Keeping the Thread Alive

Perry Eidlebus of Eidelblog has provided some thoughtful and well articulated comments interleaved through three posts. Two new ones appeared yesterday, and the post will fall off the page today and my evil SQL script will soon disable comments.

Now, all these thoughtful and reasoned comments are in opposition to me. But they deserve better placement. Here are yesterday's two comments, concatenated into a single post:

---

"I'll counter that your don't-give-an-inch does not serve the cause of liberty."

It does not work today not because it isn't the right thing to do, but because so many people prefer "the tranquility of servitude" and the peace of compromise, being too afraid of the "extreme" of full-blown God-given rights.

We fought for independence because we refused to give in, because real liberty is not won with compromise or "accepting" that certain things cannot be. As a matter of "practical politics" (a phrase I often use), sure, elections aren't won by extreme candidates. But which do you want to win, centrist candidates, or the cause of real liberty?

"Braveheart" had a couple of great lines on how far one is willing to go. The Elder Bruce maintained, "But it is exactly the ability to compromise that makes a man noble." It is easy for people to compromise when their livelihoods are based on power, whether they wield it (politicians) or derive benefits from it (welfare state recipients). When the Princess of Wales offered Wallace the king's bribe, he retorted, "Slaves are made in such ways!"

"But I will stand up for the ownership society and Part D. You refuse to admit that it is built on market principles and that is unfair."

I refuse to admit it because it's patently false. The very fact that government is intervening (i.e. taking money from some people to give to others) means it is NOT free-market. Something can be based on "market principles," but that is NOT the same as a free market where people make purely voluntarily transactions. This is not John Kerry nuance. It's plain fact.

You can keep arguing "ownership society" until you're blue in the face, but it's an absurd phrase while Social Security and Medicare taxes are coerced out of my salary.

"The rest of Medicare is single payer; part D has private insurers competing for subscribers."

Via an infrastructure that government created, thus skewing market forces. Again, not free market.

"As such, it is the one government program that has surprised to the downside both in cost to the government and average premiums to its subscribers."

Which is only so far. People think they can keep credit card under control, too, but how much will they restrain themselves when they're borrowing money in other people's names? Not much.

I will point out for the umpteenth time that even the most conservative estimates show the program has high long-term costs to make Social Security look cheap. Have you ever looked at the full projections? I have.

"A future administration might build on those figures to spread market mechanisms into the rest of Medicare."

Again, it's only the skewing of free market forces. You need to understand the difference between "market forces" that have the appearance of the free market and what is truly the free market.

"The idea of the ownership society is that these mechanisms function like seed crystals. Over time, they become a larger percentage of the structure and crowd out the collectivist portion. It is a bold attempt and it may not work, but it is disingenuous not to recognize the attempt."

That I "recognize" the attempt is a ridiculous demand when the process is just another instance of government intervention. Not recognizing the programs for their proto-socialism IS what is disingenuous.

A real ownership society is one where government butts out and allows people to function on their own. History proves, time and time again, that all the planting of seeds will do is create a larger and larger bureaucracy. Look back to FDR's New Deal, and its constantly failed attempts that kept the U.S. mired in depression. Should we have "recognized the attempt" that he was "pragmatic" in his belief that government needed to "prime the pump"?

"You applauded the try for private Social Security accounts -- that's the exact same thing. Had legislation progressed, there was much talk of increasing benefits to sell it to the Democrats. Were you being a Socialist? Perry was trying to take my money against my will and give it to seniors! What a Communist that Perry is!"

Private accounts are very different from Plan D, because you're using your own money. It's not really free market because the state forces you to save, but you're not being given someone else's money to save. The rest of Social Security is complete socialism, however, just like Plan D. It's a very simple test: is government taking money from someone to give to you?

I support real privatization, namely the abolishment of the whole thing, but I will support private accounts as a first step. It's not enough, but it's legally important: it could force the SCOTUS to recognize people's legitimate claim on what they paid in. You may recall that it ruled otherwise in 1943.

"McClellan did not last long enough, but there was improvement in his tenure. Fast track approvals for terminal conditions and the Pharma funded faster approval process both happened under his watch. (Sadly, I think he was pulled off to do Part D -- that was a dark day for me)."

Which comes down to begging government for permission to do what is our natural right in the first place.

"I got a kick out of your prison sodomy line, but I think you are missing the saddest fact there is. Welfare for seniors is wildly popular beyond those who accept benefits. People like the idea of a safety net for themselves, their parents, and think that it is a component of "a just society." "

Oh, don't think I realize that. Limousine liberals aren't the only ones who feel "good" about coercing others into charity. Liberalism is all about generosity, after all: generosity with other people's money.

"Nine percent libertarians according to Pew. The other 91% are, sadly, very cool with collectivist, nationalized health care and pensions for the elderly. If you will not admit that, you will not be successful in a Madisonian democracy."

It does depend on the question's phrasing. If you ask someone, "Do you believe that people are entitled to the fruits of their labor," they may not realize it's completely at odds with, "Do you believe government should provide a safety net?"

Ask people if they're willing to support Part D to help seniors, then ask them if they're willing to pay massive tax hikes to fund it. Or ask them if they're willing to tax "the top 1% of taxpayers," notwithstanding it's that 1% that provide the business management, savings and investment to create jobs for the rest of us.

I forgot to comment further on Roberts and Alito. I'm not saying Bush nominated a pair of Souters. They're actually not bad, but they've disappointed me with past and present rulings. A while back, Professor Bainbridge had a great entry on why "originalist," "textualist" and "strict constructionist," which are often used interchangeably, are really different. So I really wasn't concerned if they were like Scalia and Thomas, who themselves have disappointed me. I don't care if someone's conservative, libertarian or liberal: my single test is how faithfully he will defend the Constitution.

Originally I said on my blog that Alito would be a good choice, and he could well be in the end, but I have a feeling his dispositions might be a problem for our freedom at some point in the future. For example, his dissent in Doe v. Groody was inexcusable. Granted it was when he was a federal appeals court justice, but it shows he's too willing to give police the benefit of the doubt. As my friend Billy Beck charged, the police are a part of government that has no right of presumptive innocence when charged with wrongdoing, by the very fact that they are pre-authorized to use force on behalf of the people.

Now, getting specific with Roberts, his ruling in Hedgepeth v. Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority was completely inexcusable. That sets the tone for what will happen in the future, I'm afraid. Also, is he consistent? It bothered me during his testimony to the Senate Judiciary Committee that he said he'd be obliged to respect SCOTUS precedent. That doesn't jive at all when he said the Court was correct to rule as it did in Brown v. Board. As you may recall, it was a reversal of Plessy v. Ferguson. So which one does Roberts really believe? Did he say what he did before the committee just to placate abortion litmus test liberals, or will he rule as a matter of convenience for the politics of the president who nominated him?

Pretty good nominees overall, but it's that fraction that may come back to bite us.

Politics Posted by jk at June 27, 2007 10:37 AM