Reconsidering Patriotism
"Some people regard private enterprise as a predatory tiger to be shot. Others look on it as a cow they can milk. Not enough people see it as a healthy horse, pulling a sturdy wagon." - - Winston Churchill
A recent Facebook thread got me thinking a little deeper about the capitalism patriotism nexus. I'll start by stipulating that being pro capitalist does not necessarily make you a patriot, and also allow that one can be neutral on capitalism and still be patriotic. But being against capitalism while claiming to be an American patriot is tantamount to claiming one is a fan of sex, except for intercourse.
Anti capitalism suggests a couple of things; first, a rejection of the economic principles on which this country was built, and second, by inference, that there is a superior alternative. While I defy anyone to cite a single example, now or anywhere in history, let's just say there might be, but if so, it isn't American. Capitalism is as much a part of American DNA as freedom itself.
The whole reason we declared independence in the first place was to escape the system that gave the king claim to everyone's property. By extension any fruits borne of that property also belonged to the king as it was only through his benevolence that citizens were allowed to produce in the first place. Socialists seem not to notice, or are keeping it secret, that the wealth redistribution system to which they aspire is remarkably similar, except theirs is to be ruled by an enlightened panel of Ivy League technocrats instead of a king.
Capitalism is based on voluntary exchange, or free choices, between equal parties. Conversely, socialism is based on top-down distribution. Today's fight isn't all that different than that of the revolution; and for the statist it isn't about the distribution, it's about the control.
There is also widespread confusion on the difference between freedom and free. We've all heard the adage that freedom isn't free but the fact of the matter is free isn't free either. Because someone got it free doesn't render the costs of production non-existent.
Milton Friedman's admonishment that there is no such thing as a free lunch is more than a trite cliche from Econ 101, it's fundamental, unamendable, irrefutable, economic law. So, when someone demands "free" healthcare, or that their mortgage or student loans be "forgiven" it may sound like "I want this for free" but what it means is "I want someone else to pay for it".
"Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy."
Winston Churchill
Apparently too many occupiers took that scene from the Wizard of OZ to heart when the great and mighty one awarded the Scarecrow a diploma conjured out of thin air.
I have, to the chagrin of some, suggested maybe the TEA Party and Wall Street Occupiers have something in common. They do, but it is limited only to the fact that are both separate vents of steam from the same populist boiling pot. In both cases the frustration is justified but in only one case is the behavior. Writer Andrew Klaven suggests...
" Look at them, and understand that that’s what tomorrow will look like if they have their way today." (see link below)
While I am not so certain you can equate occupiers goals with the appearance of their encampments I would absolutely believe that to be the case of the TEA Party movement, having witnessed one of those first hand. The Capitol grounds were cleaner after we left than they were when we got there.
TEA parties protest the wretched excesses of big government. Occupiers protest the wretched excesses of big business. They can both be right. But the real crux of the problem is the unholy marriage of the bigs, in a nutshell; crony capitalism, which, on closer inspection should be re-labelled crony socialism.
Both movements seem to be missing that big business and big government are so intermingled they have become one big fat sow coming ever closer to crushing us by the shear unmanageability of it's size and weight. The worst part is that it can go about its self-serving business of maintaining the status quo so long as each group of malcontents focuses on each other. Political distractions, with the aid of establishment press, have evolved from quaint nuisances to tactical survival ploys. Should we expect change when one half of this power duopoly controls all the wealth and the other half makes all the rules?
Farrowing crates were developed to prevent the unwitting sow from crushing its offspring. The government is supposed to be the farrowing crate dispensing limited resources only to the genuinely dependent. TEA partiers get this and want to restore it. Occupiers seem to be of the belief that the government is some sort of all powerful and limitless multi-million-titted sow. (BTW 98% of those suckers went through government schools. Just sayin...)
When you consider the similarity in structure to the two-party system the parentage of this deformed sow is no mystery. The mini me has grown into a maxi mess....and Napoleon lives.
Comments