The Liberitarian motto--Mine is not to reason why, mine is but to do and die. R.I.P. von mises
On Jan 14, 4:20 pm, "M.A. Johnson" <[email protected]> wrote: > "The New Deal fastened the U.S. economy in the chains of government control. > Free markets were phased out. This was and is a work-in-progress occupying > many years. Liberty remains in name only, as a remnant of past aspirations, > primarily located in the gratifications of a circumscribed personal > freedom."Premises of the New Dealby Michael S. Rozeff > Some of the New Deal’s programs were quickly discarded, but the New Deal > survived. It lives on to this day. Every American president who followed FDR > has strengthened the New Deal, and every new president will continue to do > so. Once we spell out the basic premises of the New Deal, we can see why this > is and why matters will not change without deep changes in thinking. > The New Deal fastened the U.S. economy in the chains of government control. > Free markets were phased out. This was and is a work-in-progress occupying > many years. Liberty remains in name only, as a remnant of past aspirations, > primarily located in the gratifications of a circumscribed personal freedom. > New ideas and political changes such as progressivism consciously forged the > chains of government power for the half-century preceding the New Deal, as > did the enlarged government role in World War I. In the decades following the > New Deal, one government after another, accepting the New Deal’s innovations, > enlarged and secured the manacles institutionally. No realm of American life > was left untouched – legally, economically, politically, educationally, > socially, and religiously. Liberty and free markets became empty ideals next > to the reality of the unique American fascism. The throttling of the American > ideal of liberty was a bi-partisan work of mainstream Democrats and > Republicans alike, with token resistance put up by their less powerful and > influential splinter groups, wings, and movements. The two parties > monopolistically collaborated to build the structure of centralized > government control that we live under today. > We now look back on 125 years of a bull market in fascism. The transformation > of American life by and into fascism is ongoing. The end stage is the > extinction of the person’s decision rights over his life, and his liberty, > and his personal pursuit of his own happiness; with that personal control > being replaced by the collective and total control of nameless others. > The premises of the New Deal control the ground and direction of American > social, economic, and political life. These premises are now identifiable, > although only with the passage of time:Centralization. The view that all of > the economic activity within U.S. borders, that is, the abstraction that many > of us call the economy, is actually a real and single entity; that this whole > can be and should be subject to the planning and control of centralized > national officials.Collectivization. The view that the life of each person is > largely determined by the collective of other persons (and by collective > forces beyond his control that induce insecurities); and that the powers of > the collective others should be controlled by nationally elected officials so > as to enhance the life, progress, happiness, and welfare of each person; that > the same officials should create arrangements to reduce the various > insecurities of life.Market failure. The view that people in markets, left to > themselves, are incapable of sustaining their own investment and employment; > leading to the view that government officials need to be the watchdogs, > regulators, and controllers over people making exchanges in > markets.Insufficiency of social institutions. The view that persons cannot > count on other persons, families, churches, clubs, insurers, companies, > associations etc. to meet their own needs; leading to the view that national > officials acting with the powers of government are essential for meeting > people’s needs.Symbiosis of big institutions and big government. The view > that government controls the economy by supporting and controlling big > business, big labor, big agriculture, big media, big defense companies, big > banks, and so on; the view that individuals, small business, independent > proprietors, and small institutions of all kinds, are minor.The President as > personification of Democracy. The view that national institutions speak for > all the people (as opposed to federalism); the view that presidential > leadership supercedes national-state government relations; the view of > Democracy as a collective government personified by the President, as opposed > to democracy viewed as self-government.Inflation is good for the economy. The > view that persons should not control what money is, but that government > officials should; the view that a growing economy requires depreciation of > the currency and that a declining level of prices of goods and services is to > be avoided.Rejection of limited government. The view that the powers of the > national government are virtually unlimited, or limited only by expediency; > that the national government controls the persons and wealth of all of its > citizens. > To put these premises into practice required a much more powerful government, > which is what we have. But the government can not use its powers without a > degree of popular acceptance. A number of elements have contributed to that > acceptance, such as the government’s exploitation of patriotism, its use of > foreign enemies, and its ability to be heard and set the agenda. A very > important element was the supine acceptance of government power by > influential organizations of religion. Religion shapes the meaning and > direction of many people’s lives. The support of religion for big government > provides government with a broad foundation of acceptance that it could not > gain if it were on its own. > Religion ties in with social norms. To each person, government offered social > "guarantees." The social safety net appealed to wide swaths of the American > people (and to many other peoples). They believe in government guarantees > because they bring certain satisfactions of norms that they hold. Taking care > of the elderly is a social (and religious) norm. So is taking care of the > ill. People believe that children should be educated, another norm. The > government promises and commitments, however shaky they are or ill-performed, > satisfy these desires to meet the norms of good behavior. People feel good > thinking this has been done, and they even feel good paying the taxes when > they think they are satisfying their moral obligations. They don't think > about the hidden costs and bad incentives of something like Social Security. > Why should they? All they hear is one side of the story, and the story not > only is plausible but it satisfies their norms. > The question then becomes: Why did churches and religious bodies support the > collective, centralized, brutal, unjust, and impersonal use of raw government > power instead of maintaining traditional methods of meeting norms personally > and in justice? > America will not experience a revival or redirection toward liberty and free > markets until Americans reject – fully, firmly, and consciously – the > premises of the New Deal, for it was the New Deal that codified and > institutionalized the American rejection of liberty and its exchange for > collectivism and fascism. Before that can happen on any large scale, the > alternative of liberty has to have broad appeal as an alternative to > government supported by religion and made into a quasi-religious institution. > But liberty’s appeal will not bloom in isolation of deeper philosophical > and/or religious underpinnings. Liberty in and of itself does not provide > enough meaning to most people. It provides a foundation for self-realization, > but self-realization for what end? For what purpose? Liberty by itself > provides no transcending purpose. That is why agnostic or purely logical and > rationalistic libertarianism, even with an appealing moral code of > non-aggression, excites only limited interest in the general population. Its > social theory is circumscribed. People want more than individualism. Liberty > cannot defeat the New Deal and big government without a religious revival > that eschews the current connections between religion and government and > replaces misguided religious beliefs with beliefs that are more compatible, > even though they may not be completely so, with liberty, and incompatible > with the power and injustice offered by New Dealism in > government.http://www.lewrockwell.com/rozeff/rozeff256.html --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more. -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
