“If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude than the animated contest of freedom — go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains sit lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen!”
Samuel Adams (172-1803) American Patriot, Speech, State House of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia—August 1, 1776
Over the past few weeks, I have been very concerned by the blatant intrusions the government has made into our market. What started as an extra-constitutional "bail-out" of a flailing economy through extreme financial measures has mutated into nationalizing our banking system as well as several privately held companies. What I considered to be good men, have taken upon themselves powers that weren't granted through the constitution. My feelings about the leaders of this country have been tried.
What we are seeing happening right before our eyes is another example of how the American public can be manipulated into giving up certain rights as they seek security. Seven years ago, we suffered from an attack unlike anything our countrymen had ever witnessed. In the aftermath, many willingly argued to support the actions of our leaders as our freedoms were severely suppressed in the name of security. The likelihood that we will see a restoration of those freedoms diminishes with every passing year. My concerns addressed to my congressman and senators were dismissed with little or no consideration. At that time, most of the citizenry were on board with the changes to our world. Fear led them to believe it was necessary.
Benjamin Franklin wisely stated, "“They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security.” (Respectfully Quoted, p. 201)
As we began our fight against an ambiguous enemy, these words echoed in my mind repeatedly. I worried then as I do now that we would not realize the truthfulness in this statement until it is too late.
As the markets began to collapse under the enormous pressures of the falling sub-prime catastrophe, our leaders acted again. I suggest they acted on a certain level of panic that they fostered through the media. I was heartened that I like many of my fellow countrymen were not accepting the fear mongering at face value. The initial "bailout" package was rejected summarily by the citizens of this great country. Mobilized by the significant burden this was going to place on our children and many generations to yet unborn, Americans rallied to protest this action. Whether some motivation might have emanated from the implications of nationalizing certain market sectors or businesses, I could not say. However, I was gratified that so many were moved to action in any case.
Much to my dismay, a second round of politicking was not thwarted. Both presidential candidates as well as the rest of the senate mostly signed on to the even more exorbitant bail-out package deemed a rescue plan. Those who would shy away from government interference in the financial markets embraced this 850 billion dollar monstrosity. Free-market gave way to the safe security of government intervention.
“If America is destroyed, it may be by Americans who salute the flag, sing the national anthem, march in patriotic parades... but Americans who fail to comprehend what is required to keep our country strong and free— Americans who have been lulled away into a false security.”
- Ezra Taft Benson (1899-1994) Quorum of Twelve Apostles, General Conference—April 1968
I'm starting to sound rather a bit like those conspiracy theorists and the paranoid militant living in the backwoods of rural America. The concern, however, is real. I am not driven by extreme motivations unless you consider embracing the constitution and freedom as radical.
About the time that George Washington gave his farewell to the Republic, a British professor, Alexander Fraser Tyler, wrote: "A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can exist only until the voters discover they can vote themselves largesse (defined as a liberal gift) out of the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidate promising the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that democracy always collapses over a loose fiscal policy, always to be followed by a dictatorship."
Addressing the Salt Lake Rotary Club on June 8, 1976, President Spencer W. Kimball declared, “The only way to keep our freedom is to work at it. Not some of us. All of us. Not some of the time, but all of the time.”
It is time to rally to a greater cause. We need to fight for our freedoms. Let others concern themselves with security. Security at the cost of freedom is not the kind of "safety" I seek.
2 comments:
I was going to leave a smarmy remark about how I'm leaving room for you at the next ACLU meeting, but then I realized I kind of disagree with Franklin a little bit, which came as a surprise to me. Franklin's far-left assertion is completely theoretical--just as is the far-right's position to let the free market decide everything, potential economic collapse be damned. Franklin didn't have to worry about dirty bombs in train stations, jumbo jets crashing into football stadiums and the like. Whilst I value my freedom above anything, I also value not having to worry about some extremist drop a 747 on my head just because I'm at the Super Bowl. (Note, in the Declaration of Independence, Life comes before Liberty!) By the same token, to do nothing in the current economic climate, while staying true to a pure free market economy, would be completely foolish. Sure, you keep your "American" principles, but big deal, there's no economy left because we have no banks and no American auto or real estate industries. That's like if people no longer had to take their shoes off at airports--sure, that's a freedom back, but big deal, somebody drove a plane up my ass while I was just trying to enjoy a ball game.
I find it curious that countries that are much, much older than ours have moved to the left (a lot, in some cases) socially and governmentally, and to the right on some issues like security (there are cameras ALL over London, for example). They've been through all this before, and they learn from their histories so they do not repeat it. We're still learning. That's why the great Greek and Roman empires flamed out--they grew too far, too fast and didn't learn quickly enough. If you look into a crystal ball, America will look a lot like Western Europe in another 20 years, I think. And you might say we deserve neither freedom or security if we do that, but I would argue that it's just societal evolution--survival of the fittest and flexiblest.
One of the greatest fallacies of our time is to think we can control the market to any greater extent than we can the weather. With every action we take, there is market based pressures to push against that action. As soon as the government releases the artificial containment, the market will certainly respond in a manner that reflects the actual place it should be.
After the terrorist attacks in late 2001, significant efforts were made to make us feel safer. We have taken what was once one of the more pleasurable aspects of business and destroyed it, turning air travel into a nightmare. On this level, the terrorist have succeeded. We no longer have the right to freely go where we please. Security trumps freedom.
During the longest and greatest period of growth in the financial markets, everyone enjoyed unprecedented profits. The stock market provided a place that even the least paid employee could invest and provide for his retirement. Capitalism was king. The investor class was comprised of all levels from the working class to the wealthy. The answer to many problems, Capitalism was even touted as the solution to the ailing Social Security program.
After riding capitalism to the top – a top that was artificially created by government meddling, it is time to pay the piper. The bail-out isn’t providing for those who most need it. I think I would be less worried about the governmental action if the money was going to those who would benefit the most and have the largest affect on the greater public. However, billions of dollars are going to banks and other corporations to bail-out poor business decisions. John and Mary Taxpayer are now investing in those who made the problem what it is. Government bureaucracy was the fertilizer that fostered the actions of two of the main culprits at the root of our market crisis today. The regulating office responsible for Fanny and Freddy employed hundreds. They didn’t do a very good job of protecting the taxpayer. Who is going to watch our investments now that we’re investing in even more public organizations?
Riding on the back of capitalism in good times and clinging to socialism in bad is a recipe for failure, preventing those who made the bad decisions from having to experience the consequences of those choices. This doesn’t help the future but dooms us to making the same poor choices again and again.
What pushed the markets to this point was a derivative system leveraged on bad debt. Where did the bad debt originate? It came as a result of government tinkering in the free market. Give loans to people you know do not have the wherewithal to make good on the debt. We feel good because the poor are buying homes. When the piper comes to collect his due, they cannot pay the bill. They lose their homes and their credit. We feel good, though.
Was this the fault of capitalism? It most certainly was not. Capitalism doesn't allow for those who cannot pay back a loan to have the loan in the first place. True capitalism doesn't seem to have emotion. In the long run, however, there is less pain when the final bill comes due.
Socialism does not work with human frailties. Rather than reward hard work, socialism punishes those who make their way on their own. Sure, we need social programs to provide for those who cannot take care of themselves. Conversely, to set up the poor for failures they could never realize on their own is more than just a little cruel, leaving them worse off than had they been left to their own devices.
Ronald Reagan suggested government is not a solution to our problem, government is the problem. In most every case, the government will address a simple problem by developing a solution that is far too complex and far too costly.
Post a Comment