Liberty Maven

Author’s Note: Hello all.  The editors of Liberty Maven have graciously agreed to include me as a contributor to this fine site.  As they are always on the ball with breaking news, it may be a challenge to keep up with valuable content.  So, for my first post, I’d like to start with a rhetorical, philosophical open letter that I wrote directed at all those who think that more government regulation will solve all of our nation’s ills.  I hope you enjoy it!

—————————————

I’ve gotten some feedback on the subject of deregulation, and the effect of greed.  Many are quick to demonize it, but I think we all need to slow down and take a look at what greed really is, before we admonish the “greedy”.

Interestingly, greed, is one of the 7 deadly sins, so we should strive to not be greedy, right?  Well, greed is defined in several different ways, but the most unbiased true definition (not relating to material wealth – I’ll explain why this is important in a moment) of greed is: An eager desire or longing; greediness; as, a greed of gain.  Is this not merely an extension of self interest?  What is self interest?  Self interest is defined as personal interest or advantage.  Everyone acts in ways of self interest, some more than others.  The reason is because life is a competition, like it or not.  You cannot beat the self interest out of anyone, and that is the paradoxical nature of self interest, i.e., greed.  To clarify my point, allow me to give several examples.

1. Early in life, we play games.  The object of a game is to win.  The desire to win is an act of self interest.  Yes it is fun to play, but winning and losing is part of the game, and the desire to win is part of human nature.  If the true object of the game is only to have fun, why do we keep score?  Why do we play at all?  Can we not find more fun and productive things to do if the object is “fun”?

2. When we go to school, we get graded on our performance.  We strive to get good grades based on our performance, and to gauge how we are faring against our peers.  Some learn faster, or in different ways, than others.  It is in our self interest to get the best grades possible, so that we not only know we are learning, but to ensure that our future will be bright, by being accepted into higher educational facilities which boast better educational practices than others.

3. When we are done with school, we hope that we’ve learned what we needed to, and that we have the skill set necessary, for a particular job.  It is in our self interest to get the best job possible (best environment, best pay, best benefits, etc) that most closely fits our needs.  We hope to climb the ladder (if we work for someone else) because we bust our humps every day to try and prove that we are worthy of higher pay, better benefits, better environment, more responsibility, etc.

4. If we open our own business, it is in our self interest to ensure the business survives so that we can support ourselves and our family, so that we do not go on the government doles, which brings me to my next point.

5. Those on welfare also act in self interested ways.  Some would say that they are selfish, others would say greedy, and I can certainly see that point.  This is not to say that I think we should not help anyone, we should be able to help those that cannot help themselves (disabled, physically or mentally, children with no family and cannot fend for themselves yet).  A hand up, not a hand out.  For those that can help themselves, they are simply acting in a self interested way to “get something for nothing”. It is far too easy to “game” the system.  Want more money?  Have another kid.  Get hurt to collect disability also, etc.  Getting a welfare handout check is acting not only in a way of self interest, but it is also at the expense of others.  Does anyone seriously believe that the government can make the poor “rich” by “spreading the wealth around”?  Where is the incentive to work?

6. Politicians act in self interested ways.  It may not be for money, but for position and power.  If you think that those you elect to office, no matter D or R, really want to “help” the little guy, you are sadly mistaken.  Politicians are no different than the public.  George Carlin said something like, if you have a greedy, ignorant population, you will have greedy, ignorant politicians.

7. People who vote do so in self interested ways.  What will my politician do for me, or my group?  As if we’re all oppressed, right?  Many seem to have forgotten how friggin awesome our country is/was because of our Constitution and it’s limits on government, and the personal freedoms our Bill of Rights protects.  It only ever has been, and always will be, the other guy who was at fault, right?  As I’ve pointed out before, when the government gives someone something, it has to do it at the expense of someone else.

8. Even religion and clergy act in self interested ways.  They always want a little more.  The church needs an addition, they need to grow their congregation, etc (and notice how it’s almost always tied to “you need to give more to the church”).

Here’s my point.  We cannot prosecute or persecute people for acting in self interested ways, and so quickly take it to the level of “greed”, because we all do it.  If you think you do not act in greedy ways, you are kidding yourself.  I only cherry picked the most politically palatable examples above.  Really, make an honest assessment of your actions and see how many you can classify as acting only in the interest of others.  There was a Friends episode (unbelievably) that dealt with this.  Even when you give your time and / or money to a charitable (by your own free will, by the way, not by government mandate) organization, it still makes you feel good, so even it is not completely selfless.  Put yourself in the position of others who you classify as greedy.

Take a corporate CEO for example.  You think they make too much money.  Compared to what, the average worker?  Do you have any idea the kind of pressure they are under on a daily basis?  Do you really know how much they sacrifice in regards to a truly coherent family life because of their work?  I highly doubt it.  They are generally in the spotlight more than they’d like, and have to put up with the stress of the livelihoods of hundreds, or thousands, or hundreds of thousands, or demanding employees, stockholders, boards of directors, and the general public.  Do they create that much wealth for the company and for the stockholders?  Maybe, maybe not.  But you cannot, and should not, demonize them for what they make.  If you were in their position, I seriously doubt you would turn down a luxurious contract.  And besides, there are free market mechanisms in place that deal with this already.  Boards of directors hire and fire CEO’s.  Stockholders elect the boards of directors.  If you don’t like the company, or think the CEO makes too much, don’t buy the stock of the company.  Don’t buy products the company makes, nobody is forcing you to buy what they sell .  If you own their stock, elect a board, or appeal to the board, that will act in your interest (aha, there’s that caveat again – self interest of the best stock price possible – oops).  If they are truly incompetent managers that don’t deserve the pay, the company will go bankrupt.  If you don’t buy the product they sell, or have stock in the company, why do you care at all?  Why do you want to control them?  What gives you that right?

Now here’s where we’ve really jacked up.  The politicians we’ve elected are not allowing this to happen.  The free market mechanism that deals with incompetence (bankruptcy) is not being allowed to function.  Is it in my interest to bail out a car company?  No, but I’m being forced to pay for it anyway, for the “greater good”.  Sooooo, now I’m technically paying for cars with my, yes, my, tax money (or eventually, inflated fiat currency), but I’m not actually getting a car?  That’s wrong.  How can anyone justify that to save some jobs in the short term?  Why doesn’t the government just start their own car company?  They know what’s best for us, anyway.  They’ve already appointed a car Czar.  Welcome to Communist Russia, we’d be glad to sell you a Trabant.  It only costs $99,999, but with tax incentives, the cost to you (that you can see) is only $29,999!  (You will actually pay the full $99,999, but we’ll tell you that we’re taxing those “greedy rich” more).  Isn’t that great?!  You are supporting American workers, and inflated, over powerful unions!  Everyone is happy!  Until they’re not.

This almost always comes back to regulation, and deregulation.  The real job of the government is not to regulate the hell out of everything, it is arbitrary.  Prosecute fraud, yes.  But they should not dictate what people should make.  You vote with your dollars every day.  You vote for politicians every 4 years.  Do the math.  The market is absolutely, unequivocally, the most efficient and best resource for regulating the market.  The government is always a step behind.  Derivatives of mortgages blew up, so we need to regulate derivatives.  Uh, you don’t need to, Barry, the market has, or is trying to, learn it’s lesson and cleanse the mess of derivatives by bankrupting the businesses that engaged in it.  Miring us in propagandist nonsense that a company is “too big to fail” is utterly farcical.  I think that it is simply meant to paper over the real reason they failed, trying to make a profit (ooohhhh, greedy) in an over-regulated, ever changing regulation, and over-taxed environment, with governmental decrees on how to conduct business.  Here’s the slippery slope argument.  If the government thinks they can do everything better, why don’t they just do it and take over everything?  Oh, that’s right, I’ve said it before, it’s because socialism doesn’t work.  Liberty and freedom work.

Leftists say that those on the “right” (this includes me, as I’m a Libertarian, limited government kind of guy) are always the nay-sayers.  The party of “no”.  I say, that is separatist nonsense.  When I say no to bailout, I say yes to market consequences for poor decisions.  When I say no to over-arching government programs, such as the poorly run Department of Education, I say yes to private schools, like Charter schools and Montessori, and I say yes to variations in the education of our children.  Because I do say no to everyone thinking, acting, and feeling the same way.  When I say no to the regulation of food products and safety on a national scale, I say yes to victory gardens, community gardens, and farmers markets. I therefore, by extension, say yes to limitations of the contamination of the food supply, as large scale regulation increases the incentive for farmers to become huge corporate conglomerates that spray our food with herbicides and pesticides that have been proven to cause cancer, heart attacks, brain aneurysms, and myriad other health issues.  When I say no (by repeal) of all Presidential Executive Orders, I say yes to the true checks and balances nature of our three branch system of federal government.  I don’t want a dictator.  If I did, I’d move to Cuba, or Venezuela.  (psst, that’s why refugees flee those countries, because of the dictators)  When I say no to ethanol subsidies, I say yes to lower food prices.  When I say no to government spending, I say yes to sustainability without the destructive debt loads for the entire country!  And finally (for this rant) when I say NO to the Federal Reserve Bank(!) I say YES to sound and honest money.  Sound money is the foundational pillar of keeping our government and our markets honest.  Restore that, and most of these niggling regulatory issues will be solved.

“Permit me to issue and control the money of the nation and I care not who makes its laws.” — Mayer Amsched Rothchild

It’s a rigged game folks, and we’re bickering with each other over whether the ball should be pigskin or cowhide.  Here’s another great quote:

“There are a thousand striking at the branches of evil for every one who is striking at the root.” — Henry David Thoreau