The End of American Civil Society?

Posted on August 14, 2012 by Jim

A piece that I wrote in early January 2009 seems especially relevant now that we have experienced more than three years of the Obama Administration and continued economic decline.

The other night I was watching a heart rending story about unnecessary growing poverty and famine in Ethiopia.

As I picked out the unexamined details from the report, I recognized how easy it would be to profitably solve these problems, with a consequence that Ethiopia would be prosperous and well feed; however, I realized that I assumed a system of laissez-faire capitalism that would be both necessary for success and totally unacceptable to the people victimized by lack of it.  They would rather watch their children die painfully than accept the justice of respecting the right of another man to live free from the initiation of force and fraud.

As I IM’d back and forth with a friend while watching the video, I painfully observed that Ethiopia sounded like some backwards country…like the Bush-Obama America.

How can I explain this to those that may have just been offended by that statement, when they should be more offended by the truth of my statement?

In our foreign policy, the US correctly identifies the want of a vital civil society in other countries suffering under authoritarian governments.  A civil society being the aggregate of those institutions of free association acting independently of the government.  The co-optation by government of independent associations generally leads to the growth of extremist religious organizations as the principle channel for expressing political dissent.

If we recognize that an authoritarian state contradicts the requirements of man to live as man, how does that condition develop?  There is recent historical precedent of liberal democracies transforming into authoritarian regimes, who strangled civil society with governmental controls.  I refer here to European fascism.

As Alfredo Rocco explained at that time, fascism stresses the necessity of sacrifice even up to the total immolation of the individual on behalf of society: “society is the end, individuals the means, and its whole life consists in using individuals as instruments for its social ends.” 1

There were echoes of these words from 1925 from both sides of the recent American election.

The Bush Administration is best described as an Orgy of Sacrifice, as the President wantonly solicited the destruction of greater values to achieve lesser values for the benefit of the collective good.  This administration undermined private institutions through public-private partnerships and initiatives; private means under public control directed toward the attainment of social ends.  Predictably, this led to a private collapse.

Now, we are promised more public help to the private sector, with more public control.  A public contribution to leverage the looting of remaining private values, which are to be sacrificed upon the altar of the social good.  As this private collapse–caused by the exhaustion of toting socially mandated burdens–continues, the line of bailout beggars grows and they eagerly seek to be yoked by the Congress to the task of achieving social ends.

The erosion of American civil society accelerates.  William Ferris (you may call him Dr. Ferris if you prefer) has attempted to persuade us that there is a need for a federal Department of Culture to revitalize our national spirit by strengthening our cultural programs at every level.2  Joseph Goebbels would be proud that his legacy for government directed public enlightenment has been embraced.

America has tasted the poison of authoritarianism, and it has sickened us.  Now is yet another moment of choice, shall we follow the bailout whims of Congress and drink more poison, or free ourselves from its ill effects by rejecting altruistic paternalism and embracing life affirming values and virtues:  reason, justice, freedom, production, and achievement?

1 L. Peikoff, Ominous Parallels, p. 17; quoting “The Political Doctrine of Fascism,” an address delivered at Perugia, 8/30/1925.
2 W. Ferris, “Put Culture in the Cabinet,” New York Times, 12/26/2008.

Posted in Election, History, Quotes | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment

Question #3: Why Write about Libertarians and Gary Johnson?

Posted on August 8, 2012 by Jim

So far, more than 40% of the posts to Selfish Citizenship have been tied to either Libertarians or Gary Johnson, so the following question is relevant:

Why are you writing so much about Libertarians and Gary Johnson?

There are two reasons: (1) they are not criticized enough, and (2) they are important.

Most of what is written about Libertarians and Gary Johnson is by fanboys.  For the most part, the mainstream media ignores them and gives them no serious consideration.  In contrast, I think that Libertarians merit substantial criticism for amongst other things:

  1. being ideologically incoherent as evident when their “ideas” are concretized to policy,
  2. being ignorant of history and politics,
  3. having an anti-American foreign policy,
  4. being apologists for terrorists,
  5. embracing neo-confederates, anarchists, and other unsavories, and
  6. being opposed to the government’s legitimate role in protecting individual rights through objective law.

After all the bad things that I write about them, how can I say that they are important?  I mean important like cancer…not good, but an affliction that should not be ignored.  As I have explained previously, the Libertarian Party is a dead end of wasted effort.

Unfortunately, in their ignorance, too many young people waste their thoughts and efforts on the Libertarian Party.  Further, as the Libertarian Party espouses packaged deals, these youthfully ignorant followers fail to distinguish the valuable from the dangerous aspect of Libertarian rhetoric.  As the purpose of this blog is educational, its mission includes providing a corrective to the Libertarian Party’s misinformation campaign directed at students.

Extra Points

Below are some relevant quotes, via Lexicon:

For the record…I disapprove of, disagree with and have no connection with, the latest aberration of some conservatives, the so-called ‘hippies of the right,’ who attempt to snare the younger or more careless ones of my readers by claiming simultaneously to be followers of my philosophy and advocates of anarchism. Anyone offering such a combination confesses his inability to understand either. Anarchism is the most irrational, anti-intellectual notion ever spun by the concrete-bound, context-dropping, whim-worshiping fringe of the collectivist movement, where it properly belongs. [Ayn Rand, “Brief Summary,” The Objectivist, September 1971]

Above all, do not join the wrong ideological groups or movements, in order to ‘do something.’ By ‘ideological’ (in this context), I mean groups or movements proclaiming some vaguely generalized, undefined (and, usually, contradictory) political goals. (E.g., the Conservative Party, which subordinates reason to faith, and substitutes theocracy for capitalism; or the ‘libertarian’ hippies, who subordinate reason to whims, and substitute anarchism for capitalism.)

To join such groups means to reverse the philosophical hierarchy and to sell out fundamental principles for the sake of some superficial political action which is bound to fail. It means that you help the defeat of your ideas and the victory of your enemies.  [Ayn Rand, “What Can One Do?” Philosophy: Who Needs It]

In the philosophical battle for a free society, the one crucial connection to be upheld is that between capitalism and reason. The religious conservatives are seeking to tie capitalism to mysticism; the ‘libertarians’ are tying capitalism to the whim-worshipping subjectivism and chaos of anarchy. To cooperate with either group is to betray capitalism, reason, and one’s own future. [Harry Binswanger, “Q & A Department: Anarchism,” The Objectivist Forum, Aug. 1981, 12]

Also, Peter Schwartz has written pointedly on the Libertarian error:

IS LIBERTARIANISM AN EVIL DOCTRINE? Yes, if evil is the irrational and the destructive. Libertarianism belligerently rejects the very need for any justification for its belief in something called “liberty.” It repudiates the need for any intellectual foundation to explain why “liberty” is desirable and what “liberty” means…Subjectivism, amoralism and anarchism are not merely present in certain “wings” of the Libertarian movement; they are integral to it…And since reality is the fundamental “restraint” upon men’s actions, it is nihilism—the desire to obliterate reality—that is the very essence of Libertarianism. If the Libertarian movement were ever to come to power, widespread death would be the consequence.  [Peter Schwartz, “On Moral Sanction,” The Intellectual Activist, vol. V, num. 1]

Schwartz’s essay “Libertarianism: The Perversion of Liberty” in the Voice of Reason is highly recommended.

Posted in Questions, Quotes | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment

Gary Johnson in Debates? No, He Absences Himself from Actual Debate Today

Posted on August 8, 2012 by Jim

The principle current issue from Libertarian Gary Johnson’s campaign is his desire to be included in the presidential debates.  However, I say no; it is proper to exclude him for reasons beyond his leading a cargo cult political party.

There are real debates about actual policy that are happening right now, and Johnson is absenting himself from them.  Previously, I directed his campaign’s attention to the bipartisan agreement to pass a continuing resolution to fund the federal government for the first six months of FY 2013 without the otherwise required congressional appropriation being passed.  In doing so, my questions to the campaign highlighted the risks that this deal poses to Johnson’s promised agenda of budget balancing and entitlement reform, but apparently those promises are not worth enough to fight for now.  Since then, the Congress passed a sanctions bill directing policy towards Iran and Syria, but Johnson has been silent on this issue as it sat on the President’s desk.

Johnson’s campaign may protest that he is busy running for President, so he does not have the time to think about the issues that a President must address or to make judgments on government policies as they are in the process of being changed.  I disagree: (1) news reporting on these events does not include Johnson’s positions as a contrast to bipartisan agreement, (2) Johnson has no party in the Congress and needs to engage Congress to build a supportive caucus for his policy agenda, and (3) to get in the news to spread his message Johnson needs to do something in the context of the day’s news.

This is about more than my disagreement with the Libertarians and Gary Johnson on policy issues.  I have no patience for the lack of competence demonstrated by the Johnson campaign as it is a precursor for the lack of competence that would be found in a Johnson Administration.  I can understand someone liking Johnson because he sometimes gets a policy issue less wrong than other candidates; however, he is not running for Senate, as he should have, but instead for President.  Obama (and Carter before him) has demonstrated the consequences of an incompetent President; thus, putting the inexperienced and impotent Johnson in that position would be a continuing disaster for republican government.

What are the key points for Selfish Citizenship?

  • Congress is where policy is substantially created; how consistent are your congressional candidates with your values and positions?  Have you personally reached out to those candidates?
  • Under republican government, the executive requires a different personality and level of experience compared to a legislator.
  • Without a party or caucus in the Congress, a President will be less effective than Andrew Johnson, who was impeached and almost convicted over a policy dispute.
  • While it is not the current fashion as we opt for amateurs, candidates for the presidency should demonstrate competency and engagement in the issues before holding the office.
  • To have an influence on policy questions that is personally important to you, you do not have to be an office holder or flack for a candidate; for example, see Diana Hsieh and Ari Armstrong on personhood and campaign finance reform.

Extra point:  If you do not know the difference between capital R Republican government and lowercase r republican government, read John Adams and the Spirit of Liberty by C. Bradley Thompson.

Posted in Election | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , | 2 Comments

Question #2: Flame wars, why has our political debate become so nasty?

Posted on August 2, 2012 by Jim

The following question has been popping up a lot recently, and it relates to the prior post on Angry Libertarians:

Why has our political discourse become so uncivil?

The idea that we should do something has been popularly replaced with the idea that government must do something.

This shift undermines civil society, individuals coming together outside of government through free association based upon shared interests to act together.

As free association is replaced with 50% plus one of the electorate making decisions in a greater range of intrusive personal issues, there is no space for civility, but only force.

The US government criticizes the lack of a civil society in those backward and tyrannical countries abroad, yet the popular mood here is for the government to replace civil society as we become more backward and government becomes more tyrannical.

We see this from both parties when they rhetorically declare war on this or that which actually have nothing to do with actual war, except the consequent increasing bent in our society towards political violence.

In considering what we could choose to do as a corrective, let’s start with a few quotes from novelist Ayn Rand:

Civilization is the progress toward a society of privacy.  The savage’s whole existence is public, ruled by the laws of the tribe.  Civilization is the process of setting man free from men.  [“The Soul of an Individualist”, For the New Intellectual, p. 84; via Lexicon]

The precondition of a civilized society is the barring of physical force from social relationships–thus establishing the principle that if men wish to deal with one another, they may do so only by means of reason: by discussion, persuasion and voluntary, uncoerced agreement.  [“The Nature of Government”, The Virtue of Selfishness, p. 108; via Lexicon]

What is the basic, the essential, the crucial principle that differentiates freedom from slavery?  It is the principle of voluntary action versus physical coercion or compulsion.  [“America’s Persecuted Minority: Big Business”, Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal, p. 46; via Lexicon]

A proper association is united by ideas, not by men, and its members are loyal to the ideas, not to the group.  It is eminently reasonable that men should seek to associate with those who share their convictions and values…All proper associations are formed or joined by individual choice and on conscious, intellectual grounds (philosophical, political, professional, etc.)–not by the physiological or geographical accident of birth, and not on the ground of tradition.  When men are united by ideas, i.e., by explicit principles, there is no room for favors, whims, or arbitrary power:  the principles serve as an objective criterion for determining actions and for judging men, whether leaders or members…this is the only way men can work together justly, benevolently and safely.  [“The Missing Link”, Philosophy: Who Needs It, p. 45; via Lexicon]

Let’s pull all of this together into a few principles to guide action for selfish citizenship related to the original question:

(1)    A proper government has a particular nature which subordinates the retaliatory use of force to objective law for the purpose of protecting individual rights.

(2)    Within civil society, individuals should be free to associate and act together without resorting to the force of government based upon share values and interest to achieve common goals.

(3)    Allowing government to do what is only proper to civil society corrupts government and society by allowing some individuals to initiate force against others…to compel others to be the means to the aggressors’ ends.

If we wish to be civil in our political discourse, it must begin with advocating for government to protect individual rights and no more.

Posted in Political Discussions, Questions, Quotes | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment

Bipartisan Deal – Status Quo Continuing Resolution for FY 2013

Posted on August 1, 2012 by Jim

The following is text of a message sent to the media relations contact for Gary Johnson’s campaign.

On your campaign’s website, I found no comment on yesterday’s federal fiscal news. Therefore, I have several questions (see below), which relate to a conversation that I have had with your campaign’s public supporters.

Yesterday, July 31, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) announced that the Senate, House, and President had reached an agreement to pass a continuing resolution to fund the federal government for the first six months of FY 2013. Essentially, this avoids these parties staging a government shutdown before the election, encumbers the next Administration with two years of appropriations to complete in 2013, and sets the election results as the decider for FY 2013 appropriations.

Does the Johnson campaign have a statement or reply specific to this announced deal?

Will candidate Johnson focus exclusively on the campaign or would he involve himself in this current legislative issue by actively supporting deficit hawk legislators from both parties who oppose this status quo deal, thus possibly developing the groundwork for a Johnson bipartisan caucus in the Congress?

The candidate has promised to propose a balanced budget for FY 2014. If elected, what are the candidate’s legislative goals related to completing FY 2013 appropriations?

If elected, will the focus of Congress on FY 2013 appropriations distract Congress from the candidate’s promise for entitlement reform? If so, how would the candidate plan to keep Congress focused on such reform?

On fiscal issues, the campaign expresses three components of a legislative strategy: (1) balance the budget through spending cuts and tax reform, (2) reform entitlements, and (3) veto. Come 9/30/2013 when the Congress is likely to propose a status quo continuing resolution for FY 2014, what would President Johnson do? Is the candidate’s strategy to veto such legislation with a resulting government shutdown? What if the Congress overrides the veto; is there more to the candidate’s legislative strategy on fiscal policy?

Given the importance of these issue, I will give you a fair and full presentation of your answers.

Thank you in advance for your campaign’s answers to these questions, which all the candidates for President should be answering so as to inform the electorate.

Posted in Congress, Election | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , | 5 Comments