Showing posts with label Politics 2015. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Politics 2015. Show all posts

Wednesday, September 30, 2015

Pope Francis’s Anti-Capitalism is No Misunderstanding

Pope Francis continues a long line of anti-capitalist Catholic popes. And he may be one of the most outspoken of them all. He has certainly been garnering attention with his anti-capitalist rhetoric.


Pro-capitalist pundits usually proclaim that Pope Francis is mistaken or misinformed about capitalism, accompanied by lengthy factual demonstrations about how free market capitalism enables people to not only rise from poverty, but to prosper. If only Francis will observe the facts.


An example of this is a piece by Kyle Smith. In a New York Post article titled Pope Francis should take a vow of silence on capitalism, Smith correctly lauds, for example, even partially initiated capitalism’s success at lifting “hundreds of millions out of abject poverty and into relative comfort” in China and India in recent decades. Yet, referring to Francis’s incessant harping against “the idolatry of money,” Smith concludes:


No one is arguing that capital should become an idol, but free markets produce wealth that puts food in people’s mouths and clothes on their backs. The Church has a historic commitment to battling poverty, and yet its earthly leader is profoundly ignorant of how history tells us to accomplish this. He shouldn’t flaunt his lack of understanding.


But does Pope Francis really not understand capitalism? After all, most people don’t fully understand it, which is why philosopher Ayn Rand called capitalism an “unknown ideal.”


But the pope is not just anybody. He is the leader of an institution, the venerable Catholic Church, with deep roots in history and scholarly study. Can the leader of an institution that reigned through the Dark and Middle Ages, witnessed the Renaissance, the scientific revolution, the Enlightenment and the Industrial Revolution—which culminated in the transformation of the freest places of the Earth, over the past couple of centuries, into a much better place to live—truly not understand the cause of that explosion of wealth? I don’t think so.


Over the past 250 years, the Church had a front row seat to observe the rising prosperity, improving health, dramatically increased life longevity, and growing safety from environmental hazards achieved by human beings; a progress far beyond anything ancient people could have dreamed. And the Church could observe that all of it was enabled by free market capitalism, the only social system that liberates the individual to live his life for his own sake; to selfishly pursue personal economic gain and life sustaining values without coercive interference from his fellow man; to be protected from human predators who wish to deal with him in ways other than mutually beneficial, non-sacrificial voluntary association and trade; which protects his earned property—a system based on justice and facilitated by money.


No, it is not possible, in my view, that the pope doesn’t get capitalism. The Catholic Church and its popes have long been ideologically opposed to capitalism because it is a social organization based in ethical egoism. For a good examination of this observation, check out Craig Biddle’s post for The Objective Standard blog, Pope Francis, Religion, Capitalism, and Ayn Rand.


Francis knows full well what capitalism is. But he will never acknowledge capitalism’s virtue because it conflicts diametrically with Christian ethics. Francis fully endorses the totalitarian view of Pope Paul VI as laid out in the 1967 Encyclical Populorum Progressio. As I summarized for The Objective Standard:


In the world of Paul’s vision, the primary purpose of governments would be to carry out the principle that “created goods should flow fairly to all”. To ensure that “right,” the “public authorities” would be endowed with powers “to establish and lay down the desired goals, the plans to be followed, and the methods to be used.” Paul was brutally clear: “All other rights, whatever they may be, including the rights of property and free trade, are to be subordinated to this principle.”


It may also be that capitalism erodes the Catholic Church’s power base, the poor. Pope Francis is a self-described “pope of the poor.” Where does capitalism’s ability to shrink the ranks of the poor leave the Catholic Church?


But for definitive proof of Francis’s fundamental anti-capitalism, consider this from his address to Congress:


“If politics must truly be at the service of the human person, it follows that it cannot be a slave to the economy and finance. Politics is, instead, an expression of our compelling need to live as one, in order to build as one the greatest common good: that of a community which sacrifices particular interests in order to share, in justice and peace, its goods, its interests, its social life. I do not underestimate the difficulty that this involves, but I encourage you in this effort.”


Government has a unique monopoly on physical force, which manifests in its laws. Politics is the field that determines the use, or abuse, of the government’s law-making power. The “particular interests” to be sacrificed obviously pertain to the private individual. The goods, interests, and social life obviously pertains to the collective, which owns those factors. When Francis calls on politics to be “an expression of our compelling need to live as one,” he calls on the state to abuse its powers to bring on forced collectivization; the antipode of capitalism’s government that protects our rights to live peaceably as sovereign individuals. The state is to be the final arbiter and enforcer of the individuals’ sacrificial offerings to the community.


In Francis’s statement, is there any stronger explication of his collectivism and statism? Is there a more explicit anti-capitalist statement? This, from a pope who claims to be anti-communist. This, from a pope that has the gall to speak of the “dignity” of the individual.


Is it any wonder that the self-described socialist, the Democrat presidential candidate Bernie Sanders, opens his gushing approval of the Pope’s speech to Congress with those words? Both Sanders and Francis embrace the same goals. Rather than the state being the protector of our political rights and economic freedom—which the pope claims makes the government “a slave to the economy and finance”—we as individuals should be slaves to the collective and thus to the state, which Francis calls putting politics “at the service of the human person.”


There is no misunderstanding.


The Pope condemns selfishness, money, the profit motive, private property, and proclaims the individual’s subordination to the will of the collective and the dictates of the collective’s representative, the state. The pope can not be ignorant of the fact that he is condemning the very essence of capitalism. The condemnation of the essence of capitalism is anti-capitalist just as surely as cutting out a man’s heart kills the man.


Related Reading:









Climate Alarmism and the Catholic Church; Faith-Based Allies in the War on Prosperity

Sunday, August 30, 2015

The Iran Deal and Senator Menendez's Opposition

New Jersey Senator Robert Menendez became the second prominent Democrat—New York Senator Charles Schumer was the first—to announce his opposition to President Obama’s Iran nuclear deal. In a common refrain among supporters of the deal, starting with Obama, the New Jersey Star-Ledger editorialized that Menendez opposition to Iran pact risks war, because

Obama was right on the larger point: The alternative to this agreement is indeed war. And nothing Menendez said in his thoughtful speech Tuesday opposing the deal refuted that core fact.

The choice now is between this deal, and no deal at all. Because if the United States walks away, the international sanctions regime that got Iran to the table will fall apart, according to Obama, Secretary of State John Kerry, and the bulk of independent experts.

Rejecting this deal would hand the hard-liners in Iran a giant victory, allowing them to rush towards building a bomb without restraint, and without international inspectors on hand to keep tabs. Iran is only a few months from having the materials to build a bomb, according to the best intelligence, which Menendez does not challenge.

So without this agreement, Obama or the next president could face a horrifying choice: Either allow Iran to become a nuclear power, or launch air strikes to destroy suspect facilities.

I left these comments, which earned the honor of “Featured Comments,” out of the 198 comments posted, directly under the Star-Ledger article:

The underlying danger is that our leaders have never acknowledged that we are already at war with Iran and what it stands for; imperialistic, totalitarian Islam—an enemy that seeks a worldwide subjugation under a Sharian theocracy. This is not a “radical” interpretation of Islam. It is fundamentalist Islam.

We have been at war with this movement since 1979. It’s never been a “War on Terrorism,” any more than the war with the Empire of Japan was a “War on Kamikazes.” The danger is in the fact that we have never acknowledged this war for what it is.

True, the Imperialist Islamic movement is not fully united. Various factions jockey for power within the movement. But all are united by the same essential goal, and Iran is the leader and beau ideal of the movement. Iran’s own constitution declares explicitly that worldwide Islamic revolution and domination is its ultimate goal and duty. The Iranian constitution states:

The Mission of the Constitution is to identify itself with the basic beliefs of the movement and to bring about the conditions under which the lofty and worldwide values' of Islam will flourish.

The Constitution, having regard to the Islamic contents of the Iranian Revolution, . . .  provides a basis for the continuation of that revolution both inside and outside the country. It particularly tries to do this in developing international relations with other Islamic movements and peoples, so as to prepare the way towards a united single world community.

. . . the Islamic Republic's army, and the corps of Revolutionary Guards . . . have responsibility not only for the safeguarding of the frontiers, but also for a religious mission, which is Holy War (JIHAD) along the way of God, and the struggle to extend the supremacy of God's Law in the world.

I don’t know if Obama’s deal is the best path toward avoiding the military option or preventing Iran from getting the bomb, or if Menendez is right that the deal must be killed. I don’t have enough expertise to make that judgement. Obama claims his way is the best way forward. I hope he’s right. But I do believe Obama is wrong to separate the nuclear issue from the wider context. The most fundamental issue is not Iran’s quest for a nuclear bomb. Many countries have a nuclear bomb, but are not a threat to the world. The most fundamental issue is Iran’s “Holy War (JIHAD) along the way of God.”

I believe that the choice is NOT the Iran deal or war with Iran. We are already at war with Iran. We will be until Iran explicitly and unconditionally renounces its stated imperialist goals the way Imperial Japan was made to renounce, not just its aggressive goals, but its internal culture of war that gave rise to its aggression, under FDR’s policy of unconditional surrender. Iran is not just the world’s leading sponsor of terrorism. It is the world sponsor of a movement not much different from the goals of Soviet communism or the Axis Alliance. Until we publicly acknowledge this reality, we should be very worried about any deal any of our leaders make with Iran, because—given Iran’s ideological state—there is no way today’s Iran will see a deal any differently than the Soviets or the Nazis—as a means to advance its aggressive goals.

----------------------------

My comments were inspired by the video put out by the Ayn Rand Institute’s Elan Journo, Assessing the Iran Nuclear Deal. I highly recommend this 12 minute video.

Related Reading:

The Jihad Against America and How to End It, by Craig Biddle for The Objective Standard blog


Related Viewing:

Assessing the Iran Nuclear Deal—Interview with elan Journo for ARI

Thursday, June 11, 2015

Buchanan’s Anti-Free Trade Tirade Under Cover of TPP ‘Fast Track’ Debate


President Obama is urging Congress to give him so-called fast track authority to negotiate the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) Trade Agreement, which would liberalize trade among twelve Pacific Rim nations, including the United States. Obama has made passage of this treaty a major goal of the remaining years of his presidency.

Fast track authority means Congress would only be able to approve or disapprove of whatever Obama negotiates. Congress would not be able to amend or filibuster the pact in any way. Fast track has been in effect on and off for about 40 years.

Fast track authority is controversial, and there is a legitimate debate raging over the TPP treaty (click here and here). But more fundamental is the underlying issue of free international trade. The issue has split American politics, but not along party lines. Obama, some Democrats, and most, but not all, Republicans support it. Opponents include far Leftists like Senator Elizabeth Warren, and some prominent voices from what today passes for the Right.

I have no opinion on fast track one way or the other. But I do have an opinion on trade. It should be free. So I absolutely despise the position of one prominent “Rightist,” Patrick J. Buchanan.

Buchanan blasts his fellow Republicans in his anti-trade tirade, Obama's Republican Collaborators. In his 4/21/15 column, he begins by accusing Congressional Republicans of “capitulating” to “His Majesty” the Imperial President Obama. Why? Because he assumes most Republicans support giving Obama fast track trade authority.  

The merits of fast track trade authority are debatable. And frankly, I don’t really trust Obama to negotiate a truly free trade agreement. He will mix in a focus on promoting “strong environmental protection” and so-called “fundamental labor rights.” So I have strong reservations about Congress giving up the power to amend Obama’s pact, and Buchanan may be right that Congress must retain its authority to make changes to the TPP. On the other hand, without fast track, the treaty submitted by the president could, and probably will, descend into a deal-killing political quagmire. Just the possibility of that could cost the president credibility in the negotiations, possibly preventing any trade agreement. Opponents claim fast track authority is unconstitutional based on separation of powers. But I think opposition to fast track is tied more to an anti-free trade agenda than anything else.

The debate over fast trak aside, Buchanan’s anti-free trade ideology is not debatable: It is terrible, and on that I do not agree with him whatsoever. Most of his column is dedicated to advancing a virulently anti-trade case against free trade agreements as such. He lists seven prior free trade agreement that he blames for economic devastation visited on America. His trade worldview is xenophobic, economically nationalistic, and shot through with faulty economics and non sequiturs. Here is a sampling:

Why the capitulation [of Congressional Republicans to Obama]?

First, the editorial pages of papers like The Wall Street Journal and The Washington Post that truckle to the transnational corporations that provide the advertising revenue stream keeping them alive.

Second, Obama is relying on Congressional Republicans who, for all their bravado about defying his usurpations, know on which side their bread is buttered. It's the Wall Street-K Street side.

Fast track is the GOP payoff to its bundlers and big donors.

And:

What the nation needs is not only a rejection of fast track, but also a trade policy that puts country before corporate profit, workers before Wall Street, and America first.

Get the picture? Pure protectionism, rooted in special interest pandering, and clothed in collectivism. “America” does not include people running America’s businesses, working in the investment industry, or the editorial offices of media outlets who favor free trade. “America” is whoever Buchanan says it is, with “workers” serving as populist window dressing. Everyone else, including consumers, are excommunicated from Buchanan’s collective, “America.”

In Buchanan’s biased view, America’s economic problems—real (stagnant incomes, slow growth) or imagined (trade deficits, income inequality, outsourcing)—are all the fault of Americans voluntarily trading with Asians. Insane domestic government policies have nothing to do with it. ObamaCare? Dodd-Frank? Sarbanes-Oxley? Federal deficits? The exploding growth of the regulatory welfare state over the past 15 years? America’s worst-in-the-industrialized-world corporate income tax? The government’s easy money, “affordable housing” crusade and the Great Recession those policies caused? Apparently, those and myriad other bad home-grown policies have nothing to do with our economic problems. It’s all the fault of trade between Americans and non-Americans.

I think NOT. Trade, whether it takes place within a town, across state borders, or across national boundaries, is inherently win-win between the individuals doing the trading. The idea that an American trading with a Chinese hurts America economically is absurd. How can a win for an individual American be bad for America? Just who is "America," anyway?

Worse still, Buchanan’s nationalistic policies are contrary to every fundamental principle of America. The underlying premise is collectivism, which holds that the group—in Buchanan’s case the “nation”—takes moral precedence over the individual. In Buchanan’s worldview, individual Americans don’t have the right to pursue their own happiness, if their pursuit involves trading freely with people living beyond our borders. “America”—i.e., the state—comes “first.” Actual Americans, apparently, come second. So much for the Declaration of Independence.

Aside from special circumstances—national security concerns, health risks, etc.—the right of individuals to trade freely with individuals from other countries is an inalienable right that governments should protect. The principle of free trade is quintessentially American and essential to liberty and peaceful coexistence. Granted, free trade agreements are complex. But in principle, the right policy for America to pursue is to expand free trade as much as possible.

Buchanan positions himself as “FROM THE RIGHT.” But that’s a hollow label. His nationalistic trade-killing policies are statist and collectivist. His call for “a trade policy that puts country before corporate profit, workers before Wall Street, and America first” and his class warfare nod to “income inequality” are straight out of the Left’s collectivist playbook. He’d make a great running mate for Elizabeth Warren.

Related Reading:



New Jersey's Stupid, Immoral 'Buy America' Bill

Saturday, May 2, 2015

NJ Star-Ledger Ignores Own Advice: Won’t Discuss Minimum Wage Laws in Earnest

Congressional Democrats will introduce a bill to raise the federal minimum wage to $12.00 per hour by 2020. The New Jersey Star-Ledger took the occasion to open up an “earnest” discussion on the minimum wage issue.


So the first thing the Star-Ledger did was disassociate itself from any earnest discussion of the issue: The opening paragraph of its editorial, Welcome to America: Those with $174,000 salaries still endorse a $7.25 wage, says:


The minimum wage issue is back in Congress, and we could finally put all this behind us if a certain political party wasn't content to pauperize the working class by embracing the dubious concept of redistributing the wealth upward.


The rest of the editorial argues, in essence, that raising the mandatory minimum wage is popular, so it’s the right thing to do.


I left these comments:


The simple-minded, dishonest demagoguery of the opening paragraph shows that the Star-Ledger is not yet ready to “discuss this subject in earnest.”


Any earnest discussion of minimum wage laws begins with fundamental moral questions concerning the proper role of government. What right does anyone have to use government power (the power of the gun) to force private employers to pay any worker more than the task to be done or the worker’s effort is worth to them? None. What right does anyone have to use government power to forcibly prevent an inexperienced young person from getting his first job because the job pays less than some legally determined arbitrary hourly rate, thus depriving him of the opportunity to get onto the first rung of the economic ladder of upward mobility? None. What right does any worker have to seek a raise by using government to aggressively force his employer to pay him more than he agreed to work for in a voluntary agreement with his employer? None.


Minimum wage laws are immoral because they violate the rights of employers and job seekers to set their own terms of employment by mutually beneficial voluntary agreement. The proper purpose of government is to protect individual rights equally and at all times. This is the most fundamental principle of America. Rights are guarantees to freedom of action, not an automatic claim on material benefits, including some pre-set minimum wage, that others must be forced to provide. Individual rights include the right to voluntary contract—an outgrowth of the right to freedom of association. Therefor, the government’s job is to protect contractual rights, so long as the terms of the contract don’t involve the intended or actual violation of anyone’s rights. A voluntary compensation agreement between an employer and a job seeker, whatever the hourly rate, does not violate anyone’s rights, so the government has nothing to say about it until and unless one side or the other commits fraud or breach of contract.


Public opinion polls are irrelevant, no matter how lopsided. Majorities don’t have rights. Only individuals have rights. Minimum wage laws should be repealed across the board. Short of that, they should be frozen at current levels in perpetuity.


--------------------------------


The editors of the Star-Ledger are not the only ones avoiding an “earnest” discussion of the minimum wage law issue. A commenter going by the screen name shaunnj_141 accused opponents of minimum wage laws of being “against [minimum wage workers] earning more”:

It's really disappointing so many commenters view requests for minimum wage increases as people being irresponsible and not living within their means. I doubt those of you who are would turn down a salary increase which comes your way.


I left this reply:


“It's really disappointing so many commenters view requests for minimum wage increases as people being irresponsible and not living within their means.”


This statement is fundamentally dishonest. Minimum wage laws are not about “requests” for wage increases. A request implies the right of the employer to say “no.” Minimum wage laws are about forcing employers, under threat of fines or other penalties imposed by government agents at the point of a gun, to pay more than they otherwise voluntarily would.


Related Reading:





The Economic and the Moral Case Against Minimum Wage Laws: Perfect Together

Tuesday, March 31, 2015

Privilege, Servitude, and the GOP Budget

Both houses of Congress passed budget blueprints designed to balance the federal budget in 10 years. The budget calls for a reduction in projected spending of 5.5 $trillion. Needless to say—and leaving aside the details of the budget—the Left is not happy with the budget, and offers the usual smear tactics, lies, and false generalities in rebuttal.

For example, the New Jersey Star-Ledger titles their rebuttal The GOP has spoken: The wealthy and powerful could use more help. What “help” they do not say. Nor can they, because the alleged “help” is really a modest reduction in the amount of money seized from the “wealthy” and redistributed to those who did not earn it. The Star-Ledger drivels:

The GOP-dominated House and Senate passed their budget resolutions last week, and in the process proved beyond reasonable doubt that the majority party is less interested in governing than in sending symbolic valentines to the wealthy.

As usual, this will lead to the same ideological war that consumes our politics, but this budget also represents a war against cognitive function, because only in the fantasies of ideologues can one expect to make $5 trillion in cuts over the next 10 years without raising any taxes.

Unless, of course, you do it by advancing a budget that promotes the existence of a privileged class and a servile class. [emphasis added]

The S-L goes on to bemoan proposed cuts in Food Stamps (more on that in my next post), Pell Grants, and Medicaid; repeal of ObamaCare “because anything that improves the lives of 16.4 million working people cannot possibly be a good thing”; “guts” Dodd-Frank (reduces regulation); and “doesn't create jobs, address infrastructure, raise the minimum wage, reduce college debt, promote scientific research, or deal with income inequality”: In other words, the GOP budget doesn’t do enough to advance the Left’s statist agenda. (For perspective, the GOP would actually increase annual spending from $3.8 trillion to $5.1 trillion, for a 10-year total of $43.2 trillion—a reduction of about 11% from current projections. Note also that, other than ObamaCare, no welfare programs are slated to be eliminated.)

I left these comments:

We already have “a privileged class and a servile class”: It’s called the regulatory welfare state.

The privileged are the political class, which has garnered enormous power to regulate and redistribute the wealth of the servile class—the self-reliant and the productive. The privileged class feeds off of the “needy and the poor,” an ever-expanding class of dependents feeding off of the loot collected from the ever-shrinking, ever-more-regulated servile class.

The sinister nature of the welfare state is not just that it rewards moochers, however. It’s not that simple. It’s that it drives decent people into dependency. The welfare state drives up the cost of goods and services, setting up a dynamic that makes government handouts “necessary.” The soaring cost of college, driven up by subsidies, grants, and easy-money loans, is a clear-cut example of this. Worse, the welfare state turns millions of self-reliant people into a hybrid monstrosity—a combination slave and parasite. E.G. Social Security, which taxes you all of your working life to support other people, and then leaving you with living off of the earnings of others as the only means of collecting your promised “earned benefits,” because your SS taxes were not invested in your name but spent. Welfare statists are not content to “help” the poor. If they actually did care, they’d be unrepentant free market capitalist “ideologues.” They’re not, because they love the poor. It’s the source of their power and their very reason for being. That’s why their actual goal is to relentlessly expand the ranks of the poor, until the vast, once self-reliant middle class is turned into a vast, dependent welfare class. It is a dependency society, not a self-reliant society, that is the ultimate goal of the power-lusting privileged class.

The regulatory welfare state is immoral at its core, because it is built on legalized looting and rights-violating regulations and fostered by envy and hatred of economic flourishing masquerading as “economic justice” and the phony problem of “income inequality.” The fact that there are beneficiaries such as the 16.4 million ObamaCare “insured” doesn’t mitigate this fact. Every tyranny has beneficiaries, including Soviet Russia, Nazi Germany, and socialist Venezuela. The ends don’t justify the means.

Unfortunately, the debate in Washington is only about the size of the welfare state, when we should be debating how best to least disruptively phase it out. That said, it’s laudable that the GOP is offering these cuts, even though their goal is to save and perpetuate the welfare state. Every dollar cut from the gargantuan federal budget is another dollar left in the hands of the people who earned it. Cutting spending wherever politically feasable is the right thing to do, albeit being only a small first step in the right direction.  

Related Reading:



The Evil Genius of the Welfare State

Sunday, February 15, 2015

Why Obama’s ‘Free Community College’ Proposal is a Very Bad Idea

President Obama proposed full government funding for millions of community college students. Aside from being another entitlement boondoggle, “This proposed program,” I wrote, “is immoral and destructive on several counts.” Find out why. Read my January article published in The Objective Standard blog, Obama’s “Free” Community College Scheme.

Related Reading:



Oregon's Tuition Plan is More Redistributionist Snakeoil

Saturday, January 24, 2015

ARI's Watkins Sums Up Obama's State of the Union Message: More Central Planning

ARI's Watkins Sums Up Obama's State of the Union Message: More Central Planning

The Ayn Rand Institute’s Don Watkins nicely summed up President Obama’s State of the Union address:

“My fellow Americans,” Obama said at the close of last night’s State of the Union, “we too are a strong, tight-knit family,” It’s not unusual for politicians to invoke folksy metaphors of this kind, but in this case it just about sums up Obama’s worldview.

According to the president, Americans are not independent individuals who should be free to pursue their own diverse goals and values. Instead “we are one people” who should rally around a “sense of common purpose.” What purpose? No answer. Who should decide that purpose? That much was abundantly clear.
For Obama, the government’s role is to set our goals, determine our priorities, and centrally plan our lives so that we achieve these priorities.

You can read the whole essay here.

Related Reading:



Obama's Sugar-Coated Poison