Response To Bill Flax's Divided America Post

First off I want to say I have the up most respect for Bill Flax and his service to our country.  He is a good, kind-hearted person and is expressing himself.  I felt I needed to set the record straight and do the same, because I want people to know that there is more to this story.  The media often spins public dialog as if the American public is diametrically opposed with square conservatives on one side, and a bunch of hippie liberals on the other.  Everyone I meet though seems to be going through the same struggles and we all seem to be experiencing common struggles.

I find quite a few ideas i take issue with quite prevalent in the conservative mindset these days.  Please be aware, I have nothing against being a conservative, just against bad ideas.  One observation I have is that there is a modern movement within conservatism that seems to be regurgitating a lot of misinformation about the Obama administration.  Furthermore, Paul Ryan treating his plan as if it will solve our troubles is also quite the misrepresentation.  This makes it difficult for more legitimate arguments from their camp to be taken seriously.  Why can't they be more reasonable like economic conservative Milton Freedman was?  Sadly, it just feels like the modern conservatism sound machine is ripe with misinformation and outright lies.  It's the reason why it was so shocking when Breitbart was actually right about Anthony Wiener.  I am disappointed in the turn the party has taken post-Clinton and especially post 9/11.  And speaking of Clinton, why didn't the Republicans impeach Clinton's because unconstitutional entry into Afghanistan (as, always principled, Ron Paul called his party out on at the time) rather than because of an affair?  Frankly, extra-marital affairs aren't as relevant to the office of President as is abuse of Article 2 powers and unconstitutional war.  I hope for the reasonable paleoconservatives to wrestle back their party, but I won't hold my breath.  Where are you when we need you Ike?

The modern liberal camp isn't much better.  It's populated just as many corporatists as the Republican side, including gems like Chris Dodd (no longer a politician), and Barney Frank.  It's very disappointing indeed to see the party of John F. Kennedy turn out this way.  JFK took us to the moon.  He sat down with Khrushchev and diplomatically resolved the Cuban Missile Crisis without allowing the USSR to force our hand.  Franklin Roosevelt, up there with JFK, was one of the best Presidents in history.  FDR's New Deal policies implemented between 1931-1938 saved America.  Obama had a hell of a legacy to live up to and seems to have turned into a complete wimp.    If the past is any indication of the future, liberals politicians are the only ones that have moved us in the direction of making government work for the average person and bringing about positive social reform.

So onto my response.

Ample rebuttal has been served against President Obama’s “You didn’t build that!” claim.

While what Obama said was terribly worded and sounds like a rebuke of small business owners, I think one would be hard pressed to rebut the idea that no individual is an island. We are all products of a network of talented people. Our parents, teachers, friends, our communities, and God are all vehicles that shaped our lives to make us who we are. To not acknowledge this comes off a bit ungrateful to the society and Creator that granted you that opportunity to succeed. While we all have individual accomplishments which should be recognized, there is no such thing as a self-made person.

Obama retreated, but then recently insinuated “Romney-Hood” will help the rich rob the poor via tax breaks and describes Paul Ryan’s budget proposal as “thinly veiled Social-Darwinism.” As absurd as these ideas sound, crowds cheered.

Paul Ryan's budget proposal will cost more than Obama's plan according to the numbers from the CBO (Congressional Budget Office.) The only differences in the plans is who the money is pilfered from and the amount taken. The Ryan plan will cost about $6300 more per person.

Of course none of the plans address the true issue here.  A politician that truly wants to save people money using capitalistic means will first dismantle the anti-competitive controls that limit the number of doctors and MRI machines, remove the exception to the Sherman Act for the medical industry, and stop profits made from the investment of tax payer money from being privatized with no ROI for us.  Imagine for a second you were a venture capitalist that invested in a company and they took your check, turned profits and gave you nothing.  That's what we are doing for drug companies, and we deserve to see some of the profits.  We could accomplish this by one or a mix of these strategies:

1. Disallowing the NIH to give funding to private companies for drug development
2. Forbidding drug companies from patenting drugs developed through taxpayer funds
3. Have NIH fund drug development in return for an option to buy a negotiated number of shares of the drug company at a future date, say a 10 year horizon.

We end up having to pay higher prescription drug costs and we can't even import generics from Canada because it's still illegal because Obama caved to pressure from drug companies, and thanks to drug company lobbyists and back door deals, the people (Medicare) isn't allowed to negotiate on our behalf to lower costs like they can in Australia for example.  Government (the people) can't work if you break it.

The gulf extends beyond whether borrowing and spending better ushers prosperity as opposed to saving and producing; aggregate demand maintenance versus supply-side economics.

We’re not witnessing rival visions offering different paths to similar ends.

The idea that increased producer profits lead to more money for average people can be debunked readily, as history has provided us with a convenient real world experiment. Current corporate profits are at record highs and yet wages are at historic lows. Productivity has also steadily increased, for those that think we just aren't working hard enough.  If supply-side was an invariable, valid description of reality we would not observe the massive gap between gains on balance sheets and the paychecks that most of us take home with us.

It’s deeper.

A widening political divide besets America. The sides not only propose competing, even contradictory methods, Left and Right esteem fundamentally divergent principles derived from philosophical differences over human nature and government’s purpose. The Tea Party and progressives speak separate languages. 

Several questions illuminate this schism: 

Are liberties unalienable or contrived by courts? If inherent, government’s proper role is confined to preserving rights resident in our persons and property, not to usurp, alter or diminish those rights. If neither transcendent moral, ethical or legal absolutes exist, nor discoverable [sic] natural laws, does government grant privileges per its pleasure. The state should, it’s argued, shepherd society toward loftier goals. 

The early Republic thought otherwise, “That government is best which governs least.”

Firstly I have to call out this “government is the problem” rhetoric that seems to be embedded in the minds of so many people.  We are a government for the people, by the people; we are the government.  I want the people to govern as much as possible, because I believe in democracy.  I think what Bill is probably referring to here is the size and scope of government services. The true question is more nuanced. It's about what “preserving rights resident in our persons and property, not to usurp, alter or diminish those rights” means.  More precisely, what is the appropriate role that government should play?  So I'm going to take a minimalist role for sake of argument.

Bill didn't specify what he means by “rights in our persons” I think it's fair to assume he means the “right to life, liberty and property” often stated by conservatives.  I'm sure he'll set me straight if he thinks I'm wrong.  Getting down to business here. For starters, it is not hard to derive that a right to life implies a right to life-saving medical care.  So what are the boundaries of property rights? Can I do anything with my property, like set my own house on fire and putting neighboring houses in jeopardy. Or, take the First Amendment from the Constitution.  Would freedom of speech justify me yelling “Fire!” in a crowded theater just because I want to?  These are of course fanciful examples to illustrate a point. The Constitution doesn't set boundaries on these rights.  That is left for the people.  The founders left it up to us to collectively define where the boundaries of my rights end and yours start. Let me use a more relevant example. Do banks have a right to loan money with no collateral to individuals?  It can be shown that this type of lending leads to currency debasement, eroding everyone else's purchasing power without their say (what amounts to counterfeiting.) Since this can be demonstrated to deprive others of their property without consent, and I feel should be something that we as a society (government) have an interest in preventing collectively.

Does justice entail equality of application or equality of results? Justice wielded evenly will always and everywhere yield inequality. Liberal justice removes her blindfold shifting from equality before the law into adjudicating politically correct outcomes. Obama admitted his judicial priorities, “The empathy to understand what it’s like to be poor, or African American, or gay, or disabled, or old.”

Justice isn't just reading words out of a law book and following them word for word.  If that was the case we wouldn't need a separate judicial branch.  The founders were truly bright individuals and knew laws need interpretation.  On a case-by-case basis this creates precedents and establishes boundaries on what laws mean and how they are applied in future cases. While this sometimes leads to contradictions, it also leads to the most flexible legal system in the world. It should be the awe of the world.  Few individuals understand they have the power established in the Constitution by supporting case law to not just judge whether someone broke the law, but to also judge the law itself and its applicability in a particular case or set of future cases. It's how juries nullified the crimes of slaves ruling on unjust laws forcing them to return to owners.  Many of those in the legislature want to rob the judiciary of it's rightful place as part of the three branches by labeling them them "activists."  Just like the "activist" judges that have established that corporations are people, despite the fact that they are legal fictions and cannot be held criminally accountable for law breaking.

Justice by Obama becomes officials picking winners per political calculation. True justice connotes conformity to fixed standards, i.e. the Constitution; justice ought not to flutter per the pretensions of those in power.

What of limited government? If wealthy aristocrats imposed historic governance to shield their status, a status obtained by plundering others as the Left maintains, benevolent rulers could appropriately topple existent orders. The Constitution becomes meaningless.

It's too late. Malevolent private tyrannies have already toppled everything. An example that comes to mind is how DOJ seemed to take issue with Google's purchase of a small Massachusetts based firm named ITA Software who had some nifty flight search software they wanted out of concern for “consumer choice” (along with lawyers for competing firms such as Microsoft aiding Justice in their investigation.) Yet Justice didn't have a word to say about AT&T's (largest wireless carrier) purchase of T-Mobile (second largest carrier).

The way the Constitution is interpreted is already very watered down if not near meaningless. We ought to ask the Republicans in congress why if they hate Obama so much did they authorize him in the National Defense Act of 2012 to personally detain anyone on a whim, simply by writing a memo. The erosion of rights has more to do with stuff that has been going on for decades. It's just that those that are blind to the truth grasp for straws, instead of seeing the gradual progression into decline.

Yet, if laissez faire leads to widespread prosperity, bestowing opportunities for lower rungs to rise, as best amplified by blind justice buttressing inalienable rights, then sound laws uphold our cultural heritage by limiting political intrusion.

Obama inveighs, “Change,” to prod America “Forward.” He disdains traditional ideals and constitutional checks. Washington pulls a recalcitrant populace toward “Progress” like a principle snags a pugnacious schoolboy’s ear. Politicians tread on the populace with impunity.

It wasn't just Obama alone.  The Repbulican majority House passed the National Defense Act of 2012 that gave Obama full ability to do his bidding.  Constitutional checks are far from norm anymore.

The state no longer mirrors the nation, but possesses a separate identity and sadly, its own agenda. A chronically profligate Congress, successive imperial presidencies, radical courts and an entrenched bureaucracy fixated on empowering itself indicates we no longer have government “by the people.” Government pummels the people, rewarding favorites at taxpayer expense.

This is what happens when you let corporatist interest in.

Does nature trump nurture? If man’s character is fundamentally good, or evolves toward something better, then most personal failings stem from disadvantaged surroundings: racism, sexism or poverty. If so, this entails radically overhauling cultural mores to alleviate hardships and boost “under-served” communities. Proponents want more freebies and rarely respect America’s heritage.

America's heritage is people working over time to improve the conditions of people.  Returning to some nostalgic past that was supposedly better isn't the solution.  I want to see some of this radical overhauling Bill is talking about, because frankly I want to see things get done.  Frankly, all I have ever seen for years is the same tired arguments without anything being fixed.

Many leftist ideologues ardently believe that man cannot be moral until basic material needs are met. Poverty begets aberrant behavior or so it’s claimed. Criminals are victims of capitalist oppression. Society is to blame. Reduced crime throughout the current economic turbulence has shaken this theory.

I wouldn't expect crime to stay low in the event of serious economic collapse.  Though I'm sure that Christian ethics plays a strong role in having a well developed sense of right and wrong, it seems pretty intuitive to expect order to break down in a real catastrophe.  I hope Bill isn't trying to argue that there is no correlation between economic conditions and the high crime rates observed in poor neighborhoods.

More generally, mistaking man’s character neglects the primacy of incentives. If human nature is innate and outcomes depend on choices we make, then fixing public problems requires personal freedom. Economically, this means market based incentives. The state should allow rewards for productive activity without enabling or abetting prodigality through expansive safety-nets.

Agreed humans are motivated by incentives.  Of course, using your own personal charity as an example, not all incentives are monetary.

Are we unique individuals or defined by race, sex and class? Do surroundings make the man, or does man create his environment fully capable of climbing above adversity? Given that every demographic group does better here economically, demography and class are not the obstacles liberals suppose. 

Progressives need to lose these self-serving stereotypes and condescending attitudes.

While I believe we are the most prosperous country in the world (I haven't look at the numbers, and it really doesn't matter because I love this country) we can't sit on our laurels.  There is a reason this is the case.  It is because our struggle for growth and forward thinking.  The only reason these minority groups are able to overcome adversity is because their predecessors didn't have the same luxuries and had to fight for them.  Bill praises the equality in the country without realizing it is through rejecting the establishment position, that these groups got their rights recognized in the first place.  If you don't exercise your rights regularly you lose them, as you have noticed with the Constitution.

Many certainly advocate free enterprise because they cherish liberty, or recognize the opulence of market based economics without aligning precisely to the above. Capitalism works so well and freedom is so precious many champion markets for myriad reasons. Likewise, some who despise markets may believe in transcendent absolutes or that rights are inherent.

Which begs: 

How do you perceive free enterprise? Is capitalism synonymous with greed and materialism? Gordon Gekko and Arthur Bach, or, is it really about liberty and personal responsibility while also offering unrivaled material blessings? Does capitalism exploit labor and other alienated parties, or spur sufficient bounty to elevate all? 

It is impossible for capitalism to function without coercion or fraud.  When you sell your house you are not going to tell a prospective buyer it's flaws.  One will inevitably use deception and coercion.  There is no way around the inherent immorality.  Sadly it is immoral, but it's not enough to sink capitalism by itself.  After all, the livelihood of one's family is a higher moral priority than a little lying and coercion.

Additionally, you must exploit labor to make up for the risk of putting the capital of ownership on the line.  It only spurs sufficient bounty if the people owning the means of production are ethical and rational.  Otherwise problems similar to the troubles with monarchies develop.  You have the benevolent dictators (Google) and the malevolent ones (EDS.)  Capitalism alone cannot devise ethical solutions to all market conditions because it doesn't provide an adequate feedback mechanism for immoral behavior; i.e. regulation and democratic control of the means of production.  Immoral agents get ahead in many cases, as long as it isn't overt.

Obama derides that, “We can’t drive SUVs and you know, eat as much as we want and keep our homes on you know, 72 degrees at all times … and then just expect that every other country’s going to say OK.” To Obama, technology brings not better living standards, but unemployment. He also accused greedy doctors of unnecessary amputations while pitching socialized medicine. 

No fan of capitalism, he.

The world is a large place.  We are getting obese, and we are getting wasteful.  It is what I stated before.  We are a great country, but we are great for a reason.  Because we take action to change things.  I don't know how Bill is connecting Obama's statement about SUVs, obesity, and wastefulness to being an anti-capitalist sentiment.  Unless Bill equates wasteful consumerism with the proper functioning capitalism which I would reject.

Per Arthur Brooks, earned success surpasses handouts in stoking happiness. Something most Americans intuitively understand. Brooks cites studies showing that approximately seventy percent favor free enterprise, hence the Tea Party. If the liberal media, entertainment and education establishments weren’t so influential, Obama would be toast.

I agree there has been a huge corpratist infiltration of the Democratic party by the entertainment (hence SOPA), healthcare, and education industry.  Just as the Republican party was infiltrated long ago by the energy, defense, and tobacco industries.  And of course it makes sense that earned success would of course surpass handouts in providing people with a sense of dignity and worth.  I still am not seeing what Bill thinks Obama is be handing out to anyone except corporate cronies.  Sadly not even change.

Should the collective or individuals control property? If resources rightly belong to some euphemism called society, then in progressive theory, society’s stewards, the state, should re-distribute output evenly and dictate its use. 

Private property is vital to liberty but also encourages investment and innovation by letting entrepreneurs and those with capital reap rewards. Per Reuven Brenner, vibrant economies require that talent and genius match with capital. Intrusive government is not the well-spring, but a drain on wealth.

Society is not a euphemism.  And the collective of all individuals already does control all property.  Private ownership of something doesn't just require me to claim it as mine.  It also means everyone else must also agree that it is not theirs and we must use societal (government, or state if you will) resources required to enforce that distinction.  Private property is an inherently social construct.  For this reason, it also inherently grants those with greater amounts of property more state protection.

Despite the fact that high earners already disproportionately pay much more in the way of taxes, liberals suggest that lower taxes funnel society’s money to the rich. As if keeping their income is really a gift from government which swindles the less fortunate.

Is wealth basically static, or can it be increased? Do profits represent efficient, wealth generating activity satisfying customers, or evidence exploitation? If the pie is somewhat fixed, then one’s inordinate income maycome at another’s expense. This implies that inequality reflects a failing versus a byproduct of economic growth. 

However, if prosperity rises, who cares if those responsible benefit more? Rather than spreading around wealth as Obama desires, or blasting success, we ought to stimulate growth. Eighty percent of America’s millionaires are self made. Even our poor are comparably well-off. Don’t throw out the capitalist baby with the socialist bathwater because of covetousness.

Again, no one is self-made as aforementioned.  Profits by themselves do not necessarily represent exploitation.  But if inequality was a failing on the part of people being lazy or incompetent then we would not see increases in productivity exceeding wage growth to the degree we have.  In other words people are producing more, they just aren't getting paid for it.

Finally, was America’s historically limited government and free markets exceptional in a profoundly positive way, or is America uniquely vile? 

America’s exceptional liberties and astounding affluence once shone hope across the seas. America discarded feudalism, embracing freedom instead. In Nottingham, a capricious political establishment enriched itself via confiscatory taxes and constrictive economic policies favoring the connected. Obama’s cronyism shares more commonality with the Sheriff than Robin Hood. 

Sheriff Obama supposes government grants privileges to subjects, malleable like collective putty to serve political whims. Public officials employ manipulative justice per an evolving Constitution to ensure specific results. The Left thinks capitalist greed and exploitation lock the powerless into predestined poverty per demography and class. Fairness entails sharing a static pie more evenly via progressive income taxes, handouts and preferential policies. If personal shortcomings are primarily culture’s fault, the consequence of racism, sexism and oppression, let’s “Change” society “Forward.”

America's heritage is progressive income taxes.  I don't know what Obama supposes, but he does anything but project anything near kind of strength you are proposing (though I am opposed to tyranny.)  On the contrary I see a complete vacuum of leadership from the Obama administration.

The leftist vision terrifies voters in a center-right country, but progressives dominate the dissemination of ideas. Thus, every election brings the ubiquitous “move to the center” refrain. This rings true for Obama so after four years pillorying the middle class he now presents himself as our champion. 

Conservative radio stations are abound, where is this progressive "dominance?"  I just don't see it.  Besides how would a progressive dominated dissemination of ideas square with a center-right country?

Please.

The Founders framed something better.

The Founders were pre-capitalist.  James Madison was probably closest to a capitalist view, where men of wealth and power would rule the country as "benevolent philosophers."  By the 1790's Madison had changed his mind a bit after he saw capitalism implemented under Alexander Hamilton later on in his life.  His concern was about "stockjobbers" what we call financial markets.  He was concerned that they would become the "tools and tyrants of government."  To paraphrase, his fear was that they would be so powerful that they’ll be able to control the government, and that they would also be used by powerful states as tools.  Frankly I see the opposite has happened.  The government has become a tool of the "stockjobbers."  Bill would probably agree with me here.