The history of western civilization is a story of the struggle by liberals against conservatives for the political liberation of mankind and the expansion of political and civil rights. It is a story of the struggle of common people against aristocracy and wealth for basic rights and freedoms. It is a story that continues today.
In 1832, at the instigation of Lord Grey and the Whig Party (later called the Liberal Party), the English Parliament passed the first great Reform Bill under which it began the process of making Great Britain a true democracy. Up until then, the parliament was controlled by the nobility and wealthy landowners who decided who was going to represent the various counties and boroughs. Big cities often had only one or two representatives while tiny little (rotten) boroughs were able to send two representatives to Parliament. Only men were allowed to vote, and they were required to own a certain amount of land or have a certain amount of wealth. The vast majority of people had no voting rights. The First Reform Bill abolished many rotten boroughs, enfranchised new boroughs, and expanded the qualifications for voters.
In 1867, the English Parliament passed the Second Reform Act which enfranchised the urban working class of England and Wales. Once again the act was pressed by the Liberal Party, although it was allowed to pass by the Conservative Prime Minister, Benjamin Disraeli. Subsequent reform bills in 1884 and 1885 further expanded the British electorate and set that nation on the course of democracy as it exists today. All of these bills were fiercely opposed by conservatives, particularly the nobility who saw them as diluting their power and influence.
In 1964, at the powerful insistence of President Lyndon Johnson, the United States Senate passed the Civil Rights Act. Here, almost 100 years after the end of the Civil War, the Act extended voting rights of African Americans and outlawed racial segregation in schools, at the workplace, and in public accommodations. The bill was filibustered by the same backward, right-wing forces that filibustered today’s health care reform bill (only today those forces call themselves Republicans, not Democrats as they did back then). The leader of the Southern Senators who filibustered the Civil Rights bill was Senator Richard Russell, who said: "We will resist to the bitter end any measure or any movement which would have a tendency to bring about social equality and intermingling and amalgamation of the races in our (Southern) states."
In 1965, the Democrats under Lyndon Johnson were able to pass the Medicare bill over the opposition of conservative Republicans. Ronald Reagan said: “[I]f you don’t [stop Medicare], and if I don’t do it, one of these days you and I are going to spend our sunset years telling our children and our children’s children what it once was like in America when men were free.” George H.W. Bush described Medicare as “Socialized Medicine.” Barry Goldwater said: “Having given our pensioners their medical care in kind, why not food baskets, why not public housing accommodations, why not vacation resorts, why not a ration of cigarettes for those who smoke and of beer for those who drink.” Doesn’t this all sound a little bit like the arguments of Republicans against health care reform today?
On December 24, 2009, the United States Senate took a step in the reform of our health care system. The Democrats in that body based their support for the bill on the belief that decent health care is a right of all people, and not just a privilege. For millions of Americans who have no health insurance, for the over 12,000 who lose their insurance every day, for the 45,000 a year who die from lack of health insurance, that right is a matter of life or death.
Wednesday, December 30, 2009
Friday, December 25, 2009
Health Care Reform Right Away
In their fanatical efforts to stop the American people from getting low-cost, readily available health insurance, the Senate Republicans have resorted to many distortions of fact. One of them is that although the new taxes for wealthy people envisioned by the bill will take effect immediately, the benefits of health care reform will not begin until 2013. While it is true that some reforms will not take hold until 2013, there are a number of important benefits that will begin immediately when the bill that was supported by Senate is signed into law by President Obama
Senior citizens who are beneficiaries of the Medicare Part D drug program should be aware that the bill will immediately begin closing the “donut hole.” That is the period during which seniors have to pay the full cost of their prescriptions after they amass $2,700 in drug costs. After $2,700, Medicare does not resume paying for drug expenses until seniors reach $4,350 in out-of-pocket payments, a figure most seniors never reach in one year. The health care reform bill will immediately cut the donut hole by $500 and institute a 50 percent discount in brand-name drugs. It will eventually abolish the donut hole. For many seniors who simply cannot afford to buy their essential medications during the donut hole, that will be life saving.
The health care reform bill creates an insurance Exchange that begins in 2013 and will enable purchasers to search for the best and lowest-cost insurance. Until the Exchange is put in place, however, the bill will immediately create a temporary insurance program to help uninsured people or people who have been denied policies because of preexisting conditions.
The bill will immediately ban companies from placing lifetime caps on coverage, or (except in cases of fraud) rescinding a patient’s policy when he or she files a claim for benefits.
The bill will immediately allow displaced workers to keep their COBRA coverage until the Exchange is in place and they can access affordable coverage.
The bill immediately creates a long-term-care insurance program, financed by voluntary payroll deductions, to provide benefits to adults who become functionally disabled.
One of the problems that may arise when you add millions of new patients to the rolls of people who are covered by health insurance is that there will be insufficient numbers of doctors and health care workers to handle them. The health care reform bill provides immediate new massive investment in training programs to increase the number of primary care doctors, nurses, and public health professionals.
The bill will immediately require that health plans allow young people up to age 27 to remain on their parents’ insurance policies if their parents so choose.
The bill will immediately eliminate co-payments for preventative services and will exempt preventative services from deductibles under the Medicare program.
The bill will immediately provide protection in Medicare for low-income people in order to assure that more individuals are able to access Medicare assistance.
The bill will immediately prohibit Medicare Advantage (the private Medicare insurance program subsidized by the federal government) from charging enrollees higher cost-sharing for services in their private plan than is charged in traditional Medicare.
Insurance companies have threatened to raise premiums if the health care reform bill is passed. The bill will immediately take steps to discourage excessive price increases, including review and disclosure of insurance rates.
There are a number of other provisions of the bill that will take effect immediately. Perhaps that is the problem the Senate Republicans have with the bill. Their despicable masters in the health insurance industry are terrified that despite all of the millions they spent to grease the palms of Republican senators, this bill will begin to adversely affect their profits now. I hope it does.
Senior citizens who are beneficiaries of the Medicare Part D drug program should be aware that the bill will immediately begin closing the “donut hole.” That is the period during which seniors have to pay the full cost of their prescriptions after they amass $2,700 in drug costs. After $2,700, Medicare does not resume paying for drug expenses until seniors reach $4,350 in out-of-pocket payments, a figure most seniors never reach in one year. The health care reform bill will immediately cut the donut hole by $500 and institute a 50 percent discount in brand-name drugs. It will eventually abolish the donut hole. For many seniors who simply cannot afford to buy their essential medications during the donut hole, that will be life saving.
The health care reform bill creates an insurance Exchange that begins in 2013 and will enable purchasers to search for the best and lowest-cost insurance. Until the Exchange is put in place, however, the bill will immediately create a temporary insurance program to help uninsured people or people who have been denied policies because of preexisting conditions.
The bill will immediately ban companies from placing lifetime caps on coverage, or (except in cases of fraud) rescinding a patient’s policy when he or she files a claim for benefits.
The bill will immediately allow displaced workers to keep their COBRA coverage until the Exchange is in place and they can access affordable coverage.
The bill immediately creates a long-term-care insurance program, financed by voluntary payroll deductions, to provide benefits to adults who become functionally disabled.
One of the problems that may arise when you add millions of new patients to the rolls of people who are covered by health insurance is that there will be insufficient numbers of doctors and health care workers to handle them. The health care reform bill provides immediate new massive investment in training programs to increase the number of primary care doctors, nurses, and public health professionals.
The bill will immediately require that health plans allow young people up to age 27 to remain on their parents’ insurance policies if their parents so choose.
The bill will immediately eliminate co-payments for preventative services and will exempt preventative services from deductibles under the Medicare program.
The bill will immediately provide protection in Medicare for low-income people in order to assure that more individuals are able to access Medicare assistance.
The bill will immediately prohibit Medicare Advantage (the private Medicare insurance program subsidized by the federal government) from charging enrollees higher cost-sharing for services in their private plan than is charged in traditional Medicare.
Insurance companies have threatened to raise premiums if the health care reform bill is passed. The bill will immediately take steps to discourage excessive price increases, including review and disclosure of insurance rates.
There are a number of other provisions of the bill that will take effect immediately. Perhaps that is the problem the Senate Republicans have with the bill. Their despicable masters in the health insurance industry are terrified that despite all of the millions they spent to grease the palms of Republican senators, this bill will begin to adversely affect their profits now. I hope it does.
Wednesday, December 16, 2009
Populism and the Republicans
It has become customary for right-wing Republicans to assume the mantel of populism in their public pronouncements. Such people as Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, and Sarah Palin have tapped-into the traditional resentment of less affluent, less educated, lower income people against those whom they perceive to be the elite, Eastern, intellectual liberals. The Republican senators in Congress are exploiting this anger in their opposition to the health care reform and other bills. Unfortunately for the rank-and-file Americans, this populist rhetoric is a cruel deception, and the Republicans are actually working against the interests of regular Joes.
The health care reform bill would dramatically lower the cost of health care for middle-class Americans, make it far more available to everybody, and guarantee them coverage no matter what their previous condition, current illness, or financial problems might be. It would immediately cut in-half the amount of the doughnut-hole for seniors on Medicare Part D and make medications far more affordable. It would cover all kinds of screening tests for a wide range of medical conditions. Despite this, and many other advantages for ordinary Americans, right-wing news people and Republican politicians have succeeded in encouraging many middle class Americans to cry-out against health care reform and against their own best interests.
The Republicans in Congress are not acting on behalf of ordinary Americans. They are acting on behalf of the fabulously wealthy health insurance industry which has contributed lavishly to their coffers, and on behalf of the fabulously wealthy American fat-cats who do not want to pay even the small amount of additional taxes they will incur for health care reform.
This pandering to working class resentment has been the program of the congressional Republicans for some time now. They complain loudly about the increases in taxes that health care reform will cause even though they know that the only rise in taxes will be for the wealthiest Americans. There will be no increase in taxes for middle class Americans. Congressional Republicans complain because their real constituency is not ordinary people, but rich people. It is wealthy companies and rich people that supply them with huge amounts of money, not ordinary people.
The Republicans scream about our country incurring deficits and burdening our children with debt even though the Congressional Budget Office says that the health care reform bill will actually lower the deficit. Republicans denounce the fact that the Democrats plan to allow the Bush tax cuts for the rich to expire. The additional taxes to be paid by the wealthiest Americans will help defray the deficits.
One particularly obnoxious bit of populist rhetoric has been the hypocritical claim of senate Republicans that the health care reform bill will be taking money away from Medicare. These politicians care nothing about Medicare. They have tried to abolish it and replace it with private insurance. They know that under the health care reform bill there will be no reduction in Medicare benefits. What they have tried to rescue is the extremely wasteful Medicare Advantage (MA) program, a private insurance program subsidized by the federal government. MA is very profitable for the private health insurance industry, and that is why the Republican senators sought to preserve the government subsidies. It had nothing to do with helping Medicare recipients. Those on MA will lose nothing if it folds. They will be able to go on regular Medicare and obtain the additional services provided by MA for less money than they are now paying for MA.
Republican politicians always clothe their hypocrisies in the garb of populism, but when they oppose climate legislation, unions, minimum wages, unemployment benefits, stock market regulation, and health care reform, it is not because of concern for ordinary people. It is, rather, solicitude for big business, oil companies, big Wall Street brokerages, and health insurance companies.
The health care reform bill would dramatically lower the cost of health care for middle-class Americans, make it far more available to everybody, and guarantee them coverage no matter what their previous condition, current illness, or financial problems might be. It would immediately cut in-half the amount of the doughnut-hole for seniors on Medicare Part D and make medications far more affordable. It would cover all kinds of screening tests for a wide range of medical conditions. Despite this, and many other advantages for ordinary Americans, right-wing news people and Republican politicians have succeeded in encouraging many middle class Americans to cry-out against health care reform and against their own best interests.
The Republicans in Congress are not acting on behalf of ordinary Americans. They are acting on behalf of the fabulously wealthy health insurance industry which has contributed lavishly to their coffers, and on behalf of the fabulously wealthy American fat-cats who do not want to pay even the small amount of additional taxes they will incur for health care reform.
This pandering to working class resentment has been the program of the congressional Republicans for some time now. They complain loudly about the increases in taxes that health care reform will cause even though they know that the only rise in taxes will be for the wealthiest Americans. There will be no increase in taxes for middle class Americans. Congressional Republicans complain because their real constituency is not ordinary people, but rich people. It is wealthy companies and rich people that supply them with huge amounts of money, not ordinary people.
The Republicans scream about our country incurring deficits and burdening our children with debt even though the Congressional Budget Office says that the health care reform bill will actually lower the deficit. Republicans denounce the fact that the Democrats plan to allow the Bush tax cuts for the rich to expire. The additional taxes to be paid by the wealthiest Americans will help defray the deficits.
One particularly obnoxious bit of populist rhetoric has been the hypocritical claim of senate Republicans that the health care reform bill will be taking money away from Medicare. These politicians care nothing about Medicare. They have tried to abolish it and replace it with private insurance. They know that under the health care reform bill there will be no reduction in Medicare benefits. What they have tried to rescue is the extremely wasteful Medicare Advantage (MA) program, a private insurance program subsidized by the federal government. MA is very profitable for the private health insurance industry, and that is why the Republican senators sought to preserve the government subsidies. It had nothing to do with helping Medicare recipients. Those on MA will lose nothing if it folds. They will be able to go on regular Medicare and obtain the additional services provided by MA for less money than they are now paying for MA.
Republican politicians always clothe their hypocrisies in the garb of populism, but when they oppose climate legislation, unions, minimum wages, unemployment benefits, stock market regulation, and health care reform, it is not because of concern for ordinary people. It is, rather, solicitude for big business, oil companies, big Wall Street brokerages, and health insurance companies.
Wednesday, December 9, 2009
Afghanistan
After dithering in Afghanistan for over eight years, during which Dick Cheney and his assistant, George W. Bush, denied the necessary forces to achieve progress there, and during which they negligently let Osama bin Laden escape capture in Tora Bora, Cheney had the effrontery to criticize President Obama for carefully reviewing the strategic situation before ordering 30,000 additional troops to the area.
Instead of concentrating on Afghanistan where al Qaeda and the Taliban were located, the Cheney/Bush Administration attacked Iraq, where there were no al Qaeda, no Taliban, no Osama bin Laden, and no weapons of mass destruction. It was like the embarrassment of a police drug squad that mistakenly raids the wrong house only to find nothing there and to learn that the actual drug house is next door.
During the 2008 election campaign, Barack Obama claimed that we should get out of Iraq and concentrate on our real enemies in Afghanistan. His decision to augment troop levels in that country is consistent with his campaign rhetoric. Any delay in making a decision pales in comparison with the eight-year delay of the Cheney/Bush ditherers.
Contrary to the whining of Dick Cheney, President Obama acted within the framework of time suggested by the commanders on the ground. On December 1, 2009, in his speech at West Point, the President said: “Let me be clear: There has never been an option before me that called for troop deployments before 2010, so there has been no delay or denial of resources necessary for the conduct of the war.” The President assured the nation that “The 30,000 additional troops that I am announcing tonight will deploy in the first part of 2010 — the fastest pace possible — so that they can target the insurgency and secure key population centers.”
The President also responded to the claims that we are escalating the fight in the same manner as was done in Viet Nam. He said: “Unlike Vietnam, we are joined by a broad coalition of 43 nations that recognizes the legitimacy of our action. Unlike Vietnam, we are not facing a broad-based popular insurgency. And most importantly, unlike Vietnam, the American people were viciously attacked from Afghanistan and remain a target for those same extremists who are plotting along its border.”
The President could have added that this war in Afghanistan is completely unlike the Cheney/Bush war in Iraq. America was not attacked by Iraq. In fact, even under the vicious dictator Saddam Hussein, America was never in danger of attack by Iraq. Iraq did not have weapons of mass destruction. The only reason we attacked Iraq was the bellicosity of Dick Cheney, the thirst for Iraqi oil, and the embarrassment of George W. Bush at his father’s failure to eliminate Saddam Hussein during the first Gulf War.
President Obama has described an exit strategy for this nasty conflict in Afghanistan, something that was not done by Cheney and Bush in Iraq for over seven years. He will come under criticism by the Republicans for doing so. He has made clear, however, that getting our forces out of Afghanistan by 2011 will not be an abrupt abandonment of the people of Afghanistan: “Just as we have done in Iraq, we will execute this transition responsibly, taking into account conditions on the ground.”
The political Left will oppose the President’s plan, but I feel that his steps are necessary to protect America. I hate war of any kind. It is a monument to humanity’s failure to evolve from the instincts of lower animals. But we do not live in an ideal world. Some barbaric people in this world think that God wants them to fly airplanes into large structures and slaughter thousands of people. We must resist and fight such people, or surrender our civilization to the forces of chaos.
Instead of concentrating on Afghanistan where al Qaeda and the Taliban were located, the Cheney/Bush Administration attacked Iraq, where there were no al Qaeda, no Taliban, no Osama bin Laden, and no weapons of mass destruction. It was like the embarrassment of a police drug squad that mistakenly raids the wrong house only to find nothing there and to learn that the actual drug house is next door.
During the 2008 election campaign, Barack Obama claimed that we should get out of Iraq and concentrate on our real enemies in Afghanistan. His decision to augment troop levels in that country is consistent with his campaign rhetoric. Any delay in making a decision pales in comparison with the eight-year delay of the Cheney/Bush ditherers.
Contrary to the whining of Dick Cheney, President Obama acted within the framework of time suggested by the commanders on the ground. On December 1, 2009, in his speech at West Point, the President said: “Let me be clear: There has never been an option before me that called for troop deployments before 2010, so there has been no delay or denial of resources necessary for the conduct of the war.” The President assured the nation that “The 30,000 additional troops that I am announcing tonight will deploy in the first part of 2010 — the fastest pace possible — so that they can target the insurgency and secure key population centers.”
The President also responded to the claims that we are escalating the fight in the same manner as was done in Viet Nam. He said: “Unlike Vietnam, we are joined by a broad coalition of 43 nations that recognizes the legitimacy of our action. Unlike Vietnam, we are not facing a broad-based popular insurgency. And most importantly, unlike Vietnam, the American people were viciously attacked from Afghanistan and remain a target for those same extremists who are plotting along its border.”
The President could have added that this war in Afghanistan is completely unlike the Cheney/Bush war in Iraq. America was not attacked by Iraq. In fact, even under the vicious dictator Saddam Hussein, America was never in danger of attack by Iraq. Iraq did not have weapons of mass destruction. The only reason we attacked Iraq was the bellicosity of Dick Cheney, the thirst for Iraqi oil, and the embarrassment of George W. Bush at his father’s failure to eliminate Saddam Hussein during the first Gulf War.
President Obama has described an exit strategy for this nasty conflict in Afghanistan, something that was not done by Cheney and Bush in Iraq for over seven years. He will come under criticism by the Republicans for doing so. He has made clear, however, that getting our forces out of Afghanistan by 2011 will not be an abrupt abandonment of the people of Afghanistan: “Just as we have done in Iraq, we will execute this transition responsibly, taking into account conditions on the ground.”
The political Left will oppose the President’s plan, but I feel that his steps are necessary to protect America. I hate war of any kind. It is a monument to humanity’s failure to evolve from the instincts of lower animals. But we do not live in an ideal world. Some barbaric people in this world think that God wants them to fly airplanes into large structures and slaughter thousands of people. We must resist and fight such people, or surrender our civilization to the forces of chaos.
Wednesday, December 2, 2009
Libertarianism
The phenomenon of Libertarianism is gaining some currency among right-wing conservatives due in part to the 2008 candidacy for president of Ron Paul, a Republican congressman from Texas. Paul was a candidate for president on the Libertarian Party ticket in 1988. The official candidate of the Libertarian Party in 2008 was the battered and discredited old hypocritical hack, Bob Barr, former congressman from Georgia.
In spite of fact that some libertarians oppose drug laws, right-to-life laws, and laws banning same-sex marriage, one should not confuse libertarianism with liberalism or with the ideology of the American Civil Liberties Union. Libertarians also oppose gun control, social programs, and most regulation of business. Their philosophy is widely embraced by elements of the tax resister movement, militias, the NRA, and motorcycle gangs.
It is difficult to describe the philosophy of Libertarianism because there are a number of different types of libertarians. Most libertarians believe that any restraint of liberty by government is improper, illegal, and unconstitutional. Libertarians believe in an absolute right to private property and that the owner of private property cannot be forced by government to in any way relinquish total control over that property.
That idea of economic liberty is reflected in the Libertarian Party Platform which states: “We oppose all controls on wages, prices, rents, profits, production, and interest rates. We advocate the repeal of all laws banning or restricting the advertising of prices, products, or services. We oppose all violations of the right to private property, liberty of contract, and freedom of trade.”
Unlike conservative Republicans who would reduce taxes, the Libertarian Party Platform says: “We call for the repeal of the income tax, the abolishment of the Internal Revenue Service and all federal programs and services not required under the U.S. Constitution.”
Although Ronald Reagan made libertarian noises when he declared that “Government is the problem, not the solution,” he did nothing to dismantle the elaborate structure of the federal government that had grown-up over the decades. Conservative Republicans like to proclaim the virtues of smaller government, but during the eight years of Bush rule they did nothing to advance that idea. Republican conservatism is something very different from Libertarianism.
One source of libertarian ideas is the philosophy of the late novelist, playwright, and screen-writer, Ayn Rand (pronounced ‘ain ‘raend), born in Russia under the name Alisa Rosenbaum. She wrote several novels, including “Atlas Shrugged” and “The Fountainhead.” I read her books many years ago and found them to be mediocre literature and sophomoric philosophy--a judgment shared by most literary critics. Nevertheless, many college students are impressed by her political views which emphasize independence (from parents?), individual rights, limited government, and laissez-faire capitalism. One biographer recently dubbed her books: “part of the underground curriculum of American adolescence.” In her novels, the heroes, such as John Galt and Howard Roark, are independent-minded capitalists fighting against insipid, weak-kneed do-gooders.
To Ayn Rand, the cause of much of the evil in the world is “Altruism.” Rand said: “Even though altruism declares that ‘it is more blessed to give than to receive,’ it does not work that way in practice. The givers are never blessed; the more they give, the more is demanded of them.” Rand’s philosophy leaned toward that of the German philosopher, Friedrich Nietzsche, even though she later repudiated him. Like Nietzsche, she was an atheist who rejected Judeo-Christian ethics which hold charity and altruism as the highest virtues. Rand held that the only moral social system is laissez-faire capitalism.
Unfortunately for Libertarians, Ayn Rand was not a very profound thinker. I found her to be shallow and, at times, silly. Western civilization has long recognized altruism, selflessness, and charity as noble qualities that enrich society and separate us from the animals.
When the Congress passed a law giving the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) authority to regulate the tobacco industry, Libertarian/Republican Congressman Ron Paul was the leading critic denouncing the law. That kind of law is abhorrent to Libertarians. To them, if people want to smoke and contract cancer, that is their right, and government has no business deciding what is best for people’s health.
On the theory that government is the problem and not the solution, Libertarians would abolish many of the programs that define American civilization. They would eradicate Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. They would block our current efforts to reduce global warming, reform health care, and regulate the food, pharmaceutical, energy, and other industries. They seem to be saying that government has no role in the advancement of human welfare or the alleviation of human suffering.
They oppose laws regulating the usury of payday loan and credit card companies. They oppose laws against false advertising. They oppose antitrust laws and laws controlling the prices that may be charged by public utilities. They oppose federal regulation of commerce, agriculture, labor, energy, housing, urban development, the environment, trade, health, transportation, and the airways.
They would, no doubt, abolish the Securities and Exchange Commission, the Federal Reserve Bank, the Federal Trade Commission, and all other governmental agencies that control the marketplace. They believe, as Michael Douglas said in the movie “Wall Street,” that “Greed is good.” They think that by doing away with all governmental regulatory agencies, they would free superior men to act creatively in the marketplace. Perhaps so, but they would also free the likes of Bernard Madoff, Michael Milkin, Ivan Boesky, Kenneth Kozlowski, Charles Keating, Bernard Ebbers, and R. Allen Stanford to engage in massive fraud, Ponzi schemes, pyramid schemes, and insider trading. To the Libertarian laissez faire capitalists, it is buyer beware no matter how crooked the seller.
There is an essential and dangerous error at the core of Libertarian philosophy.
They assume that if brilliant men are left alone to pursue their goals, they will accomplish great things and, in the process, benefit mankind. Now I recognize that great men have produced great advances in industry, and that they have often produced great wealth and jobs. However, there is a downside to the strivings of powerful men. Such men have often used their power to aggrandize themselves at the expense of their fellow men. They have promoted their commerce at the expense of slave labor, exploitation of workers, devastation of the environment, destruction of competition, and the promotion of dangerous, unsafe, and poisonous products.
I suppose that if you do not believe in altruism, you would have had no problem operating the IG Farben plant at Auschwitz concentration camp. IG Farben built a factory (named Buna Chemical Plant) for producing synthetic oil and rubber (from coal) in Auschwitz during the Nazi Holocaust. At its peak in 1944, this factory made use of 83,000 slave laborers. Many thousands of those laborers were annihilated in the gas chambers and ovens of Auschwitz. Someone with altruism, like Oskar Schindler, might have tried to ameliorate the conditions of those murdered masses, but not some laissez faire capitalist seeking only profit.
There are two sides to mankind. We are capable of great goodness and generosity as well as great evil. Government exists to promote civilization. Without government, we would have no civilization. Life would be as it was before civilization, when the condition of man was, as Thomas Hobbs described it: “a condition of war of everyone against everyone” and life was “nasty, brutish, and short.”
In spite of fact that some libertarians oppose drug laws, right-to-life laws, and laws banning same-sex marriage, one should not confuse libertarianism with liberalism or with the ideology of the American Civil Liberties Union. Libertarians also oppose gun control, social programs, and most regulation of business. Their philosophy is widely embraced by elements of the tax resister movement, militias, the NRA, and motorcycle gangs.
It is difficult to describe the philosophy of Libertarianism because there are a number of different types of libertarians. Most libertarians believe that any restraint of liberty by government is improper, illegal, and unconstitutional. Libertarians believe in an absolute right to private property and that the owner of private property cannot be forced by government to in any way relinquish total control over that property.
That idea of economic liberty is reflected in the Libertarian Party Platform which states: “We oppose all controls on wages, prices, rents, profits, production, and interest rates. We advocate the repeal of all laws banning or restricting the advertising of prices, products, or services. We oppose all violations of the right to private property, liberty of contract, and freedom of trade.”
Unlike conservative Republicans who would reduce taxes, the Libertarian Party Platform says: “We call for the repeal of the income tax, the abolishment of the Internal Revenue Service and all federal programs and services not required under the U.S. Constitution.”
Although Ronald Reagan made libertarian noises when he declared that “Government is the problem, not the solution,” he did nothing to dismantle the elaborate structure of the federal government that had grown-up over the decades. Conservative Republicans like to proclaim the virtues of smaller government, but during the eight years of Bush rule they did nothing to advance that idea. Republican conservatism is something very different from Libertarianism.
One source of libertarian ideas is the philosophy of the late novelist, playwright, and screen-writer, Ayn Rand (pronounced ‘ain ‘raend), born in Russia under the name Alisa Rosenbaum. She wrote several novels, including “Atlas Shrugged” and “The Fountainhead.” I read her books many years ago and found them to be mediocre literature and sophomoric philosophy--a judgment shared by most literary critics. Nevertheless, many college students are impressed by her political views which emphasize independence (from parents?), individual rights, limited government, and laissez-faire capitalism. One biographer recently dubbed her books: “part of the underground curriculum of American adolescence.” In her novels, the heroes, such as John Galt and Howard Roark, are independent-minded capitalists fighting against insipid, weak-kneed do-gooders.
To Ayn Rand, the cause of much of the evil in the world is “Altruism.” Rand said: “Even though altruism declares that ‘it is more blessed to give than to receive,’ it does not work that way in practice. The givers are never blessed; the more they give, the more is demanded of them.” Rand’s philosophy leaned toward that of the German philosopher, Friedrich Nietzsche, even though she later repudiated him. Like Nietzsche, she was an atheist who rejected Judeo-Christian ethics which hold charity and altruism as the highest virtues. Rand held that the only moral social system is laissez-faire capitalism.
Unfortunately for Libertarians, Ayn Rand was not a very profound thinker. I found her to be shallow and, at times, silly. Western civilization has long recognized altruism, selflessness, and charity as noble qualities that enrich society and separate us from the animals.
When the Congress passed a law giving the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) authority to regulate the tobacco industry, Libertarian/Republican Congressman Ron Paul was the leading critic denouncing the law. That kind of law is abhorrent to Libertarians. To them, if people want to smoke and contract cancer, that is their right, and government has no business deciding what is best for people’s health.
On the theory that government is the problem and not the solution, Libertarians would abolish many of the programs that define American civilization. They would eradicate Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. They would block our current efforts to reduce global warming, reform health care, and regulate the food, pharmaceutical, energy, and other industries. They seem to be saying that government has no role in the advancement of human welfare or the alleviation of human suffering.
They oppose laws regulating the usury of payday loan and credit card companies. They oppose laws against false advertising. They oppose antitrust laws and laws controlling the prices that may be charged by public utilities. They oppose federal regulation of commerce, agriculture, labor, energy, housing, urban development, the environment, trade, health, transportation, and the airways.
They would, no doubt, abolish the Securities and Exchange Commission, the Federal Reserve Bank, the Federal Trade Commission, and all other governmental agencies that control the marketplace. They believe, as Michael Douglas said in the movie “Wall Street,” that “Greed is good.” They think that by doing away with all governmental regulatory agencies, they would free superior men to act creatively in the marketplace. Perhaps so, but they would also free the likes of Bernard Madoff, Michael Milkin, Ivan Boesky, Kenneth Kozlowski, Charles Keating, Bernard Ebbers, and R. Allen Stanford to engage in massive fraud, Ponzi schemes, pyramid schemes, and insider trading. To the Libertarian laissez faire capitalists, it is buyer beware no matter how crooked the seller.
There is an essential and dangerous error at the core of Libertarian philosophy.
They assume that if brilliant men are left alone to pursue their goals, they will accomplish great things and, in the process, benefit mankind. Now I recognize that great men have produced great advances in industry, and that they have often produced great wealth and jobs. However, there is a downside to the strivings of powerful men. Such men have often used their power to aggrandize themselves at the expense of their fellow men. They have promoted their commerce at the expense of slave labor, exploitation of workers, devastation of the environment, destruction of competition, and the promotion of dangerous, unsafe, and poisonous products.
I suppose that if you do not believe in altruism, you would have had no problem operating the IG Farben plant at Auschwitz concentration camp. IG Farben built a factory (named Buna Chemical Plant) for producing synthetic oil and rubber (from coal) in Auschwitz during the Nazi Holocaust. At its peak in 1944, this factory made use of 83,000 slave laborers. Many thousands of those laborers were annihilated in the gas chambers and ovens of Auschwitz. Someone with altruism, like Oskar Schindler, might have tried to ameliorate the conditions of those murdered masses, but not some laissez faire capitalist seeking only profit.
There are two sides to mankind. We are capable of great goodness and generosity as well as great evil. Government exists to promote civilization. Without government, we would have no civilization. Life would be as it was before civilization, when the condition of man was, as Thomas Hobbs described it: “a condition of war of everyone against everyone” and life was “nasty, brutish, and short.”
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
