The strange and fatal attraction of statism

The question is -- Why are voters attracted to statists like Obama? Is it merely a reaction to difficult economic times? So, we say -- The economy is terrible and since a Republican is president, I will vote for the Democrat, Obama. Perhaps.

So let's look at what Obama believes. He believes that free enterprise has failed and that those who say - let the free market work -- have misled people and created the economic meltdown that is now taking place. Let's set aside the fact that a free free-market has never existed, and go with what he probably means -- that to the extent the market has been allowed to operate without strict government control and design, it has failed.

This tells me that Obama, and those like him, believe the only way for the economy to work equally for all and to establish justice for all is through government control and design -- that the parts of the market that've been left to sponaneous order have caused inequality and injustice.

Obama, and those like him, believe no parts of the economy should go uncontrolled and that right and proper design will achieve the goals of social engineering which small amounts of freedom throughout the market have thwarted. Freedom either works or it doesn't -- you can't have it both ways -- plus he and his cohorts have chided Bush/McCain for their free market policies (what a joke). He believes that operations like ACORN are necessary as activist efforts to help achieve the goals of equality and justice.

Let's also forget for the moment that designs to implement equality and justice have led to the present financial freeze and miscalculations, then ask what Obama might attempt to implement in order to properly design the best of all possible worlds. He will need to take a huge amount of money from those who produce wealth in order to redesign the economy. He will need to help struggling home owners who can't pay their mortgages and he will need to strengthen entitlement programs to support those who have been left behind in the age of technology. This can be done by giving more money to people directly or by forcing financial institutions to work out plans to help those who can't pay for what they've borrowed.

He will need to control private enterprise in a much more active fashion, using the coercive power of the government to transfer a large amount of wealth -- the particulars of how it's done are just a matter of committee decisions, but he will have to exercise much more control over private concerns. Let's forget for a while how businesses will react -- if they leave the country, go out of business, lay people off, whatever, it's something to put on hold for right now, because the critical goal is to achieve equality and justice.

If we all decide that the mystics of muscle are right and that free enterprise must be controlled and designed in order to establish fair redistribution, then I suppose it will happen.

But before we go off the deep end, let's consider a few things. How in the hell do you expect people to sit by and be muscled by unproductive politicians to give their earned wealth away to government? I won't try to convince anyone they are wrong, reality will do the convincing. If I have learned anything through the years it's that reality always wins. You can dance in circles on clouds of hope in your dreams but in reality only that which is real has lasting economic value. All these designs are hot air swirling in small minds and stand for nothing against the real actions of men and women working in the material existence that represents the limitations to which we all must adjust or perish.

You can work yourself into a tingly illusion of utopian equality and justice built on the schemes of social engineers and power brokers all day long but at the end of the day reality goes on day after day, month after month, year after year -- it is what it is. Work has to be done to produce the real products and services that keep us going, and that has to happen through the purpose and intent of human minds, wills and exertion. You can't look at the "economy" as something that can be designed in committees-- it's the separate and many actions of individuals spread out across the world interacting directly and indirectly through the motivation of needs and wants causing co-operation. The only structure that will allow this spontaneous order to fully function is freedom. The controllers and designers of Russia and Iran and Venuzeula are prime examples of idiots propped up by oil - and if it goes so do they, because they have no structure of freedom to allow the spontaneous order of a free market to produce what's needed and wanted. Now the designers want to prop up the US on worthless printed paper, hope and promises, designs and schemes? And they expect producers to produce while politicians take their money to design and scheme and throw it down a black hole? No, I don't have to convice anyone, we'll just wait and see.

The Obamas of the world had better get out of the way -- reality always wins.

Mystics, mystics, everywhere mystics

By all indications we're going through major changes in the US. It's not the first time I've witnessed major change. In the sixties and early seventies my mind was formed by rapid change.The murders of John Kennedy, Robert Kennedy and Martin Luther King were major shocks among many shocks and reality bending happenings: civil rights, hippies and free love, the Chicago 7 trials, Woodstock, Viet Nam, Kent State, the beat poetry, Watergate and Nixon's resignation -- there were a series of events and changes that led one to believe a revolution was taking place and no one knew where it was headed.

I was drawn into the Yippie movement by the absurd theatrics of Abbie Hoffman and Jerry Rubin out of an immature impulse toward freedom -- more a nihilist living to be nothing except what I was that day, than someone with a vision of the future based on a consistent philosophy. It was frightening and fun. Kent State seemed to mark an end, and all the pot smoking free loving hippies had grown into dying addicts or jaded drop outs or reformers within the system.

My drunken fling with nihilism left me washed out and rebuilding at 30 years of age. It took another ten years to make sense of it all and begin a budding interest in objectivity and libertarian thought. Reagan caused me to pay attention to politics, enough so to learn that government is not the answer and the answer lies in the spontaneous order created by free choices under a limited government that protects individual rights.

Since that time it has become clear that with the help of the media there's been a president-centric shift -- an obsession with viewing the chief execultive as the boss of the country. But what I have noticed in real life is the productive interactions that actually make things run. To simplify the whole process and move forward with a short article, the division I see is a battle between a president-centric government attempt to design our economic and social lives (statism) and the spontaneous dynamism of the free market and all private concerns (capitalism).

Obama is the image of statism. I will make no judgement on the man himself in relation to character and such-- I don't view things that way. The ideas he expresses are enough for me to know he is a firm believer in big government and central control, and has a negative opinion of free markets, for the most part. He may very well be a sincere man who thinks he's been called to champion the poor and disenfranchised. But he's being used as an image for the statists ( I believe "statist" is a better term than liberal or leftist). There is a struggle for control in this country and the statists have effectively moved Republicans into the realm of Democrats, so that lines are being blurred, although Democrats are still using the image of Republicans as free market adherents to give their party distinction. It's all about image.

Obama has shown so far to be egotistical enough to assume the leadership role among statists. However, I have seen no substance from Obama. There is little substance in the statist ideology, but a much more substantial candidate could have swept the elections this year because people are afraid and Republicans, by going toward statism, have screwed the pooch sufficiently to be blamed for the whole damn mess. People still haven't clearly identified the combination of the two parties toward more and more government control that is wrecking our economy -- so, Obama may win.

I don't think it matters. But the way in which Obama's winning is cause for concern and calls for honesty. Obama is winning because the media is backing him and supporting the image. More and more people are realizing this and that's why the race is still close, but Obama should be sweeping every state with the support he has had. If a Republican had the baggage in the open (and it would be in the open) that Obama has hidden, it would be over for the Republican, but the baggage is hidden. There are enough influential statist leaning players in the US to support the image. It's all image.

There's nothing in Obama's experience to qualify him to be president of United States. His political and religious associations place him far, far outside the mainstream of America, but the image hides the negatives.

It's obvious that given his way, Obama will nationalize much of free enterprise. His way will be more of a facist control of industry to in effect render industry nationalized. This is the antithesis of what our country has stood for, but it's hidden behind the image. His compassion is a coerced compassion which takes from some to give to others. Politicians have been doing this for years, but Obama will perfect it and take it to extremes we haven't experienced -- if he has his way.

The problem with Obama is that he's too much the true mystic that Ayn Rand wrote about, dividing Republicans and Democrats into "mystics of spirit" and "mystics of muscle" -- It would be as if a Falwell-type could possibly be elected president, except Obama is from the other end of mysticism with the State as God. We all knew Clinton was a pragmatist and would do whatever to stay in power -- he was not on a mission from his god-form. The last true mystic we had in office was Carter but he didnt' have the following to do much but ruin the economy. We don't have to worry about a true mystic of spirit winning anytime soon, but we need to worry greatly about mystics of muscle gaining too much widespread acceptance. Like I said, this is not about this particular election, it's more about Obama types gaining credibility and a religious movement taking hold sacrificing freedom and bowing to the State.

I'll expound on this tomorrow if time allows.

Update on Thursday, October 9, 2008 at 11:08PM by Mike Farmer

I've been busy at work and the little time I have to hurriedly write makes for clumsy sentences. I promise to do better tomorrow.

An old con game and a new order

In comparison to the praise and rationalizations of and for Barack Obama, there is a dearth of hard criticism. A few conservative talk show hosts are all you'll find in opposition to what I consider an attempt by many to perpetuate a big lie. Even many libertarians apparently find it difficult to state the truth about Obama without minimization and a simultaneous trashing of McCain and Palin.

From now until the election I'm going to lay out why I vehemently oppose Obama and everything for which he stands. This is not pro-McCain, but strictly anti-Obama-ism. I'm at the point I don't care who's elected -- the system of government we presently have is set up to continue statist policies no matter which party is in control of the executive branch. I don't care if Obama wins by a landslide -- this is not about the elections, it's about what I believe Obama represents and why I oppose what he stands for.

I will write a series of articles spelling out what seems obvious, yet, for the most part, is ignored by the media. It goes to the heart of what I believe is wrong in America. The first article which I'll post tomorrow has to do with the president-centric mindset that has developed in the US over the years and how Obama is the culmination of this dangerous and irrational mindset -- "irrational" because it prevents realization of a failed system of government and dulls the use of reason to help ground thinking in facts and objectivity. This obsession with presidents leads us away from the private sector of productivity toward the princes of politics, which is a backward reaction to the dynamic movement of economic forces underneath the hoopla.

It's smoke and mirrors to keep focus on dependency and the remnants of central, federal control. I see it as an emotional hangover from the public that has grown dependent and the last ditch effort of statists clinging to an old order. It's not confined to the US, it's the old order of the world hanging on to an illusion.

This, also, is not meant to change anyone's mind. Changing the mind of five readers won't make a difference :). It's mainly a cleansing of my mind on the issue.

How much more can be denied?

The associations are becoming crystal clear.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/weblogs/TWSFP/2008/10/obama_gotv_group_and_voter_fra_1.asp

The LRP Doctrine.

I seriously believe it's time to close all overseas' military bases. I don't mean to hide in isolationism, but rather a military non-intervention policy. I think it is even smart ot tell the UN we are backing out, that we will send money to support peace-keeping missions and humanitarian interventions, but our physical presence is too destabilizing, therefore we're calling it all in and giving the responsibility to other nations.

We can use the savings to build the greatest defense system ever and let the world know that our presence overseas has caused too many problems, that we want to just produce in peace. We could say we are setting the example for the new future of peaceful trade. Wars are not getting us anywhere. We can offer technological assistance for business purposes to growing nations, but we'll keep our military at bay. We could ask that no country antagonize us or attack us and we'll mind our own business. 

If attacked, we would respond but just as a punishment, not to get involved in regime changes or nation building or region restructuring or any of that -- just attack those who attack us, cause a lot of havoc, then come home. The attackers would get the message eventually if it's costly. I know this is naive, but I think a simple withdrawal would throw the responsibility back on the rest of the world and cause a shake-up -- who knows, it could create a huge change.