Good morning Lowell! Lowell C. Savage wrote to Frank Reichert...
> So, apparently, you look at the same situation and decide that it means we, > as a society, need to "hit bottom" before we can work our way up. There seems to be some historical precident that suggests that may be what it takes, yes. There's also a giant risk involved, and I'll get to that in a moment. > Well, the risk in any incremental approach is that you get some things done > and then the fashion changes (or people get tired of working toward the > goal, or whatever) and then you don't get a chance to do the rest. But > right now, you certainly aren't going to get the "big bang" change to > happen, so you've got to take what you can get. The bottom line is, we aren't actually achieving anything. Indeed, if incrementalism is a solution, it is both long term, and the evidence certainly suggests that incrementalism is going the wrong way, e.g.: more authoritarian and draconian steps away from individual liberty rather than meagre steps toward more individual liberty. As an example, here in Idaho this year, a new law went into effect banning smoking in any building open to the public, or at least in most instances including restaurants, retail outlets, etc. This has been a national trend for a couple of decades, and certainly points out incrementalism rather than a Federal ban applicatable to all 50 states. The above is a direct attack upon individual freedom on two fronts. First it destroys the rights of property owners to make choices on the use of their own property, and the right to choose whether or not to allow smoking on their premises to their customers. Second, if strips away the right of individuals to choose to patronize an establishment that either prohibs smoking on the premises, or allows it in either certain restricted areas of the owner's discretion, or carte blanc throughout the entire establishment at the owner's discretion. This latest bill is the culmination of incrementalism, and I have not seen any evidence that would remotely suggest that during the course of this period any progress has been made to reverse the trend toward more authoritarian control by the Idaho State government to restrict property owners over the use and control of their own property, or restricting individuals their right to choose to patronize or not to patronize establishments of their own choice. Of course, if you want to see other examples in which incrementalism has been detrimental, you don't have far to look either; Idaho's increasing fines on non-usage of automobile seat belts is another example. The fine doubled last year and it shows that progress is even building toward police pulling over vehicles when seat belt harnasses aren't fastened, which is not now the case, although it is in both Washington and Oregon. In other words, Idaho is moving toward more authoritarianism incrementally, and there is very little evidence that suggests that individual liberty is on the winning side. > If people cannot be convinced to take a small chance with change in placid > times, what makes you think they'll take a big leap of faith when all around > seems to be falling apart? The greatest friend of authoritarian governments > is a catastrophe. Even if you can make the argument that the government > brought the catastrophe about, people are instinctively likely to believe > that "more government" will be the solution. Now we come to the 'risk' factor that I indicated above. Yes, there is a giant risk that in a time of catastrophe, people will choose more authoritarianism, as Germany, Italy and Japan did in the 1930s. Some historians argue whether Japan was undergoing a catastrophe, although most would agree that they were, both as a result of the world-wide economic downturn, and the fact that Japan was hopelessly bogged down in a long-term war in China and the US had cut Japan's petroleum supplies. It is also true that Japan's government was historically authoritarian, and in the 1930s this was also true, although they maintained a venere of a parlimentarian democratic monarchy emulating that of Great Britain. However, in the case of the U.S., catastrophes give people a choice, and sometimes at least, the bulk of the U.S. population moves markedly away from authoritarianism, at least as a choice, although the record shows that such a choice most often is not followed through in terms of actual implementation. There are two examples in recent history (the last fifty or sixty years), e.g.: The economic catastrophe of the Great Depression, in which Americans chose to presue more authoritaritarianism in the Roosevelt regime, and second, the economic and foreign policy disasters of the Carter regime in the late 1970s. Again, some historians might argue whether or not the Carter regime's bungling of U.S. economic and foreign policies constituted a disaster; but evidence shows that Americans believed that a looming disaster was indeed on the horizon with double digit inflation and economic stagnation on the economic front, and the Iranian hostage crisis that gripped not only the moment, but showed that the U.S. had lost control in terms of allied support in various hot spots around the globe. Americans voted en mass to embrace the promises of a charismatic leader in the form of Ronald Reagan, e.g.: promises to get the government off of the backs of individuals and bring back individual choice and the freedom to make both economic and at least, some, social choices. The irony here is that Americans made the right choice based upon the promises and rhetoric, but the U.S. government actually grew exponentially under the two terms of the Reagan regime to a point where the choices made by Americans twice in the polls weren't realized in terms of actual implentation. I understand that a catastrophe always involves a tremendous risk factor in terms of individual liberty and self-government. There is the risk that the majority of Americans in such an instance might make the wrong choices as they did in the 1930s. There is also the possibility that Americans might come to the conclusion, as we did in the late 1970s, that government was on the wrong course, and choose to get government off of our backs and out of our lives! It can be argued, but the point that I wish to make is a fact of life. There are a lot of Americans today who are simply treding in the water waiting around for a catastrophe to finally hit. Many of these people form the core of the Patriot movement, which we hear very little about these days following the Oklahoma City federal building bombing, and particularly in the aftermath of 9/11 where 'anti-government' rhetoric can land you in jail, or at least a visit by the gestapo. It is also true that America has never seen so much polarity as we are undergoing now. I believe that it can and should be pointed out that Americans are largely solidified into three segments, and I'll mention the third one first since they are largely invisible: 1. Those who are disenfranchized, non-voters, those who have given up or don't care much at all about anything the government does, or doesn't do, and that includes a lot of people, everyone from the Patriot and Constitutionalist folks mentioned above, to those who just don't believe that government will ever be anything but corrupt and largely irrelevant to their own lives; 2. The 'government can do no wrong' crowd which is a sizeable and roughly equal block of citizens who characteristically vote Democrat and embraced Al Gore in 2000, and John Kerry in 2004. 3. The 'government can be reformed' crowd who not always so enthusiastically endorsed the G.W. Shurb regime in both 2000 and in 2004. This is a largely mixed crowd, often driven by fear: fear of terrorism, fear of drugs, crime and religious and social changes. Again, this crowd is a mixed bag, and they may or may not have voted out of enthusiasm for the current regime as much as out of fear of #2 above, and the fear of what government might have become under a Kerry presidency. It is also instructive to point out however that a percentage of those comprising the third and winning catagory above show a great deal of sympathy with the first catagory, with the only difference being that somehow they voted out of fear, while the first catagory already knew that voting at all would never make any appreciable difference at all. To substantiate this somehow just look at the subject line to this thread again! "Which one is for smaller government again?" Even some of us here on Liberty Northest certainly question whether or not the two major Parties, or perhaps even smaller ones, will really finally deliver more self-government and individual liberty. Also, I want to point out that I didn't start this thread, others here did. But this is a common thread that various other politically-oriented discussion groups are also entertaining all the time. > Even if you buy Gore's conclusion, you have to admit he chose a stupid > argument to support it. Yet, Gore's book was hailed as showing that he's a > smart, even wise fellow. > In other words, if you're looking for some kind of a catastrophe to "save > liberty", be careful what you ask for...because you just might get it. You are correct. There are tremendous risks inherent with a catastrophic eventuality in which the outcome of such is uncertain and unknown. On the other hand, Americans are regulated in a way today that an outside observer might consider an anticipation of catastrophe: smoking in public places, huge increases in the number of police and intelligence eavesdroping capabilities since 9/11 along with a marked increase in attacks upon our civil rights, medical rights to certain drugs. It should be obvious that it might not take very much today to plunge into a long-term and convoluted economic disaster. The U.S. economy is straddled by a huge paper debt in both the public and private sectors, and the economy itself is prefaced upon the stability of a mountain of paper and electronic instruments based upon absolutely nothing but shere confidence. Some of that confidence has already disappated to a marked degree by the dollar's slide against the Euro and a movement away from the dollar as a world benchmark currency. We should, of course, also mention here the shaky foundation of the world's petroleum supplies, and the fact that the U.S. through red tape and faulty environmental fears hasn't built a petroeum refinery in over three decades, nor a nuclear power plant in even a longer time, and has restricted known reserves of petroleum exploitation in the west and in Alaska. A considerable portion of America's industrial production is continuing to slide to more favourable economic climates in China and elsewhere. The war on terror can't be won, but will likely undergo increasing consuption of America's dwindling economic resources, and social and individual rights will continue to deminish and errode as a result. Social Security and Medicare taxation will continue to increase and put an even greater burden upon this dwindling productive sector, or a decrease in benefits or raising the age of beneficiaries will be inevitable, both of which will cause greater instability in social and economic terms. Hopefully, in this process individuals will become more self-reliant. Some of this may as a result take on both quazi-legal or illegal activities, such as strengthening the underground economy, although that will become harder and harder to do as more sophisticated techniques are devised monitor the actions and behaviour of individuals. In the event of a true economic and/or social catastrophe, there may become a silver lining as an eventual outcome. There are today, as there always has been other institutional forces outside of 'government' that individuals will gravitate toward voluntarily to meet their needs. Some of this will be good, and some will not be so good, but individual choice outside of government will restructure our current passion and trust in government solutions. Churches, private organizations, and even the illegal drug economy have economic and social organization and would exist even if the U.S. economy and the dollar-based economic system shatters. Many if not most of Americans would have an opportunity to voluntarily move in directions of private choice in just about all matters in which the government regulates or manipulates now. Yes, the risk is there. But the choices and opportunities would also be present, and it's my guess (and guess it is) that many Americans in such a climate of freedom would finally choose to break away from dependance upon government. Kindest regards, Frank _______________________________________________ Libnw mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] List info and subscriber options: http://immosys.com/mailman/listinfo/libnw Archives: http://immosys.com/mailman//pipermail/libnw
