April 12, 2004
THE POLITICS OF PETULANCE:
Don't Forget Mises -- and Dump the Third Way! (Michael Chapman, April 10, 2004, Cato)
F.A. Hayek's contribution to freedom in the 20th century is incalculable. Yet so is that of his one-time teacher, Ludwig von Mises. The latter, in 1920, predicted the eventual collapse of the Soviet Union because of its lack of private property and a market to determine prices. This was detailed in his book of that year, "Socialism."In his later, extensive writings on government interventionism, Mises explained the inherent failings in what is today called the Third Way -- a deadly idea that has infected the politics and economies of Asia, Europe and the United States.
The Third Way, or middle way, is said to combine the best elements of capitalism and socialism: a new synthesis for the Information age. Some people call it "economic opportunity and social justice." British Prime Minister Tony Blair, in an interview for Chinese TV, described the Third Way as "combining a dynamic market economy with a strong sense of social provision and national unity and purpose." He also calls it "social democracy renewed," a term used by many political leaders throughout the European Union.
In the United States, the Democratic Leadership Council calls it "tolerant traditionalism." President Bush uses the term "compassionate conservatism." In Taiwan, President Chen calls it a New Middle Way, with partnerships between government and business. Mises termed it interventionism: "a method for the transformation of capitalism into socialism by a series of successive steps." Socialism, in this case, does not mean the Marxist kind, where the state nationalizes everything. It means government intervention (and distortion) in the market and society through taxation and regulation.
The problem with this, as Mises explained, is that capitalism and socialism are irreconcilable. One relies on free, voluntary exchange; the other relies on bureaucratic control. You cannot combine the two. If you try, all you get is incremental socialism. The economy and people's lives are manipulated, one way or the other, by the government, which leads to bad decisions, bad investments, failures, higher costs -- all the problems in planned or semi-planned economies.
Which ignores just one thing: when given a choice, people in democracies universally choose to maintain a social safety net. That means that no party that argues for simply doing away with it will ever hold power--explaining the 1% the Libertarians receive each election.
What is necessary then is to try to bring as much private freedom and market discipline to the welfare system as politically possible. This means requiring people to fund their own safety net, but in turn giving them some control over it and the full rewards of its growth. Libertarians will find it unacceptable to require payments to an individual retirement fund or universal Health Savings Account, because they believe that government has no right to tell you what to do with your money at all. But in reality a completely privatized system is just not an option--voters won't stand for it. By fighting against Third Way reforms folks like Mr. Chapman only help to prop up the New Deal/Great Society programs they claim to detest and prevent greater freedom from prevailing in society.
Posted by Orrin Judd at April 12, 2004 3:21 PMoj-
Your faith in government doing the right thing is touching. It ain't gonna happen. The unrestrained power of government is the problem. Your faith is dependent on who has the power and the good sense of your fellow human beings. Not a prudent bet.
Posted by: Tom C., Stamford,Ct. at April 13, 2004 9:47 AMBut in reality a completely privatized system is just not an option--voters won't stand for it.
Which is precisely why democracy stinks, and is ultimately as incompatible with freedom as socialism is.
There's nothing sacred about "voters." But there is something sacred about liberty -- which "voters" can (and do) elect to take away at any time.
Posted by: tomcat at April 13, 2004 10:52 AMTom:
Government won't necessarily do the right thing, but it's going to do something. Would you rather it screw up trying to do your thing or their thing?
Posted by: oj at April 13, 2004 11:40 AMtomcat:
Yes, the franchise should be drastically restricted and a King with a veto over legislation, judicial decision, and executive order put in place
Posted by: oj at April 13, 2004 11:42 AMtomcat:
You are using freedom, liberty and capitalism synonymously. Capitalism is an economic theory that maximizes wealth, nothing more. It doesn't offer a complete theory of life or define a political ideal or have anything to say about how we should treat one another as socialism tries to, which is why capitalism vs. socialism arguments are always distorted and why socialism will generally win over idealistic minds if we pretend they are complements. Capitalism defended that way will always seem, not wrong, but incomplete.
"Another bad effect of commerce is that it sinks the courage of mankind, and tends to extinguish martial spirit. In all commercial countries the division of labor is infinite, and ever one's thoughts are employed about one particular thing...the minds of men are contracted, and rendered incapable of elevation. Education is despised, or at least neglected, and heroic spirit is utterly extinguished."--Adam Smith
Posted by: Peter B at April 13, 2004 11:53 AMoj-
I wouldn't want my way forced upon anyone. A decentralized, constitutionally limited, federal structure would quickly decide which way is better. It's not rocket science.
Posted by: Tom C., Stamford,Ct. at April 13, 2004 12:15 PMOJ:
It is one thing to argue for the virtue of prudence in the application of philosophy to politics; it is quite another to require the philosophers to keep silent.
It is true that the Welfare State is here to stay. But why should men of the Right tether philosophy so closely to politics that they not be allowed to converse about why it is undesireable that the Welfare State is here to stay?
By your logic, as it appears to me, when you say that the best regime is the mixed regime of a benevolent king, you are helping "to prop up the New Deal/Great Society programs" that debase us, are you not?
Is there not room for both politics and philosophy?
Posted by: Paul Cella at April 13, 2004 12:19 PMPaul:
There's plenty of room for philosophy in the Ivory Towers. The halls of Washington are filled with politicians. If the Right isn't willing to contest matters in both then it will return to being superfluous.
Posted by: oj at April 13, 2004 12:34 PMNo disagreement there. But unless I misread you, you seem quite willing to prejudice philosophy in favor of politics, which, to my mind, has historically been as great an error on the Right as the demand for purity.
For example, why surrender philosophy to "the Ivory Towers"? It should rather be out there among the citizens: that is the ideal envisioned by, say, Publius when he writes in The Federalist of the "deliberate sense of the people" guiding legislation.
Posted by: Paul Cella at April 13, 2004 12:53 PMAnd we see how that vision worked out.
Posted by: oj at April 13, 2004 1:03 PMI don't know what that reply means. Does OJ counsel that we forget The Federalist or continue to read it or what?
Posted by: Paul Cella at April 13, 2004 1:21 PMBy all means read it, but read the Anti-Federalists too, because they were right.
Posted by: oj at April 13, 2004 1:31 PMI totally agree with that: in fact it is precisely my point. But in OJ world, where politics subjects philosophy, the anti-Federalists should have just kept their mouths shut because by raising objections they assisted their opponents.
Posted by: Paul Cella at April 13, 2004 2:18 PMNo. It was the Monarchists who kept quiet, even though they were right, because their philosophy could not prevail.
Posted by: oj at April 13, 2004 2:29 PM