IndyBec
April 3rd, 2009, 5:42 am
Is corporatism a form of capitalism? Not purely. Although it seems many would like to blame capitalism. However, in the last century the United States has not let the principles of capitalism function in a free market and that has fueled the power of corporate monopolistic advantage. In turn, Americans have supported more socialistic policies in their defense. We should get back to our basics, but be clear of where the balance should be.
What is a free market economy? It is where the individual may participate without the handicap of competing with legally-advantaged corporations, without excessive burdens of tax, without the invisible tax of inflation, and also, without a constant threat of theft and fraud, which are all fueled and fired up by debt economics.
The federal government supports a free market by only interfering through powers that are granted by the Constitution. That doesn't imply an absence of regulation. It doesn't mean corporatism. Since the increased centralization of federal powers during the Civil War, and also the founding of the Federal Reserve, the third hand of perpetual debt has been in the market which encourages corporate theft and militarism. Also, the ability to experiment with different policies in the state test has been weakened, and that includes social and financial policies.
I would also point out that The United States is not a pure democracy. Safeguards were set in place to prevent the tyrrany of the majority over the fundamental rights of people. It is possible, in a democracy, to be completely puppeteered by laws. If the majority decides every aspect, then most can be controlled unduly because each one of us falls in a minority category in something. Many of the safeguards intended for the balance of powers have already been overrun.
The core ideal of "Rule of Law" is to restrain democracy's encroachment on individual rights. This is precisely why the Constitution is written in terms of limiting the power and reach of the federal government. It not only lays down individual rights, but a manner in which the government should behave to preserve those rights. The US Constitution clearly makes the point that any power not vested therein does not belong to the Federal government.
However, the latter is perhaps even more important than the Bill of Rights: If the government does not depart from the manner in which it should behave, or go beyond its limited reach, then it won't have the power to violate those rights. Yet, as soon as it invents different tools and approaches and ways of doing things, and we endorse it, we risk undue interference which may extend longer and further than ever originally welcomed or intended.
If it followed this description, the federal government would be a pretty bare boned institution. How, then, would the people be able to invent different tools and approaches and ways of doing things? The important question is not how but where. That is what states and municipalities are for. States have their own constitutions, which should rightly have closer control over law. This can work well, democratically, because it can tailor to the specific needs of the local people. And there is also the great potential for variety and an element of competition among the states. If treatment and conditions are unfavorable, people may move, thus forcing a given state to balance its powers with the preferences of the people and focus on effectively addressing local issues. That is a pretty beautiful thing, actually.
It is a long standing tradition for administrations to circumvent the Constitution. For example, in order to move forward the New Deal, Roosevelt faced overrulings to his new policies in the Supreme Court. Instead of fighting the cases themselves, he changed the structure of the courts, expanding the amount and appointing new and sympathetic judges. Through his Court Packing Plan, he was able to win the cases. With the inception of the Federal Reserve, the Federal government has a monopoly on our currency and also manipulates its value. Rather than resign ourselves to inevitability, it is proper, sometimes even essential, to question and revisit past precedents.
Precedents have to be revisited in order to clearly see and respond to the present. President Obama believes that the Constitution is handicapped since it is a statement of "negative liberties" granted to the federation. Indeed, he is clearly making efforts to correct that perceived weakness. Can the President and Congress force bailed out corporations to yield to ex-post facto regulation? They should not be able to, but they may succeed. If the companies were not bailed out in the first place, it would be moot. If the Federal Reserve did not make a monopoly currency and manipulate its value, those corporations either would not exist as they are or would not fail as they are failing. If long ago we had not attached ourselves to chronic deficit spending, there would have been less justification for the Federal Reserve. And if the US had yielded to Thomas Jefferson's council and never engaged debt which could not be paid off within a generation, we would not be indebted to foreign powers or share heavy responsibility for this global economic meltdown. As hindsight lets us see the direction the dominoes have fallen so far, we are not, if we act, destined to let the mistakes ripen further.
As Milton Friedman says, it is impossible to separate economic freedom from social freedom. When one's ability to generate wealth from one's own capital is restricted, so are social freedoms. Many more socialistic countries outlaw homeschooling or restrict it greatly. In order to provide for all, they have to control more aspects of peoples' lives. Notice the new law in Texas focusing on childrens' rights: our economic abilities having been restricted, so is our ability to care as well for our children, thus the apparent need for more government oversight, and now new possible inroads into our homes and the way we raise our children in good faith.
Statistically, regardless of the form of government or average wealth, there will always be outliers with less or more power and money than those in the middle. Except in our society, some would like to deceptively paint most of us as struggling to survive, to promote more intervention. A great many people may be struggling to pay their bills, but that is not survival. The pertinent questions are, which system has the largest, wealthiest middle class? Which system has the wealthiest poor? Which system guards most against the rich or the majority becoming oligarchal? The United States has the compass, but we need to get back in sync with it.
~~~
What is a free market economy? It is where the individual may participate without the handicap of competing with legally-advantaged corporations, without excessive burdens of tax, without the invisible tax of inflation, and also, without a constant threat of theft and fraud, which are all fueled and fired up by debt economics.
The federal government supports a free market by only interfering through powers that are granted by the Constitution. That doesn't imply an absence of regulation. It doesn't mean corporatism. Since the increased centralization of federal powers during the Civil War, and also the founding of the Federal Reserve, the third hand of perpetual debt has been in the market which encourages corporate theft and militarism. Also, the ability to experiment with different policies in the state test has been weakened, and that includes social and financial policies.
I would also point out that The United States is not a pure democracy. Safeguards were set in place to prevent the tyrrany of the majority over the fundamental rights of people. It is possible, in a democracy, to be completely puppeteered by laws. If the majority decides every aspect, then most can be controlled unduly because each one of us falls in a minority category in something. Many of the safeguards intended for the balance of powers have already been overrun.
The core ideal of "Rule of Law" is to restrain democracy's encroachment on individual rights. This is precisely why the Constitution is written in terms of limiting the power and reach of the federal government. It not only lays down individual rights, but a manner in which the government should behave to preserve those rights. The US Constitution clearly makes the point that any power not vested therein does not belong to the Federal government.
However, the latter is perhaps even more important than the Bill of Rights: If the government does not depart from the manner in which it should behave, or go beyond its limited reach, then it won't have the power to violate those rights. Yet, as soon as it invents different tools and approaches and ways of doing things, and we endorse it, we risk undue interference which may extend longer and further than ever originally welcomed or intended.
If it followed this description, the federal government would be a pretty bare boned institution. How, then, would the people be able to invent different tools and approaches and ways of doing things? The important question is not how but where. That is what states and municipalities are for. States have their own constitutions, which should rightly have closer control over law. This can work well, democratically, because it can tailor to the specific needs of the local people. And there is also the great potential for variety and an element of competition among the states. If treatment and conditions are unfavorable, people may move, thus forcing a given state to balance its powers with the preferences of the people and focus on effectively addressing local issues. That is a pretty beautiful thing, actually.
It is a long standing tradition for administrations to circumvent the Constitution. For example, in order to move forward the New Deal, Roosevelt faced overrulings to his new policies in the Supreme Court. Instead of fighting the cases themselves, he changed the structure of the courts, expanding the amount and appointing new and sympathetic judges. Through his Court Packing Plan, he was able to win the cases. With the inception of the Federal Reserve, the Federal government has a monopoly on our currency and also manipulates its value. Rather than resign ourselves to inevitability, it is proper, sometimes even essential, to question and revisit past precedents.
Precedents have to be revisited in order to clearly see and respond to the present. President Obama believes that the Constitution is handicapped since it is a statement of "negative liberties" granted to the federation. Indeed, he is clearly making efforts to correct that perceived weakness. Can the President and Congress force bailed out corporations to yield to ex-post facto regulation? They should not be able to, but they may succeed. If the companies were not bailed out in the first place, it would be moot. If the Federal Reserve did not make a monopoly currency and manipulate its value, those corporations either would not exist as they are or would not fail as they are failing. If long ago we had not attached ourselves to chronic deficit spending, there would have been less justification for the Federal Reserve. And if the US had yielded to Thomas Jefferson's council and never engaged debt which could not be paid off within a generation, we would not be indebted to foreign powers or share heavy responsibility for this global economic meltdown. As hindsight lets us see the direction the dominoes have fallen so far, we are not, if we act, destined to let the mistakes ripen further.
As Milton Friedman says, it is impossible to separate economic freedom from social freedom. When one's ability to generate wealth from one's own capital is restricted, so are social freedoms. Many more socialistic countries outlaw homeschooling or restrict it greatly. In order to provide for all, they have to control more aspects of peoples' lives. Notice the new law in Texas focusing on childrens' rights: our economic abilities having been restricted, so is our ability to care as well for our children, thus the apparent need for more government oversight, and now new possible inroads into our homes and the way we raise our children in good faith.
Statistically, regardless of the form of government or average wealth, there will always be outliers with less or more power and money than those in the middle. Except in our society, some would like to deceptively paint most of us as struggling to survive, to promote more intervention. A great many people may be struggling to pay their bills, but that is not survival. The pertinent questions are, which system has the largest, wealthiest middle class? Which system has the wealthiest poor? Which system guards most against the rich or the majority becoming oligarchal? The United States has the compass, but we need to get back in sync with it.
~~~