Economic Stimulus Checks: Bread and Circuses

As the ideals of the Roman republic were eroded and displaced by the politics and tyrannical rule of the Caesars, governing parties realized that an oppressed citizenry could be pacified with food and entertainment. Thus, the government became the provider of bread and circuses (panem et circenses), an ancient Roman metaphor for people choosing food and fun over freedom.

 

The issuing of Economic Stimulus Checks is a straightforward application of the bread and circuses philosophy. Yet curiously, I haven’t heard much dissent regarding this approach. It seems there should be quite a bit of outrage.

 

First, if our elected officials see fit to “give back” some money, why did they take it in the first place? If they believe returning money to the citizens will help the economy, then it’s reasonable to suggest that taking it was harmful to the economy. (It’s a pretty twisted scenario where someone creates a problem so they can fix it, but that’s one of the essential illusions of government: create a problem so you can put forward your party and your policies as the solution.)

 

Second, where is the money coming from? We hear constantly of the ballooning federal debt and the lack of funding for government programs. How can an organization constantly in need of money afford to hand out $600 to every qualified taxpayer?

 

In the best Keynesian tradition, our government has either decided to borrow more to encourage spending, or to authorized its central bank (the Federal Reserve) to print more money. Either way, taxpaying citizens get stuck with the bill; in one scenario, the federal deficit grows larger, in the other, the value of the currency gets smaller. Thus, your $600 “rebate” results in higher taxes or less spending power.

 

Furthermore, government officials have the temerity to tell us how to spend it! They didn’t want us to use to pay off debt, or put it savings. No, they told us the best thing we could do was to spend it! The truly patriotic would use their “windfall” to buy a plasma TV, take a weekend ski trip, make a down payment on an new car, or visit the Caribbean. (It was a nice, benevolent touch when President Bush finally acknowledged it would be okay to spend the checks on necessities as well; you know, things like rent and gasoline.)

 

It’s absurd. They take your money, expect your gratitude for giving a fraction of it back – and then they want to tell you how to spend it! The arrogance is breathtaking. But nary a soul is demanding accountability for these actions – because they’re getting a check back! Not that you should sent your check back. From a purely pragmatic point of view, any money in your hands is better than leaving it under government control.

 

But instead of just accepting the scraps, why isn’t someone asking for more? Americans have become a docile populace, conned into believing that dependency on government hand-outs and consumer debt are necessary for survival. The collective mindset has such low expectations that many can’t imagine anything better than watching “American Idol” on a new TV (courtesy of your congressman!) Bread and circuses, indeed.

 

 

Making Atlas Shrug

I read Ayn Rand’s Atlas Shrugged for the first time when I was in high school, and more than thirty years later, it has remained one of the most influential books in my life. I have seen reviews that dismiss the literary merits of the book, and those criticisms may be valid. The power of Atlas Shrugged is not in its prose, but in its ideas.

Atlas Shrugged is a novel in which “men of the mind” become so disgruntled with socialism and elitism that they quit; the productive members of the society (industrialists, innovators, technologists, etc.) simply “resign” from their work and emigrate to a secret enclave where they re-establish a world based on personal liberty, free-market capitalism and merit. These producers “disappear” through a technology that allows them to live unseen behind a “force field.” It’s like a magician’s trick that makes the elephant disappear – it’s there, but you can’t see it anymore.

As this “brain drain” occurs, it is as if Atlas – the mythical titan who carries the world on his back – has shrugged, relieving himself of the burden of the non-productive parasites of society (especially governmental and media figures) who provide no value while taking as much as they can through political power and social pressure. When the “men of the mind” quit, they leave politicians and other non-producers nothing to commandeer. Slowly, inexorably, the stability and progress of society begins to disappear.

Just from this brief overview, many readers won’t understand the conflict in Rand’s story. They don’t see government or “social activists” as enemies of productivity or freedom, and they won’t understand why anyone would want to “quit” being productive. But if you read the book, you’ll get it. Of course, the book is over 1000 pages, so for those who can’t handle the volume, here’s a summary of the essential conflict of Atlas Shrugged:

“When the minds of men are free and the resources of the world are apportioned under free enterprise, those who rise to leadership are those who combine original thought, resources and strong work ethics. In a shackled society, those who rise to leadership are those who use their minds to enslave and control others. The latter people fear men who can actually make things and do things, and they work constantly to maintain control over them.”

The preceding was a quote from a September 2007 article from Access to Energy, a “Pro-Science, Pro-Technology, Pro-Free Enterprise Monthly newsletter.” I don’t think you can find a better three-sentence summation of the conflict between producers and controllers, between freedom and socialism, between an ethic that produces wealth and one that wants to seize it.

For Rand, it takes a fictional contrivance to free productive human beings from those who would attempt to control them and subordinate their productivity. In real life, it’s hard to escape the clutches of greedy governments and envious individuals. But that doesn’t mean productive people can’t effectively “shrug” off some of the parasites that beset them. Sometimes, quitting is a very effective response to controlling individuals and organizations. From personal experience, I have found the Atlas Shrugged approach to be effective in some situations, although it may require to taking steps backward in order to go forward. As an example:

For past five years, I was very involved in a non-profit organization. Not only did I volunteer my time, but the bulk of my charitable giving went to the organization as well. Over the course of my involvement (including a stint as treasurer), I became increasingly aware of some negative actions on the part of the organization’s leadership. Several other individuals shared these concerns. After further investigation confirmed the detrimental behaviors, we attempted to correct and improve the situation. When these efforts were rebuffed, we withdrew our financial support and left the organization.

It was difficult to leave behind friends, and walk away from the personal and financial investments we had made in the organization. Further, I know our collective departure immediately impacted the financial well-being of the organization, which has made it harder for the good people still there. And since I am committed to charitable involvement, I’m faced with the task of looking for new places to invest my time, energy and dollars. Initially, leaving was a step backward.

But continuing to stay in the organization (and continuing to fund it) would have enabled the leadership and allowed the procedural problems to persist. Ultimately, our departure spurred direct action from the remaining members, exposed some of the issues to a wider audience, and prompted an oversight committee to be brought in.

SHOULD ATLAS SHRUG AT THE VOTING BOOTH THIS FALL?

As it has been for the past century, the focus of the upcoming 2008 presidential election will be on the Republican and Democratic candidate. But what if you don’t particularly like either one? What’s the value of voting for someone who doesn’t remotely represent your perspectives?

The problem here is that both the parties and the media frame the election discussion as an exclusive contest between the two parties. Everyone in America has to choose between red and blue; there are no other options.

For the pundits, not voting is considered an act of treason, and voting for anyone other than the two major party candidates is a waste of “your precious vote.” But the logical consequence of this you-must-vote-either-Democrat-or-Republican perspective is to support someone you don’t like who will probably deliver some things (via taxes, legislation and the bully-pulpit) you don’t want. Is this a win-win arrangement? I don’t think so. Continuing to vote for unacceptable candidates because you see them as the “lesser of two evils” only allows the evils to be perpetuated.

If enough people stopped voting, it is much more likely that better candidates and better ideas would come forward. Instead of seeing their chances as almost nil because of the two-party monopoly, the number of non-voters would be great enough to convince third- or fourth-party candidates that they had a real chance at winning. And knowing there exists a sizable number of potential voters which could remove them from office, the two dominant parties would have to seriously consider adjusting their policies as well.

All governments, even repressive ones, know the power of their citizens. If the populace is against you, your regime cannot last. In repressive political systems, the tipping point comes when the people’s dissatisfaction overcomes their fear of punishment. In democratic societies, political parties lose their power when people stop voting for them. As long as people keep voting for one of the Democrats or Republicans, they continue to give the two parties power and relevance.

Of course, the short-term consequences of a non-voting approach could initially make things worse. If the only remaining voters are “true believers” who support the principles and candidates of the two dominant parties, their zeal might embolden them to more aggressively pursue their agendas. For either the Republicans or Democrats, this will mean more governmental control and less personal freedom. The apologists for the current two-party system will say “If only you had voted! Your vote, and others like yours, could have been a moderating influence and lessened the damage.”

Perhaps. But continuing to vote for organizations and individuals that don’t represent your views or values may only prolong your problems. And it will almost certainly never solve them. (Do you really think either the Democrat or Republican parties are on the verge of repudiating their current policies and returning greater economic and personal freedom to the citizens?)

If there isn’t a candidate worthy of your vote, then voting for the lesser of two (or more) evils only enables bad candidates to believe they are worthy. Maybe it’s time for the American voter to shrug like Atlas.

 

“I, Pencil” – A Free-Market Classic

The inspiration for this post comes from a December 9, 2006 “Evenings with FEE” speech,  by author George Gilder. FEE, the Foundation for Economic Education, posts “classics” in the sidebars of its daily “In Brief” commentaries on current events.

As prologue to his speech, Gilder made reference to the writing that most influenced him to embrace libertarianism and Austrian economics. It was I, Pencil, written by Leonard Read.

Gilder called this short work of fiction about the making of a pencil “the single most important essay of liberty ever written,” and “an inoculation against Socialism.” He added that once you read I, Pencil “you just can’t believe in massive government planning…it becomes evident that people who imagine that whole economies can be planned are just imbeciles.”

Gilder is right. I, Pencil is a brilliant piece of writing. The logic is tight, and so are the conclusions.

For a short, yet effective dose of free-market clarity to counter the fog of government-think, click to here to retrieve I, Pencil from our reading room.

In the End, Socialism Breeds Barbarians

(Note: As I mentioned in the previous post, the Wall Street Journal is a newspaper for adults. Thus, some of what follows is Rated PG-13, at least)

I mentioned I often find good reading in old Wall Street Journals. In one of my “reading binges” to clear out the backlog in my office, I came across a book review about a topic so powerful that it has stayed with me since I read it more than a month ago. The review also convinced me I will never buy the book.

The article is “Witness to Horror,” by Omer Bartov. Published on January 22, 2008, it is a review of “The Unknown Black Book,” a compilation of eyewitness and survivor accounts of the Nazi genocide of the Jews in occupied portions of the Soviet Union. According to the article, “‘The Unknown Black Book’ is the first publications of materials excluded for political reasons from ‘The Black Book” a collection of survivors’ testimony that ran afoul of the Stalinist regime.” The Soviets suppressed the book because it revealed that in many cases Soviet citizens were enthusiastic and willing accomplices in the Nazis’ systematic extermination of the Jews.

Even the few excerpts briefly recounted in the article are hard to read.

“When the Germans began murdering Jews with gas vans, as extra entertainment ‘young women had their hair tied to the axles of the vehicles in such a way that they were dragged alive through the city’ while ‘the killing by gas of those who were inside the mobile vans was being carried out.’”

“Toward the end of the month, all the male Jews, numbering some 5,000, were first subjected to prolonged torture and humiliation and then murdered. ‘The earth on top of the pits was heaving the entire time, since many had been buried alive. For an entire week after this, blood burst from the pits like a fountain.’”

The review includes several other excerpts, equally as graphic. As Bartov says, the “few examples provide an inkling of the nature of the material.” For me, an inkling was enough.

“”The Unknown Black Book” records that while many Soviet citizens, and even German soldiers, were appalled by these atrocities, a substantial segment of the Soviet population participated side-by-side with their Nazi invaders, raping, killing and looting with gusto. Yet surprisingly, one group of Russians is recalled with almost uniform respect: the peasants. The poorest members of Stalin’s communist society were the ones most likely to offer sanctuary for hunted Jews.

Maybe it’s because I’m older (I have children and grandchildren), but even the brief descriptions of barbarity horrified me. I was almost physically ill by the time I finished the article. The cruelty and savagery were incomprehensible.

As I shook my head in disbelief, two questions came to mind:

1. How could human beings act this way toward other human beings, particularly non-combatants, and innocent women and children?

2. What can be done to keep history from repeating itself?

I think the first question is relatively easy to answer. There is evil in the world. And unrestrained, there is almost no limit to the depravity and cruelty of evil men. As Proverbs 25:26 says: “A righteous one who falters before the wicked is like a murky spring and a polluted well.” Absent the influence of righteous men and women, Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia were two regimes of unrestrained evil, and neither party recognized any moral authority other than the power of an almighty state. And their evil polluted entire generations.

The areas overrun by the Nazi in 1941 had already been brutalized by Stalin in the 1920s and 1930s. As a result, anyone with courage and a moral conscience – members of the clergy, party idealists, or private citizens – had been either purged or pummeled into servile obedience. The rest of the masses could see the price of resistance. Seeking to survive, they pragmatically chose to align with their oppressors. Thus, by the time the invading Germans arrived, the Soviet citizenry didn’t see them as true enemies, just new dictators. In this type of amoral environment, evil becomes commonplace, even exalted.

So how does one stop the spread of such evil? That’s a tougher question to answer.

There is an obvious need for moral instruction, teaching that argues right and wrong from an ethical perspective instead of a power perspective. Even for people who don’t want a “religion” forced upon them, the tenets of the Ten Commandments (especially the last five) are ones that most of us intuitively agree with. We know it’s wrong to steal, lie, cheat, murder and covet.

If the prevailing cultural norm defended its citizens from theft, murder, adultery, false witness and coveting – and the government provided enforcement – I’m pretty sure most citizens would refrain from evil. But beyond instilling a solid moral ethic in society (and hoping that some people become “true believers” instead of simply avoiding prosecution), I think there’s another element that must be present in order to keep evil from proliferating. I think it’s necessary to allow citizens personal and economic liberty.

Granting personal and economic liberty provides strong incentives for cooperative and peaceful behavior. The observance and execution of a strong moral code provides restraints and punishments for evil behavior, but personal and economic liberty offers rewards for productive “good” behaviors. When it is possible for individuals to lawfully become what they want, earn what they want, and live the way they want, they are less likely to resort to evil means.

History generally supports this observation. Dictators start wars and seize the resources of others. Free societies form economic and political alliances, and exchange resources in open trade. Oppressive governments literally imprison their citizens; not only do they restrict their travel, but many actively prevent them from leaving (think of the Berlin Wall). In contrast, free countries allow citizens great latitude in where they live, inside or outside their country of origin. Personal and economic liberty is a powerful agent for cultural stability and good behavior.

This is not to say that a strong moral code and individual liberty eradicates evil. Even in free societies there are plenty of incidences of evil. There are senseless acts of cruelty and violence. But in almost every instance, there are also individuals, groups or governing bodies that step in and say “stop it! You’ve gone too far, and you must be reined in or removed.” In both Germany and Russia, no one dared to say “stop it.”

In light of this idea that a strong moral code and individual liberty prevent the spread of maximum evil, it’s sobering to consider how the United States government has systematically restricted personal and economic freedom over the past century. Today’s US citizens enjoy far fewer liberties than an American at the beginning of the twentieth century. We are more taxed, more regulated, more compelled to be politically correct – supposedly for our own good.

In response to this diminished personal freedom, more and more citizens seek to use government as their “power tool” to get what they want; special legislation, favored status, tax breaks, grants, etc. Instead of cooperation, there is legislation.

And as our society becomes progressively less free, the power of the government assumes the mantle of the moral code as well. The determiner of right and wrong is what the government allows or disallows. As a result, there are already instances in our society when what most people would consider atrocities (such as partial-birth abortions) have become “legal,” and accepted. The United States may be freer than many societies and mightier than any, but the path we are traveling is still very much the “Road to Serfdom” articulated by Frederich Hayek 60 years ago.

When I look down the road, I don’t want my children and grandchildren to be either the victims or participants in genocide. Individually, I cannot change my government or my culture. But I can articulate the solution. All concerned individuals should constantly argue, vote and contend for strong individual and cultural morality, as well as personal and economic freedom. These are the only proven antidotes to evil.

The Road To Serfdom