Lowe: March 26
Hartung: April 2
Lowe: April 4

Hartung Replies:

March 17, 2000

Tom,

[Personal remarks deleted]

Also I've pondered at length just how to reply and I've tried several angles but I think I'll keep it very simple.

First to answer your comment about socialized medicine being both a good and bad idea. Most very bad ideas have good aspects and most very good ideas have bad aspects, so such a generalized reply doesn't carry much weight, in my opinion. But this subject will take us off on a tangent I'd like to avoid right now.

The core question is what is government able to do well and thus what should it be doing regarding economic management. I say the central government should only be occupied with preserving freedom of opportunity, ensuring that the big and powerful, do not take advantage of the small and weak, or to sum it up, it should only be concerned with preserving a level playing field for all to compete in. Another way of putting it is the government should enable a system of equal opportunity for all.

You, according to your suggestions for improvement, advocate a system whereby the government provides equal outcome, or something approaching that idea. In other words your are advocating a form of socialism.

Without getting into the nitty gritty details, this is essentially the difference between the Left and Right as I see it. We can go off on the many different aspects of the Left vs. Right on matters such as illusions, responsible behavior, economic theories, the federal reserve, etc., but the fundamental difference is whether we expect government to do things for us or do we expect government to just keep others from doing things to us.

I could defend my viewpoint with all sorts of information and reference material, but I will spare you and me that and simply point out that the major experience of the century just ending shows that socialism doesn't work and in fact the more determination with which it is pursued, the more ruthless it will become and the poorer the society will be. It makes little difference who controls it, the more power it gets, the more abusive it will become and the more enticing it will be to special interests that have money to buy privileges. As I wrote previously, powerful money interests buy politicians because of what politicians can do for them. The only way to improve this situation is to take away the politicians power to do things for the moneyed interests.

The simplest example is the current issue of political finance reform. Frankly I've paid little attention to the discussion, but creating a bunch of new laws controlling political contributions is doomed to fail because as long as politicians have the power to grant privileges to special interests the special interests will figure out how to buy the politicians. Better to take away the politicians power to grant special privileges, but nobody is proposing that solution. Actually, Walter Williams wrote about it recently in Human Events saying exactly the same thing.

All the ideas about workers revolutions and empowering workers and all that sort of stuff won't work. For what possible reason do you think workers will do any better as politicians than the politicians we already have? It's been tried. It doesn't work. Obviously you think it will work, so tell me why do you think you can make it work now when all previous attempt have failed?

Another point of a general nature that bodes poorly for the future. The idea that the constitution is a living document is becoming increasingly popular. That means the constitution is only what learned judges of the period say it is. And who are those learned judges? They are people appointed by the most dishonest and disreputable politicians money can buy. Does that make any sense at all? Nope, none at all, in fact it's a prescription for disaster. But that's what's happening in America and the mass of people say "that's OK."

The same principle applies to money and power. We're happily electing and re-electing the most dishonest and corrupted politicians around and than we strive to give them more of our money and more power and control over us. I equate that to hiring a personal financial manager, and the more dishonest he proves to be the more of your money and control over personal affairs you hand him to manage.

I will summarize the difference in our views this way. You, and Stratman, wish to take power from the present holders and grant that power plus more power to a different group. In contrast, I believe in the axiom that power corrupts and I want to take power away from power holders period, but I recognize that government has to assume some powers and so I believe it very important to elect the most honest and reputable politicians we can find.

My viewpoint is upheld by the constitution and the writings of the founders. Yours is disdained by the constitution and the writings of the founders.

March 26, 2000

Vic,

In order to reply to you paragraph by paragraph, I think that I'll replicate your letter below and answer in between, more or less like responding with email:

The core question is what is government able to do well and thus what should it be doing regarding economic management. I say the central government should only be occupied with preserving freedom of opportunity, ensuring that the big and powerful, do not take advantage of the small and weak, or to sum it up, it should only be concerned with preserving a level playing field for all to compete in. Another way of putting it is the government should enable a system of equal opportunity for all.

On the contrary, the core question is "What kind of society do we want and how do we get there from here?" In other words, we don't start with government, but with society and the idea of a good society. Government comes in after we decide what our societal objectives are, rather than the other way around. Government is a means to an end, so we should start with ends, don't you think?

The end is a safe, just, and prosperous society. How do we achieve these things?

You, according to your suggestions for improvement, advocate a system whereby the government provides equal outcome, or something approaching that idea. In other words your are advocating a form of socialism.

Please be careful about putting words into my mouth. I haven't written anything at all about equal outcome, nor have I promoted any policies that would ensure equal outcome. For one thing, equal outcomes are impossible to achieve and undesirable, as well. The "equal outcome" label is a well-worn but deceptive rhetorical device used by conservatives for many years to describe their opponents' philosophies.

I assume you are referring to the nine changes I suggested that would immediately improve our country. Let's look at them and see if any of them guarantees "equal outcome":

Within the current capitalistic paradigm, it seems to me that the first steps would be a minimum wage sufficient to keep a family out of poverty. We had that in the 60s and productivity increased at a much faster rate than now. Second, a highly progressive income tax with unearned income taxed at a much higher rate than earned. Let's reward labor instead of speculation. Third a generous earned income credit to reward workers who work. Fourth, tariffs on imported goods sufficient to negate the advantage of slave and wage-slave labor in other countries, as well as lax labor and environmental laws. Fifth, lower property taxes on improvements and raised property taxes on land to encourage increased efficiency in land use. Sixth, and probably the most important, revise the corporation laws to make corporations legally responsible to the general public, as well as the shareholders. Seventh, enforce the anti-trust laws on the books as written. Eighth, enact a national medical single-payor plan, supported by general revenues. Ninth, change from a cash flow national accounts system to a capital budgeting system to reflect the true nature of the national deficit or surplus.

The progressive income tax might qualify as producing a more "equal outcome" but the highly progressive tax we had in the 50s certainly did not equalize incomes. The rich stayed rich. And if conservatives think that we ought to earn our way in the world by our own efforts, what's wrong with taxing unearned income at a higher rate then earned income? The third item would, of course, be unnecessary if the minimum wage were high enough. The only other item that would seem to be "equalizing" would be number eight, and yes, it would give people an equal opportunity to be healthy. It would also be a far sight superior to the expensive, wasteful and fraudulent "market-oriented" system we have now.

You stated earlier that the market sets wages much better than a minimum wage law, so you would probably count a higher minimum wage as an equalizer. You are right. It's also a highly just and beneficial law. A decent minimum wage has kept many a family out of poverty and there is no evidence, not one shred, that it has contributed to unemployment or caused business recessions. History is not on your side here.

Without getting into the nitty gritty details, this is essentially the difference between the Left and Right as I see it. We can go off on the many different aspects of the Left vs. Right on matters such as illusions, responsible behavior, economic theories, the federal reserve, etc., but the fundamental difference is whether we expect government to do things for us or do we expect government to just keep others from doing things to us.

Sorry, Vic, but this is a simplistic caricature, not a real picture of either left or right. The proper role of the public realm cannot be reduced to the dichotomy of government doing things for us versus keeping others from hurting us. As soon as we venture from the extreme generality down to real questions about real life, the distinction becomes far more difficult. It ignores that keeping someone from hurting me might easily be seen as helping me and taking away something from someone else.

Antitrust legislation is a good example. We need protection against some kinds of monopolies. Have you been reading about the "terminator" seeds being developed by Delta Pine and Land? Farmers won't be able to save seeds for planting the next year. The second generation of seeds will not grow, so the farmers must return to the seller every year or starve. Because of the high concentration of ownership in the seed business, it will be difficult, if not impossible, to buy an alternative product. Once the seed are in wide use in the third world (or even the U.S.) farmers, and therefore entire populations, will be held hostage by the seed companies. The unregulated free market, is, in fact, leading us into an extremely dangerous reliance upon a few powerful, corporations, amoral by law, with no responsibility to anyone but their shareholders.

And then there's the question that I could never get a dogmatic conservative to answer straight: If the Federal Reserve, in order to fight inflation, restricts the money supply and consequently keeps more than 4% of the workforce unemployed, do we, the public, have any obligations to those persons whom the Fed has conscripted unwillingly into its inflation-fighting army? And who is doing what for whom in this process?

I could defend my viewpoint with all sorts of information and reference material, but I will spare you and me that and simply point out that the major experience of the century just ending shows that socialism doesn't work and in fact the more determination with which it is pursued, the more ruthless it will become and the poorer the society will be.

My experience is that when I carefully analyze "all sorts of information and reference material" it usually turns out about as reliable as the reference material that I found when I looked carefully at Thomas Sowell in an article linked here. But you are welcome (and encouraged) to submit as much as you feel supports your contentions. I would like to see hard data, though. URLs are particularly welcome, since I can post them here on the JP for everyone to read. The European industrial countries, by the way, are far more "socialistic" than the U.S. and enjoy a higher standard of living than most of us. They have national health plans that cover all citizens. As a result, they have higher life expectancies and lower infant mortality rates. See the statistics for yourself. So much for a "poorer" socialist society.

It makes little difference who controls it, the more power it gets, the more abusive it will become and the more enticing it will be to special interests that have money to buy privileges. As I wrote previously, powerful money interests buy politicians because of what politicians can do for them. The only way to improve this situation is to take away the politicians power to do things for the moneyed interests.

This is an unbelievably naive view of the way things have happened and do happen. A weaker government allows powerful money interests to do whatever they wish, much as they did in the 1890s. In particular, it enables them to create monopolies and price-fixing combinations to destroy competition and concentrate ownership. It enables them to bribe and otherwise influence state and local governments to grant them advantages against the public interest. The greatest periods of corruption in our history were days of weak regulation by both state and national government. Haven't you ever heard of private oppression?

Our nation goes through phases of fearing excessive government power and then excessive private power. Since the mid-70s the emphasis has been on the danger of overweening government, but the pendulum is now swinging the other way. It may be the arrogance of the genetic food industry trying to force GM foods on us by making it impossible for us (by forbidding the labelling of non-GM foods) to make an intelligent choice. It could be the WTO and its rules that abrogate the power of governments to care for the health and welfare of their people. I personally think it will probably be an ecological catastrophe that Americans have been propagandized to believe will never happen.

I think, however, that historical evidence bears out the fact that industrial systems, by their very nature, require large, powerful governments. It has certainly worked out that way in the U.S. and Europe. In our modern industrial state, government has supported the industrial system by consenting:

• to serve as a buyer of last resort. Congress is even now busy appropriating money for weaponry the Pentagon says we don't need;
• to serve as a stabilizer of the economy. A large governmental segment of the economy tends to stabilize consumption during recessions, thus keeping them from doing real harm to the industrial sector. Governments can more easily run a deficit than a private company and the increased liquidity created by deficit spending is counter-recessional;
• to finance basic research that would not be immediately profitable. As a matter of fact, our government finances much research that is immediately profitable but the benefits are almost always private. If the public collected royalties from discoveries financed by taxpayers' dollars, our tax burden would be far lower and might not exist at all;
• to keep one company from completely dominating an industry. Capitalists pay lip service to competition, but in truth, they loathe it. They want monopoly prices but they also don't want to be swallowed up by the biggest player in the field (like Microsoft). The government keeps the field somewhat level between the giants so they can ply their trade and make their profits, and at the expense of the public, I might add.
• the industrial system requires a large military. Surely this needs no elaboration. Industrial nations compete for markets and raw materials and the competition often leads to warfare;
• finally, the industrial system requires a police force sufficient to quell civil unrest, which is often the direct result of the devil-take-the-hindmost philosophy that goes by the name of the "free market," which is, of course, anything but free.

You aren't going to change most of those things, because they are absolutely necessary, in one degree or another. And they require a large, powerful government. As long as you have a vigorous capitalistic system, you are going to have big government. Ronald Reagan, virtually canonized by conservatives, didn't shrink the government; he merely shifted the benefits from the poor and middle classes to the rich and powerful and the burdens in the opposite direction. The question is "Government in whose interest?"

The simplest example is the current issue of political finance reform. Frankly I've paid little attention to the discussion, but creating a bunch of new laws controlling political contributions is doomed to fail because as long as politicians have the power to grant privileges to special interests the special interests will figure out how to buy the politicians. Better to take away the politicians power to grant special privileges, but nobody is proposing that solution. Actually, Walter Williams wrote about it recently in Human Events saying exactly the same thing.

Your proposal to shrink "government" is destined to fail for the reasons I've already set out. Besides, if it became too small and weak, we would undoubtedly sink into a corporate feudal state in which corporations financed their own private armies, like Lebanon. This is not a desirable outcome, I think you would agree.

As far as elections go, the answer is not terribly complicated: full public funding. No contributions, soft or hard, period. Free broadcast time furnished by the networks as partial compensation for the privilege of using the airwaves which are owned by the public. It might take a constitutional amendment, but it would clean up the elective process. I know you are allergic to further public funding of just about anything, but there's nothing more public than elections and there's no justification for the incredibly corrupt system we have today. Simply take the money out of it.

All the ideas about workers revolutions and empowering workers and all that sort of stuff won't work. For what possible reason do you think workers will do any better as politicians than the politicians we already have? It's been tried. It doesn't work.

Try being more specific. There are lots of places where it works today. Sweden and Norway come to mind almost immediately. The point is that people have a right to participate in the making of decisions that affect their lives. That right has been more observed in the breach than in the keeping, but it is a basic right that is more or less ignored in the corporate state.

Obviously you think it will work, so tell me why do you think you can make it work now when all previous attempt have failed?

A rather sweepingly general statement, isn't it?

Actually it worked pretty well in the U.S. for twenty-five or so years, from 1950 to 1975. Wages and productivity increased far more than today, poverty declined to a level far lower than today. The median family income was higher in 1979 than today. In 1979, the top 1% of the population owned 17% of the wealth of the country; today they own over 40%, and it's still going up. At what point would it start to bother you? 50%? 75%?

Another point of a general nature that bodes poorly for the future. The idea that the constitution is a living document is becoming increasingly popular. That means the constitution is only what learned judges of the period say it is. And who are those learned judges? They are people appointed by the most dishonest and disreputable politicians money can buy. Does that make any sense at all? Nope, none at all, in fact it's a prescription for disaster. But that's what's happening in America and the mass of people say "that's OK."

This paragraph tipped over into the rant category and will have to be reserved for another conversation. Again, it's not that simple, Vic. Lawrence Lessig's recent book Code and Other Laws of Cyberspace attacks this issue with respect to the Internet and makes a very good case that a literal application of the First Amendment to the Internet, for instance,would defeat the amendment's very purpose. Worth reading.

Further, I have observed that the controversy over the living constitution versus literal interpretation usually runs along the lines of whose ox is being gored. The 14th Amendment, for instance, was passed by a Republican Congress to insure that the freed slaves were guaranteed the rights of the Constitution. In the 40 years after its ratification, it was used far more by corporations than by individuals, an unforeseen development.

The same principle applies to money and power. We're happily electing and re-electing the most dishonest and corrupted politicians around and than we strive to give them more of our money and more power and control over us. I equate that to hiring a personal financial manager, and the more dishonest he proves to be the more of your money and control over personal affairs you hand him to manage.

You are right. But ask yourself what real control you have over who gets elected. How did it get that way? And if, as I pointed out before, if you cannot diminish the power of the government, how do we nominate and elect responsible persons to carry out the public's business.

I will summarize the difference in our views this way. You, and Stratman, wish to take power from the present holders and grant that power plus more power to a different group. In contrast, I believe in the axiom that power corrupts and I want to take power away from power holders period, but I recognize that government has to assume some powers and so I believe it very important to elect the most honest and reputable politicians we can find.

Gosh, you sure are busy defining me and Stratman, aren't you? Lay off the personal, Vic. This is insulting and it's probably the reason why no one wants to debate with you.

Stratman speaks for himself. As for my position, it is that power is inherent in any political system. A great deal of power is inherent in an industrial system and that if the powers of the government are reduced, as you propose, the vacuum created will be quickly filled by the most powerful private entities, which are the giant corporations. A decent society is only possible when 1) power is equitably distributed and 2) public good takes precedent over private good.

1) simply means, as I mentioned before, that people have a right to participate in decisions that affect their life. That participation must be more than merely symbolic. I don't know of any entity that can enforce that right other than a legally-constituted government;

2) means that no person's welfare, whether that person be real or corporate, comes before the public welfare. The alternatives are anarchy, dictatorship, communism or fascism. I mention again that in Italian, the synonym for Fascism was "corporate state."

My viewpoint is upheld by the constitution and the writings of the founders. Yours is disdained by the constitution and the writings of the founders.

More rant, Vic, and insulting, as well. Brilliant law professors and political philosophers spend entire careers studying the constitution and its history. They disagree about the meaning or the proper interpretation of the constitution. You have no grounds to hold yourself out as an expert on the constitution.

I have now replied to you point by point. You have not replied specifically to one single sentence of the Stratman essay. Instead of talking in generalities, show me specifically in his essay where Stratman errs -- I would like to know, sentence by sentence.

Tom

April 2, 2000,

Tom,

Before replying to your letter in general I would like to clear up one simple thing. You completely puzzle me when you say I am insulting. I'm trying hard to draw conclusions about you based on what you say and write. You proposed that workers should be put in the position of running government, didn't you? That means giving workers the reins of governmental power instead of the current crop of politicians, doesn't it?

You proposed to increase taxes, didn't you? That means giving government the power to take more money from the citizens, doesn't it?

You also proposed large expansions of government programs in several specific areas, didn't you? That means expanding government control and power, doesn't it?

And at the same time you are proposing all this granting of more power and control to government, you have expressed no concern for the declining moral character of the people this society wants to give more power to. Shouldn't that be a major concern?

Wasn't a limited central government one of the key objectives of the founders and didn't they write often and eloquently about the threat of too much governmental power and resulting abuses of power? And also didn't they write often and eloquently about the importance of a decent level of virtue that a self governing citizenry must hold itself to if it is to remain free?

If the answers to the above questions are all "yes," why are you insulted by me pointing out to you that the founders and the constitution disdained and feared ideas that you are promoting?

If answers to any of the above questions is "no," please explain what I've gotten wrong. That's more productive than feeling insulted.

Of course I don't know how you will reply to this, but I expect something about these matters being not that simple. If that should happen to be your response, I would reply something like this: You're right, things aren't that simple but I think it very important to start from a base value system that is simple enough to be clearly defined and comprehended. There are many things that only government can do and many areas in which government must have the power to control matters. You have referred to some of them. But the first and foremost lesson I get out of the 20th century is that the founders fears were well justified.

If you are insulted by my expressing a firmly held viewpoint, well I'm sorry about that, but why not just show me that my viewpoint is wrong instead of taking offense?

Regards, Vic

April 2, 2000, (reply is on April 4, 2000)

Tom,

Before replying to your letter in general I would like to clear up one simple thing. You completely puzzle me when you say I am insulting. I'm trying hard to draw conclusions about you based on what you say and write. You proposed that workers should be put in the position of running government, didn't you? That means giving workers the reins of governmental power instead of the current crop of politicians, doesn't it?

Vic, you are insulting when you have become so fixed in your opinions that you fail to respect, at least outwardly, the opinions of others. It also happens when you attribute words to people that they did not speak or write.

Now, to answer you fully, I did not propose that "workers should be put in the position of running government." I did, as a matter of fact, state that everyone has a basic right to a voice in decisions that affect them, a right which is usually ignored.

You proposed to increase taxes, didn't you? That means giving government the power to take more money from the citizens, doesn't it?

If you mean to raise taxes -- yes, if necessary. Under our Constitution, our government has the power to levy taxes. Your phraseology, "to take more money from the citizens," obviously, and I believe disingenuously, attempts to beg the question that taxation is a form of robbery. As a general proposition, that is baloney. Taxes are necessary for the general welfare and are not robbery. Whether taxes are too high or low is a legitimate subject of discussion, however. I'm prepared to discuss that issue in good faith.

You also proposed large expansions of government programs in several specific areas, didn't you? That means expanding government control and power, doesn't it?

Yes. In those areas.

And at the same time you are proposing all this granting of more power and control to government, you have expressed no concern for the declining moral character of the people this society wants to give more power to. Shouldn't that be a major concern?

I am extremely concerned for the moral character of the power elite that has run our government and therefore our country for many years. This elite, however, are not synonymous with "government," for the most part; their power comes from corporate and private wealth and their ability to corrupt public policy to their own ends through the media and by giving money to political campaigns. I have a great deal more faith in the middle and lower classes to act in the general interest, rather than undemocratic, self-serving rule of a tiny elite. I also have a great deal more respect for their morality and values. In fact, I believe that if the general public were better informed by a less concentrated media, now owned almost completely by the megacorporations, they could do a far better job of running this country than the Republican-Democratic kleptocracy that runs it today.

Wasn't a limited central government one of the key objectives of the founders and didn't they write often and eloquently about the threat of too much governmental power and resulting abuses of power?

As a matter of fact, the founding fathers were worried that the central government was too weak and that the benefits of independence would be lost without a stronger central government. See the Federalist Papers 1-29. The authors' fears were that the power of the states would encroach upon the power of the Federal Government and render it ineffective.

And also didn't they write often and eloquently about the importance of a decent level of virtue that a self governing citizenry must hold itself to if it is to remain free?

From Plato on, as a matter of fact.

If the answers to the above questions are all "yes," why are you insulted by me pointing out to you that the founders and the constitution disdained and feared ideas that you are promoting?

Trick question, Vic. The founders would have been horrified at the idea of a central government too weak to promote the general welfare. Take Hamilton, for instance:

The aim of every political constitution is, or ought to be, first to obtain for rulers men who possess most wisdom to discern, and most virtue to pursue, the common good of the society; and in the next place, to take the most effectual precautions for keeping them virtuous whilst they continue to hold their public trust. Federalist 57

I have darkened the term "rulers" because that is exactly what Hamilton meant. The second darkened passage is "the common good of the society," which is the object of the constitution. The drafters of the constitution were intent that the central government could rule, that is, be the sovereign power of the nation, and that its object would be the common good, which is a far cry from the good of a small wealthy and powerful elite. The founders would have felt, I am sure, even more hostile to the idea of corporate power encroaching upon the central government than encroachment by the states.

If answers to any of the above questions is "no," please explain what I've gotten wrong. That's more productive than feeling insulted.

My feelings are not important. You would be better served by examining your own actions and words. Consider the possibility that you might be mistaken.

Of course I don't know how you will reply to this, but I expect something about these matters being not that simple.

You are hell-bent and determined to tell me what I have said and to predict what I am going to say. Well, I haven't said what you said I was going to say and I didn't say what you said I said.

So there....

If that should happen to be your response, I would reply something like this: You're right, things aren't that simple but I think it very important to start from a base value system that is simple enough to be clearly defined and comprehended. There are many things that only government can do and many areas in which government must have the power to control matters.

Of course, that wasn't my response, but your reply to the response I didn't make is actually very sensible. At least you are admitting that there are many areas in which government must have the power to control matters. It appears that our differences concern just what those areas are and just how much power the government should have.

I would add that the little matter of democracy is critical. Who controls the government, in other words.

You have referred to some of them. But the first and foremost lesson I get out of the 20th century is that the founders fears were well justified.

The founders' fears were that the government would disintegrate from the encroachment of the states, not that the "government" would become too powerful. See Federalist 6. It turns out that those fears were quite justified, as the Civil War demonstrated. At the time of the founding of this country, however, corporations were seldom chartered, and only then for specific purposes and for a specific length of time. If they overstepped their specified powers, they could receive the "death penalty" by being dissolved by a court of general jurisdiction. Now corporations are more powerful than states. It is inconceivable that the founding fathers would have tolerated private power of that size without a greater federal power capable of regulating the corporations on behalf of the general welfare.

If you are insulted by my expressing a firmly held viewpoint, well I'm sorry about that, but why not just show me that my viewpoint is wrong instead of taking offense?

Insults are merely a sign that minds are closing. We have gotten past the age of duels.

I am, however, concerned that you are clutching your viewpoint so tightly that you have become impervious to either fact or reason. It's time to get down to brass tacks. Answer Stratman.

Regards,

Tom

Readers are invited to comment.

Copyright 2000 by Tom Lowe. Noncommercial reproduction is explicitly authorized as long as this message and information about The Jackson Progressive below is included.