War is caused by a false notion of human energy. When people realize they are self controlling there will be no war.
Military strength rests on a foundation of economic strength which depends on the number of people engaged in productive work vs. the number on public payrolls. Free individuals have greater initiative they are more ingenious and more resourceful in adapting they have more to fight for and don't need to be egged on by propaganda. In an editorial on November 26, 1990, the Wall Street Journal told of a University of Pennsylvania student who was warned that the word individual "... was a red flag phrase today which is considered by many to be racist" and was "warned of the inequities that resulted from championing individual over group rights."
It is true in any society that some persons are not responsible for their own misfortunes but it is a mistake to excuse responsibility because of poor environment, drug addiction and so forth and to force those who have managed to overcome the same temptations to support the weakness of others involuntarily. Americans are among the most generous people in the world, and most do not care whether a person is in distress because of his own weakness and lack of effort or because of circumstances which would have been beyond anyone's control. The mere fact that a need exists is reason enough for many Americans to take action. Americans in larger percentages of citizens anywhere else in the world, help their fellows and it doesn't seem to matter to the outcome whether the motivation is based on ought or on desire. But I maintain that the unprecedented generosity is part and parcel of the political system.
Our political system anticipated citizens living with uncertainty. Because America's political structure was not a planned economy where security was offered in exchange for regulation, ordinary Americans often found themselves living on the brink of disaster. This bred sympathy for one's fellows; a sympathy unparalleled in the history of mankind. Americans make sacrifices, and would do so and did indeed do so without government's mandate. American goodwill is the natural outpouring of sympathy by those who have lived with insecurity and can appreciate its peaks and valleys.
To often now days we speak of what it costs the government to allow an individual to keep some of what he has earned via a tax deduction or credit. The idea has been twisted so that it appears the government has a fundamental overriding right to all dollars; the heavy handed Internal Revenue code sees to that. For some reason, governments are unable to understand the underpinnings of economic opportunity. Progressive tax rates destroy incentives and prevent successful productive players from benefiting from the knowledge they gained through their original investment. Instead of being taxed out of the market, successful players should be encouraged to play again. No matter the claims of the reformers, tax codes distort markets, are responsible for the misallocation of resources, the decline of capitalist energy, the mix-match of producers and consumers, the suppression of creativity and generally frustrate the creation of wealth.
During the 1980s the USA increased its share of global exports,
manufacturing output and GNP. In 1980 the U. S. dominated the computer
industry, controlling 80 percent of the world market. During that decade some
companies lost ground but still, in 1990 the U.S. held its market share and
more than tripled our lead in real revenues and profits. There were 14,000
new software firms. Software engineers increased about 28 percent a year during
the 1980s. In 1980 there were 11,000 computer scientists and in 1990 more than
100,000 and over 50 million personal computers in just the United
States.
But there were other increases. Environmental
mandates, other bureaucratic regulations and liability laws
increased. During the seventies forty-four major welfare programs grew two and a half times as
fast as GNP and three times as fast as wages. That excludes the portion of
social security benefits that were paid into the system plus interest on those
contributions but includes the unearned portion of social security benefits
paid.
Talk about disincentive!! In 1976 the American median income was $14,500 and in 1979 $16,500 yet the average welfare family of four received $15,000 worth of subsidies in 1976 or $500 more than if working, and $18,000 in 1979 or $1,500 more than a working stiff! The welfare family had seventeen programs to choose from including AFDC, Medicaid, food stamps, supplemental foods like dairy and other surplus giveaways. All tax free. Needless to say welfare subsidies presented moral hazards in many forms including work-force withdrawal and familial breakdowns. Middle class families paid to make generous benefits available to poor families. How generous? Generous enough to bring poor families thirty percent above arbitrarily set poverty lines-something otherwise achievable only by two full-time workers at the minimum wage.
Distributions of wealth, income, property and government benefits often make things worse because they turn out to be highly skewed, hugely unequal and presumptively unfair.
In 1970 a Lebanese family arrived in Lee, MA with only a few dollars and little knowledge of English. They purchased a dilapidated abandoned shop beside the road on the edge of town and at five every morning the head of the household slowly traveled a hundred miles into the countryside in a ramshackle truck in search of the best goods at the cheapest price he could find to bring back to sell. Many such produce stands have grown up in our area during the eighties. Not surprisingly the six Lebanese children, although placing the family deep in the statistics of per capita poverty long after they were living middle class lives, were great assets as they bustled about the shop. In ten years time the family had turned their roadside stand into a successful strip shopping center, added a men's clothing store to their holdings in the main floor of the largest office building in town which they also purchased.
As a college sophomore, Nick Kelly used to visit his step-father at his place of business; a manufacturing plant for papermaking machine tools. He thought some use might be made of the huge amount of scrap paper left from testing that was piled around the factory waiting to be carted to the dump. He asked if he might have it and upon receiving permission he took samples to an office supply store to see what use might be made of it. He was told it was suitable for scratch pads. With his stepfather's help he picked up a broken down paper-cutting machine and developed an efficient way to apply the glue to make his scratch pads. The young man drove all over the northeast marketing his scratch pads but met his match in Boston were he discovered that an Italian family was doing the same thing, using scraps and an old abandoned warehouse and equipment, only was even more ingenious and able to undercut his prices. The young man decided to buy their pads and concentrate on marketing. He thought of creative ways to add value and purchased an old printing machine and added lines and logos to the pads which increased their value. He got the attention of another paper firm who subcontracted specialty jobs to Berkshire and soon his company was known as a specialist in handling difficult and specialized papermaking tasks. He learned to work with the finest paper required in tea bags, tissue used in mending fingernails, facial blotting tissue and finally lint free paper for microprocessors and other semiconductor devices.
George Gilder used such stories in his writings to make the point that wealth is not as dependent on start up dollars as it is upon energy, optimism, faith, imagination and perseverance.
Statistics can be skewed to show anything. For example, zero was the median income of individual Americans not long ago (half above and half below) simply because housewives and children didn't show any income at all. In the 1970s the GNP supposedly rose, but if one looked closely at the rapidly increasing income one could see that its cause was nothing to celebrate. What was hidden beneath the healthy looking GNP was the disruption of American families; something that in the 21st century is happening all over the world. Social tragedies can be translated to praiseworthy events statistically. More housing, more fast food sales, more use of day-care centers and domestic help, psychiatric and social services of every kind increases employment but the jobs are too often due to divorce, unwed mothers and staying single longer. The example of the man who marries his housekeeper is often used to show how GNP can be diminished. In marriage, the money that was previously paid to the housekeeper is now voluntarily shared but is not reportable income and does not show up in GNP statistics as before. Examples like these should put us on guard and make us aware of the illusions that surround us.
Double speak is all too common today. Masters of double speak get their opponents to practice a form of jujitsu where strengths are used to destroy the very things that are responsible for those strengths. Their techniques are designed to turn virtues into weaknesses. Self-criticism is one of those strengths that are easily turned into weaknesses. Our willingness to indulge in self-criticism makes us particularly vulnerable to distorted propaganda which exaggerates our deficiencies and obscures the true picture.
I once read that part of Lenin's plan to discredit capitalism was to confuse the vocabulary. He realized that thinking can only be done in words and that accurate thinking demands words with precise meaning. By confusing the vocabulary it is almost impossible for an unsuspecting majority to defend itself against a minority that knows its goal and deliberately promotes word-confusion as a tool to achieve that goal. It looks like Lenin failed but the fruits of his strategy are actively doing damage today. Logical thought is almost non-existent as more and more people are swayed by sugar-coated fallacies, high sounding clichés and double talk. What does it really mean when someone says "Let those who had the party pay for the party"?
Jesse Jackson coined the phrase but it has been used by members of congress advocating tax hikes for the wealthy.
In August 1987 Jesse Jackson said the following in his address to the Southern Legislative Conference:
We must use our minds and resources. We must educate our children. It is immoral to cut back on education, to turn our children's sunlight into midnight. It's a mistake to tackle education from high-tech down rather than head-start up. It's a mistake to put more focus on private education than mass education. Democracy does not guarantee success but it does guarantee opportunity. To educate a child's mind is to give that child opportunity.
To the issue of productivity-education is the key.
To the issue of competitiveness-education is the key.
To the issue of quality of life-education is the key.
Education should not be reduced to an afterthought-it's our first line of defense. A full academic scholarship could cost less than $30,000—those same four years on a full penitentiary scholarship could cost more than $120,000. Education at its worst is better than jail at its best. We must educate our children!
Beautiful-right? Who could argue with that? But now let's analyze what the great orator has really said.
First of all providing education is not a morality issue. Secondly, absolutely no one in the entire country was talking about cutting back on education. Besides any government cutback is not less than before, but only a cutback in the growth. Just another decrease in the increase.
"Sunlight into midnight" is simply hot air. "From high-tech down rather than head start up"—who's advocating such a thing? There is little or no disagreement that the early years of schooling are the most important. As for "focusing on private over mass education," government has not been doing that.
Lewis Carroll had Humpty Dumpty say "When I use a word, it means just what I choose it to mean-neither more nor less" Today the media joins Humpty Dumpty and too often tells citizens that more is really less and that up is really down. Abraham Lincoln warned of newspeak in 1854 "If a man will stand up and assert and repeat, and re-assert that two and two do not make four, I know of nothing in the power of argument that can stop him."
In George Orwell's 1984 the motto of totalitarian Oceania was
"Freedom is Slavery" and "Ignorance Is Strength". The Ministry of Truth
spread lies, the Ministry of Peace waged war and the Ministry of Love was home to the thought police. Newspeak corrupted the meaning of language.
"Political language is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder
respectable and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind."
William Lutz has some excellent examples in his book, Double-Speak:
Doublespeak is a conscious use of language as a weapon or tool by those in power to achieve their ends at our expense...The great weapon of power, exploitation, manipulation and oppression is language. Doublespeak is language designed to alter our perception of reality.. .Doublespeak attempts to avoid responsibility and makes the bad seem good, the negative appear positive, something unpleasant appear attractive; and which seems to communicate but doesn't. It is language designed to alter our perception of reality and corrupt our thinking. Such language does not provide us with the tools we need to develop, advance, and preserve our culture and our civilization. Such language breeds suspicion, cynicism, distrust and ultimately, hostility.
During the Second World War American troops in the Pacific encountered Tokyo Rose, and more recently in the middle east there was Baghdad Betty. In the San Francisco bay area we have a male version who spews a similar brand of poison into the early morning hours over the radio. He insists that the sad plight of the Kurds, especially the suffering young children, is the fault of Americans. He makes no distinction between bullies that initiate aggression and rescuers. To him a person who pushes a little old lady in front of a bus and a person who pushes a little old lady out of the way of an oncoming bus are both people who push little old ladies; he makes no distinction.
Another talk show host in the area intimidates callers who refuse to play by his rules of consistency. He insists that any caller that is against abortion must also be against the death penalty and he tries to get them to profess that killing is killing. He fails to see that one is an innocent life and the other is guilty of actions which make him or her unfit to live in society. He refuses to acknowledge that men are self-controlling and that there are consequences to actions. He bullies everyone into agreeing that the fault for criminal activity lies with an insensitive and uncaring society that fails to provide whatever might be lacking in the criminal's background and environment. That, everyone must agree, is the real cause of the misdeed, rather than the criminal's concerted actions.
Doublespeak is language that makes the bad seem good, the negative appear positive, the unpleasant appear attractive or at least tolerable. Doublespeak is language that avoids or shifts responsibility, language that is at variance with its real or purported meaning. It is language that conceals or prevents thought rather than extending thought, doublespeak limits it. It misleads, distorts, deceives, inflates, circumvents and obfuscates.
Less Negative and More Humorous Examples Of Doublespeak
It is a form of doublespeak to claim progress is being made on the budget even though our national debt continues to increase and interest costs on that debt also grows. A new congressman discovered that most of his colleagues were against still another new commission--this one called the Select Committee on Families & Children. Being idealistic, he voted against it despite the advice of old timers who told him it would be suicide back home to vote against anything with Families and Children in the title. Sure enough his vote was used against him in the next election. He learned too late that to survive sometimes a politician has to vote for something because of its name even though it duplicates another program.
We Americans are noted for our self-criticism; a virtue which can and has often in the past worked to our detriment. It makes us particularly vulnerable to distorted propaganda which exaggerates America's deficiencies and attracts our most high-minded and well-meaning citizens, those progressive and open-minded individuals always on the alert for new ideas. I am a product of Berkeley, California. My kindergarten teacher had been my mother's kindergarten teacher. Four generations have had their start there. I mention this because I am proud of the broad outlook, fair-mindedness and tolerance that has been a hallmark of Berkeley for as long as I can remember. I believe I absorbed those virtues as natural benefits from my unique environment. True, Berkeley's image has become tarnished over the years, and rightly so, as many of Berkeley's citizens, in their desire to give all sides a fair hearing, were taken in by old ideas attractively packaged in double-talk and presented as something new. Reluctantly, and only recently, I have come to agree with the following quote from Henry Grady Weaver's magnificent book Mainspring of Human Progress; a reluctance I attribute to my high esteem for open-mindedness and desire to be seen as tolerant and progressive.
". . .when it comes to the eternal verities of moral truth, there are no two sides to the question. Right is right, and wrong is wrong; and any concession to the pagan viewpoint, whether in the name of expediency or open-mindedness, paves the way for the destruction of all moral values."
To avoid the extremist label, most Americans choose moderation. It is generally believed that anyone who holds uncompromisingly to an ideal must be closed minded, ignorant and worthy of ridicule. Being in the middle of-the-road might not be intellectually satisfying, but it is safe. In a capitalist society diverse opinions, values and beliefs are encouraged. The diversity leads to a special social resilience which is a natural incubator for innovation.
The biggest problem in America is that we no longer trust our neighbors, we no longer consider them to be men and women of goodwill. This frightens me and distresses me more than anything else. Such a nation is not a place where I would wish my children or grandchildren to live. Distrust started from the top when those in power began slapping regulations and inspectors on everyone and everything and now the distrust has permeated every facet of society. A parent knows that children generally live up to expectations. The government expects its citizens to lie and cheat and unfortunately that is what we have been getting. It is not so much that I think adults are like children but that I recognize that children are much more like adults than most people imagine—inexperienced adults. Or maybe it is simply that too many modern adults never grew up and mastered their emotions and accepted the responsibilities that used to go with adulthood. Maybe nobody told them it was expected. At any rate, as I look around I see little difference between children and adults other than experience. The government has been assuring its citizens for a long time now that everything will be okay, that the politicians will provide for health needs, higher education, minimum wages, job training, shelter subsidies, and subsidies for food, transportation and care of their children. There is little incentive to grow up and be responsible. Many a man has deserted his family knowing that government could provide more for them than he could.
When I was a kid in the 1950s government spent thirty-five percent of national income; by 1985 that was up to forty-four percent. In that same time period new government agencies were created involving safety, business practices, education, the humanities and so on and so forth.
The phrase separation of church and state does not appear in any of the rulings of the Supreme Court in its first 171 years. There is no doubt that this nation was founded on principles of Christianity. Although the moral code underpinning our system might have been drawn from any one of many religions: Islam, Hinduism, Judaism, Shinto etc. the fact remains that it was drawn from Christianity. Early America was most definitely not a pluralistic society. That idea took root after WW II. Court decisions up till then were based on solid legal precedent which emanated from Christian moral teaching. The more we banish religion and morality from the classroom the more ill-equipped and vulnerable our children become. Chesterton said when people stop believing in God they do not believe in nothing; they believe in anything. Gorbachev admitted that the Soviet Union was suffering from a spiritual decline.
The inability to find meaning is tragically exemplified by an item which appeared in our local paper the day after the 1990 elections. It notified the community of the death of a 48 year-old homeless woman who had been living in her van. She had come to public notice only two months earlier when rummaging through a garbage bin in an alley she had discovered the body of an hours-old infant. It seems she was so overcome by the apparent senselessness of living that she took her own life.
Government has no resources of its own. The only way it can give one American a dollar or an advantage is to take them from another American. That's the limited ability of government to do good. No bureaucrat could compile the information available through a multitude of market transactions-can't regulate economic activity-can't coordinate the private plans of millions of decision makers making billions upon billions of daily decisions. Economic planning and regulation is impossible.
Most of man's history has been one of arbitrary control and abuse by
government. Most people have contempt for individual freedom. The
Founding Fathers gave us some hard-to-change rules of the game. The original
Articles tell what the government can do; the Bill of Rights tells what it
cannot do—it
limits the power of
the federal government.
Abraham first declared that every man is free and responsible only to God.
Moses reduced the moral law to a code of Ten Commandments directed to the
individual and protecting individual rights. This principle of God given
rights was new. In societies where pagan gods were worshipped, the people
believed gods and government were responsible for whatever happened to
them. The idea that men are endowed with liberty by their Creator, just
as they are endowed with life and reason, was a revolutionary idea. Our
Constitution acknowledges that liberty isn't given by government's or
anyone else's permission; liberty is an unalienable God-given right.
Until the last twenty or thirty years Americans had been pretty free to decide for themselves how to earn money, whether to save or spend it, whether to get more education or go to work, whether to stay with one job or leave and try another, whether to start a business or work for someone else; whether to hire this potential employee or that; whether to rent a housing unit to this potential tenant or that; whether to plant wheat or rice and where and how much; whether to rent, purchase or build a house; how much to spend on an automobile or a suit of clothes and what to accept for the sale of a steer or a work of art. I am running for office because I am alarmed by the number of these decisions that have been taken away from today's Americans. Professional planners, bureaucrats and legislators are either making these decisions for citizens or severely restricting and directing their choices. There's a difference between a free people and a people who's needs, tastes and desires are regimented in line with some arbitrary overall plan.
Rewards are varied. They can be intellectual stimulation, acclaim from colleagues, fame etc. inner satisfaction and recognition. Financial gain is not always the most important incentive., but the possibility of fortune motives some people.
Energies, that might otherwise have been directed into channels of creative usefulness, dissipated in forms and procedures.
Conditions with opportunities and incentives for innovation, production and trade have been more favorable in America than in any other place in the world until recently. It was once a simple matter to go into business or to back up the other fellow's business; to take a chance on making a profit or going broke. Critics refer to free competition as a ruthless and cruel process, but it is not nearly so cruel as the opposite philosophy which for centuries kept peoples ill clothed, ill fed, ill housed and just plain ill.
Human effort is motivated by hope of reward and fear of punishment. An ideal society provides rewards that are great and punishments that are not too severe. America's economic progress is a result of conditions which have provided maximum opportunities for reward and limited penalties to personal insecurity and business bankruptcy.
We've been free to trade with each other over wide areas; free to buy what we please from whom we please, from Maine to California. Absence of trade barriers between states has kept us from Europe's problems. Private monopolies are not permitted unless via political favors or corruption by local officials. Even worse are the government monopolies supposed to protect us from infrequent private monopolies. What are the choices? People can stop patronizing private monopolies, find substitutes, do without or the state can force private monopolies to dissolve. On the other hand, a government monopoly is a total monopoly with no relief because there is no appeal to a power higher than government.
America provides the opportunity for self-expression, self-development and advancement on the basis of merit, regardless of race, creed or class distinction. The recognition that the individual is a responsible human being free and self controlling and capable of looking after himself, keeps down the overhead of bureaucratic red tape and the cost of policing. This makes low taxes possible, with the result that any enterprising person may reap a good share of the fruits of any extra effort that he's willing to put forth. In earlier years there were good incentives to save and invest; no one else was going to take care of your old age. The capital resulting from those savings made it possible to build up tremendous resources in the form of more efficient tools of production thus multiplying the effectiveness of human energy to an unbelievable degree. The savings of millions of Americans who were willing to work a little harder and spend a little less than they earned made the USA the most productive nation the world had ever seen.
Material accomplishments and cultural and moral aspects go hand in hand; necessities must be taken care of before progress in non-economic areas can proceed. In a static society the only way to get something was to take it from someone else which meant a lot of energy was spent fighting over existing wealth. For thousands of years material wealth was destroyed and human energy was dissipated.
But in less than two hundred years of voluntary cooperation between free individuals the United States pointed the way to a world of peace and plenty. In America, material wealth was the result of an approach based on sound moral principles. Our Constitution threw away the notion of a static universe and admitted no limitation to man's progress so long as he directed his imaginative abilities and creative faculties in harmony with truth and righteousness. Voluntary cooperation was a hallmark of American industry and depended upon the observance of ethical standards based on the recognition of human rights, human obligations and individual responsibility. It was a practical manifestation of the brotherhood of man and it was good business. The golden rule paid off.
Today we rely far more on coercion in the form of police, courts and prisons which is unpleasant, expensive, slows things down and saps energy that would otherwise be directed to productivity. No one wants to go back; but maybe we should admit we took a wrong turn and get back on the track painstakingly laid down for us 250 years ago.