limits on where those retirement funds must be invested. Any legislator who voted for TARP bailouts of the financial industry should be out of a job (For those in Utah, that means Senator Bob Bennett in 2010 and Sen Hatch in 2012).

These fundamental changes can turn the tide to return the political power from the “aristoi” back to the mass, where it must reside in order to preserve the freedom and prosperity of any representative democracy.

Posted using ShareThis

Without the ability to choose and freely pursue one’s interest, can one really have the virtue, the goodness, the morality that will accomplish great things? Without freedom can human individuals, families, and communities really become what they were meant to become (the Aristotelian definition of virtue)? I argue that it is likely freedom that precedes virtue and that only in free situations can virtue have its full expression.

Although one is incarcerated, if his mind or her heart is free, virtue abounds. As that freedom of mind and heart become more and more widespread, so does the virtue of the society.

As a society becomes more controlling of the thoughts, intents, and actions of its members, the virtue correspondingly decreases as force warps the hearts and minds of individuals.

When we turn to legal arguments (which are by definition arguments of force) to justify, rationalize and promote questionable actions, we remove the freedom to use moral decision-making. We take away the necessity for ethical accountability and moral rectitude in our actions. Virtue lessens.

Only as we embrace freedom and eschew force and fear can society be a virtuous one. Our society will be a virtuous as we are free.  Although our societies may be moving in a direction away from freedom, we still have the choice to be free in our minds, hearts, and actions and we must promote freedom for those around us (especially in our families and local communities) by eliminating our desire to control, dominate, or force situations.

We are only as free as we allow others to be. Let us increase our freedom and that of others, and thereby increase the virtue and power of individuals and society.

The measure of property nature has well set by the extent of men’s
labour and the conveniencies of life: no man’s labour could subdue, or appropriate all; nor could his enjoyment consume more than a small part; so that it was impossible for any man, this way, to intrench upon the right of another, or acquire to himself a property, to the prejudice of his neighbour, who would still have room for as good, and as large a possession (after the other had taken out his) as before it was appropriated. This measure did confine every man’s possession to a very moderate proportion, and such as he might appropriate to himself, without injury to any body…But be this as it will, which I lay no stress on; this I dare boldly affirm, that the same rule of propriety, (viz.) that every man should have as much as he could make use of, would hold still in the world, without straitening any body; since there is land enough in the world to suffice double the inhabitants, had not the invention of money, and the tacit agreement of men to put a value on it, introduced (by consent) larger possessions, and a right to them; which, howit has done, I shall by and by shew more at large.

This is certain, that in the beginning, before the desire of having
more than man needed had altered the intrinsic value of things, which depends only on their usefulness to the life of man; or had agreed, that a little piece of yellow metal, which would keep without wasting or decay, should be worth a great piece of flesh, or a whole heap of corn; though men had a right to appropriate, by their labour, each one of himself, as much of the things of nature, as he could use: yet this could not be much, nor to the prejudice of others, where the same plenty was still left to those who would use the same industry. To which let me add, that he who appropriates land to himself by his labour, does not lessen, but increase the common stock of mankind: for the provisions serving to the support of human life, produced by one acre of inclosed and cultivated land, are (to speak much
within compass) ten times more than those which are yielded by an acre of land of an equal richness lying waste in common.

Thus the invention of money, although it facilitates exchange and allows economic growth to occur at a rapid rate, allows humans to store up their labor in a non-perishable manner and promotes the “appropriation” of more property (land or otherwise) than one can use, violating natural laws that place natural limits on the amount we use. This promotes abuse and exploitation of natural resources and, worse, of humanity.

Appropriation of extra land, as encouraged by the invention of money and promoted by the advent of the state (remember back to J-B. Say’s quote), also violates the natural limits that exist in Locke’s state of nature.

Before the appropriation of land, he who gathered as much of the wild fruit, killed, caught, or tamed, as many of the beasts, as he could; he that so imployed his pains about any of the spontaneous products of nature, as any way to alter them from the state which nature put them in, by placing any of his labour on them, did thereby acquire a propriety in them: but if they perished, in his possession, without their due use; if the fruits rotted, or the venison putrified, before he could spend it, he offended against the common law of nature, and was liable to be punished; he invaded his neighbour’s share, for he had no right, farther than his use called for any
of them, and they might serve to afford him conveniencies of life.

As long as our economic system uses money to promote the appropriation of more property than we can use we will continue to abuse and exploit, in violation of the laws of nature. As long as the State legislates in favor of the corporate interests (in the case of fascism) or monopolizes the means of production (in the case of the State socialism), humanity will be left without the liberty that God and nature give us.

Even more problematic is the rise of an international finance structure that unifies these two violations of natural law (money and the state) into a global structure that encroaches on liberty in almost insurmountable ways. Fighting against these structures in our choices as consumers, producers, workers, and citizens must be at the forefront of this battle to preserve liberty and opportunity for prosperity.

But the chief matter of property being now not the fruits of the earth, and the beasts that subsist on it, but the earth itself; as that which takes in and carries with it all the rest; I think it is plain, that property in that too is acquired as the former. As much land as a man tills, plants, improves, cultivates, and can use the product of, so much is his property. He by his labour does, as it were, inclose it from the common. Nor will it invalidate his right, to say every body else has an equal title to it; and therefore he cannot appropriate, he cannot inclose, without the consent of all his fellow-commoners, all mankind. God, when he gave the world in common to all mankind, commanded man also to labour, and the penury of his condition required it of him. God and his reason commanded him to subdue the earth, i.e. improve it for the benefit of life, and therein lay out something upon it that was his own, his labour. He that in obedience to this command of God, subdued, tilled and sowed any part of it, thereby annexed to it something that was his property, which another had no title to, nor could without injury take from him.

Nor was this appropriation of any parcel of land, by improving it, any prejudice to any other man, since there was still enough, and as good left; and more than the yet unprovided could use. So that, in effect, there was never the less left for others because of his enclosure for himself: for he that leaves as much as another can make use of, does as good as take nothing at all. No body could think himself injured by the drinking of another man, though he took a good draught, who had a whole river of the same water left him to quench his thirst: and the case of land and water, where there is enough of both, is perfectly the same.

I don’t have a problem with Locke’s claim that man has a right to till and work his land for himself and his family, as long as his assumptions that allow us to take something from the common stock hold true; they don’t for land.

Subsequent political economists (liberal free market types like Smith, Say, and Bastiat) also would struggle to justify the acquisition of land as property. Smith states of the landowner: “As soon as the land of any country has all become private property, the landlords, like all other men, love to reap where they never sowed.” Jean-Baptiste Say’s version is thus:

It is the province of speculative philosophy to trace the origin of the right of property; of legislation to regulate its transfer; and of political science to devise the surest means of protecting that right. Political economy recognises the right of property solely as the most powerful of all encouragements to the multiplication of wealth, and is satisfied with its actual stability, without inquiring about its origin or its safeguards. In fact, the legal inviolability of property is obviously a mere mockery, where the sovereign power is unable to make the laws respected, where it either practises robbery itself, or is impotent to repress it in others; or where possession is rendered perpetually insecure, by the intricacy of legislative enactments, and the subtleties of technical nicety. Nor can property be said to exist, where it is not matter of reality as well as of right. Then, and then only, can the sources of production, namely, land, capital, and industry, attain their utmost degree of fecundity.

Say puts it into the realm of philosophy to trace the origin of the right of property, thus divesting himself of any responsibility to justify the political economists’ pragmatic assumption that property exists and that ends the question. He adds that without the power of the state (the “sovereign power”) to enforce the laws, property isn’t the result of  “inviolable” natural law. It requires positive law in order to exist.

Historically all landed property is established by force of arms or force of laws (after arms have allowed someone the right to make laws). I know of no situation where this hasn’t been true. It seems that Locke’s attempt to justify the acquisition of private land property falls short of his own litmus test since it is the limited resource and cannot be taken from while leaving “enough and as good” for those who would follow.

Others have argued that with improving technology, there is no limit to the productivity of land. This may be true, but there is a finite amount that one can “own”. This inablility to have widespread ownership available to everyone sets up an exclusive aristocracy that creates many of the problems with our current version of capitalism and land is at the root of the problem.

He that is nourished by the acorns he picked up under an oak, or the apples he gathered from the trees in the wood, has certainly appropriated them to himself. No body can deny but the nourishment is his. I ask then, when did they begin to be his? when he digested? or when he eat? or when he boiled? or when he brought them home? or when he picked them up? and it is plain, if the first gathering made them not his, nothing else could. That labour put a distinction between them and common: that added something to them more than nature, the common mother of all, had done; and so they became his private right. And will any one say, he had no right to those acorns or apples, he thus appropriated, because he had not the consent of all mankind to make them his? Was it a robbery thus to assume to himself what belonged to all in common? If such a consent as that was necessary, man had starved, notwithstanding the plenty God had given him. We see in commons, which remain so by compact, that it is the taking any part of what is common, and removing it out of the state nature leaves it in, which begins the property; without which the common is of no use.

Thus this law of reason makes the deer that Indian’s who hath killed it; it is allowed to be his goods, who hath bestowed his labour upon it, though before it was the common right of every one. And amongst those who are counted the civilized part of mankind, who have made and multiplied positive laws to determine property, this original law of nature, for the beginning of property, in what was before common, still takes place.

Thus we see that according to Locke’s concept of property, something becomes personal, private, or individual because of the labor that one exercises to take things out of the common stock, provided by nature or God, for his use.

The next paragraph of Locke’s treatise injects another “socialistic” sense into his concept of property. Not only can human beings only take from the common stock if “there is enough, and as good, left in common for others”, but also:

It will perhaps be objected to this, that if gathering the acorns, or other fruits of the earth, &c. makes a right to them, then any one may ingross as much as he will. To which I answer, Not so. The same law of nature, that does by this means give us property, does also bound that property too. God has given us all things richly, 1 Tim. vi. 12. is the voice of reason confirmed by inspiration. But how far has he given it us? To enjoy. As much as any one can make use of to any advantage of life before it spoils, so much he may by his labour fix a property in: whatever is beyond this, is more than his share, and belongs to others. Nothing was made by God for man to spoil or destroy. And thus, considering the plenty of natural provisions there was a long time in the world, and the few spenders; and to how small a part of that provision the industry of one man could extend itself, and ingross it to the prejudice of others; especially keeping within the bounds, set by reason, of what might serve for his use; there could be then little room for quarrels or contentions about property so established.

Thus, within the philosophy of one of the principle founders of liberal economic thought (at least the one cited and credited therewith), there are present the following un-capitalistic concepts (some might call them socialistic — I prefer the term “natural”). These natural concepts of property are:

1. Property is given by nature and God in common to all.
2. Humans can take from the common, via their labor, for their sustenance.
3. Individuals can morally and naturally (they are the same for Locke and the Idealist) take from the common property only if they leave enough and as good for the rest of humanity.
4. Property is given us by nature to enjoy (not to hoard or accumulate).
5. We cannot take from the common more than we have capacity to use.

None of these principles, except perhaps for the idea that one’s labor is what created private property, is consistent with current capitalistic principles. How, then did we get to the point where accumulation of property is considered the natural state of economics as most free marketeers will argue? That’s is for a subsequent post.

However, both opine that government is instituted in order to securitize property and peace. For Hobbes, the state of war that exists in the state of nature requires a Leviathan, an omnipotent entity, whom everyone else fears and to whom total sovereignty is granted in order that peace and security can exist.

For Locke, only if property is secure can human beings have the increased liberty that exists in a society to pursue further happiness and enjoy that liberty and life. And without a government established by consent of the majority that is able to secure life and property, one’s efforts are all spent trying to maintain what one has.

In my previous post and another prior post, I ask the questions as to whether corporatism (and eventually economic fascism) is the natural end of capitalistic free markets and whether statism is the natural end of socialism, seeing each not as two ends of a spectrum, but as two faces of the State, the face being determined by the society’s view regarding property.

During the 1920′s and 30′s in the United States, there was a lot of polarized sympathy for either fascism and communism, again depending on one’s view of property. Those who held a more “common property” view saw communism and the Soviet Union as a reasonable alternative to capitalism, while those who leaned more toward private property saw fascism and Hitler’s Germany as a reasonable economic structure.

Because we look at history through the retrospect-oscope, if we don’t read primary sources from those times, we can’t comprehend how anyone could support the policies of the Stalinist regime or Nazism. However, the economics of the two regimes held appeal to American intellectuals and business elite respectively during the 30′s while the U.S. was facing the Great Depression (the first death of Capitalism).

Today we seem to face a similar choice. The economic philosophies at the heart of government take-overs and corporate bailouts are the same as those at the foundation of state communism and state corporatism: the role of the State and the form of Property.

If the State plans and controls the economy, the end of the state is socialism. If Property plans and controls the state, the end results is corporate fascism.

The solution of conservatives is to keep the government out of the market and allow free enterprise, exchange, production, labor and prosperity to flow out from the market. This is fine and well, until Bastiat’s predatory men or Smith’s merchant class gain control of the legislative process, at which point the State becomes an arm of the Market: Corporate Fascism.

The solution of liberals is to inject the market with sufficient regulation to mitigate the effects of selfish humans seeking unrestrained self-interest. Again this seems reasonable until the government “seizes” the means and materials of production at which point the Market becomes and arm of the State: State Socialism.

Can our current concept of Property and natural tendencies of the State exist in the same society?

Economic fascism (as distinguished from its more commonly discussed form: authoritarian fascism) in both Germany and Italy during the 1920′s and 30′s was a precursor to its more evil and obvious cousin. And the more power the government assumes to control and regulate the market, the more it begins looking like the authoritarian version.

The battle between fascism and communism was a battle between whether a few private companies were preserved and protected (i.e. “too big to fail” corporatism), or the “society” owned the businesses (state socialism). These two forms of socialism both require a forceful and oppressive state as they are both against the natural tendency to seek self-interest and strive for freedom to make one’s own choices.

IG Farben is an historical example of the types of businesses that are “too big to fail” (like AIG) and “vital to national interest” (like the auto industry). During the run-up to Germany’s expansionistic and aggressive policies of the early Nazi era, four large companies (among which were BASF and Bayer) were merged to form IG Farben, which was subsequently protected and promoted by the incoming government.

During the years between the two great world wars, industrial companies where those considered too big to fail. Today, it is the finance industry that falls into this category. If the government acts on its desire to “seize” control of these businesses, we are tending to the statist corporate structure that characterized Germany in the 1920′s and 30′s.

For those who think this is new with the Obama administration, recognize that there has been long-standing inter-marriage between the business world and the State and Defense departments (a quick review of the boards of directors of large industrial companies such as Bectel, Halliburton show names like Casper Weinburger, George Shultz, and many more in Republican, as well as prior Democratic administrations whose connections to business and roles in government betray an obvious conflict of interest).

Recent Treasury department heads all have been former Wall Street bankers who seem to make decisions based on what’s best for Wall Street, while sacrificing the good of the people to the interests of friends and collegues.

Thus, nationalization of the corporations (state socialism) and protecting corporations from failure because they are “too big to fail” or because they are “vital to national (read elite) interest” (economic fascism) both lead to the need for increased force and control of families, individuals, businesses, media, academia, etc., and incrementally destroy liberty, freedom, happiness, and prosperity.

Let us resist attempts by our “representatives” to increase force and control. It starts with the economy, then permeates the rest of our lives. Let us remember the words of William Butler Yeats: “The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity”.