What Real Dangerous Politcal Types Look Like

This is just a reminder to my myriad of readers. Last September 12, a substantial group of Americans gathered in Washington, DC to voice their disgust with outrageous government spending and the loss of liberty that inevitably occurs when statist policies become de rigeur. The conventional wisdom of the leftist press labeled these gathered folk dangerous to democracy and seething with anger that could lead to violence. Meanwhile, back in their academic caves and political dens, left-wingers continued their tirade against free enterprise and demonized business as the cause of the world's ills.

Jump ahead to Toronto last weekend and you have the outworking of a political philosophy that finds villains under all private business dealings. By beating the drum of "criminal capitalism" is it any wonder that groups of malcontents are emboldened to smash and burn the focus of such hate filled rhetoric? Once again, the philosophies of the left find their voice in division and violence.

Jealous Lefitist in America

Danny Glover sings his praises and Oliver Stone has a man crush on him. I am talking about Hugo Chavez, the guy that Jimmy Carter vouched for a few years ago (Jimmy still can't find a dictator he does not like unless he is an American president with and R after his name). This week, Chavez announced the nationalization of a US company's oil drilling platforms. Lefties in the US want more government in business dealings, and in the wake of the BP oil spill, they have called for increased strong arm tactics. Robert Reich, former labor secretary under Clinton and all around enemy of private dealings, made the case for seizure just last month. Various left-wing members of Congress and radicals on the left have endorsed nationalization policies when different people make different decisions. Indeed, it is far easier to take something than to do the hard work of creating economic activity that helps you and your neighbor. Ever wonder why little old ladies' purses are snatched or criminals use guns to take some guy's wallet after going to the bank?

Broken Window Theory

The US Government is trying to spend billions more in stimulus money. The same old excuse of "we need to stimulate the economy" is being used to increase government spending so that government employees don't need to participate in this extended recession. But, as we all know, politicians are no lovers of economics or the realities of life. They justify their position by claiming the money spent will be distributed to the community through the spending of the employed government worker, a form of trickle down economics determined by the government authority rather than the liberal position of individual determinants.

This is where the Broken Window Fallacy comes into play. Frederic Bastiat called it the seen and unseen costs of destroying personal property. But Mac, there is no destruction of personal property! Indeed there is, the $12,000,000,000,000 in accumulated debt has destroyed the wealth of the coming years. Business owners know that the day of reckoning is coming very soon, therefore they suspend their ingenuity because they understand that a stable environment is required for risky investment in unproven technologies. The tax requirements to service the debt will be laid on the productive workers in the US (private sector is the only worker that produces wealth). So, where the public service sector might stay employed at 150% the average private sector, the golden goose has been butchered for their magnificent meal. Instead of spending money on innovation and technologies that will employ productive workers and the workers spending money on other productive workers products, those funds will be demanded to service debt so that the government can continue its spending spree.

Our Nanny Government at Work

"...For the children!" The rallying cry for the vacuous political scoundrel. As we progressively bubble-wrap society and sand-down all of its sharp edges, we give more and more power to the central authorities (because someone needs to monitor and remedy dangerous situations). This mentality is derived from "the system is the problem" worldview. If we mollify the system, everyone will be happy and healthy, i.e. we will finally have justice or at least another step towards utopia.

So, what happens when there is a disturbance in the system, the central authorities put us back on track towards justice and utopia. Notice that the students doing the harm were somehow provoked by a system that allows sign-language. Safety first, for the children. Apparently, bullying is caused by a system that allows for individual expression. As is expected by any central authority bent on collective power, the individual must be crushed in the name of "safety" or "progress" or "justice" or whatever ends can justify the means.

The Market of Ideas

There are two professions that seem to avoid the heavy hand of government regulation. Can anyone guess what they are? Hint, they are the professions that seem to influence legislation the most. That's right, the Law and the Academy. These professions would argue that their very industries promote a certain self-governance that precludes any sort of government regulation, a 'free market' where scrutiny and process force the mediocre out. I guess this free market is good because the goals are noble (justice and truth!) where as free market enterprise has an ignoble goal of profits. The irony is that these two untouchable professions are the ones that stand strongest against a free market for goods and services.

That aside, when the Academy becomes a 'rent seeker', is it still a body where self-governance rules supreme? I am thinking of the current controversy here in Virginia where a politically-motivated Attorney General is challenging a politically-motivated academic. The governments of the world pour hundreds of billions of dollars into the academy for scientific research. By any definition, this is a huge market that individual communities within the Academic structure seek to capture through (let's hope quality!) research. This sounds a lot like a marketplace. Should the academy be held responsible when it rips off its customers? Virginia feels ripped off by a certain Academic when his work was shown to be shoddy and politically motivated.

Is it time to regulate the academy? With so much cash flung about it creates a temptation to do terrible research, publish quickly, and tell the rent givers what they want to hear.