Chatting on the Road Trip: Freedom and Equality

(Berlin Wall Coming Down)

Now, you may have noticed that I have not written anything for four days, which, while unfortunate, hopefully did not cause any lasting damage to anyone's worldview. I had a good discussion yesterday while driving back from San Francisco to Provo. I cannot say my excuse is that I was having a four day long conversation in the car, but I will say that camping out on California beaches is not particularly conducive to blogging. Our conversation was expansive and we talked about government, the economy, freedom, purpose, and life in general. I wish you were all there. You probably would have learned something. We had some interesting view points from all sides. The two people who led the conversation were me and my friend from Hong Kong (so this was not just a domestic politics discussion, but became international as soon as my friend opened his mouth). Another contributor lives in Utah but was raised in Oregon. So, while not all demographics were equally represented, I think we dug pretty deep when it came to what really matters.

But, that being said let me just say something that might shock you. THE GOVERNMENT OWNS YOUR SOUL. Some might find that ridiculously unfounded and over the top. In some ways they would be correct. In other ways perhaps not so much. Nothing is ever as superficial as it seems. Other than the fact that the government has spy planes watching your every move, and puts mind controlling drugs in our water supply, the government is not just about politics. And, even if they were, politics is invasive (Like a root canal that somehow turns into open heart surgery).

The government in the US, and in any country for that matter, is supposed to provide some sort of semblance of order and provide basic protections for individuals, families, and groups. But, unfortunately, the government quite often does a fairly shoddy job. Part of this stems from the efficiency-corruption continuum, and part because of how democracy and bureaucracies work. In the efficiency-corruption continuum you have on one side the most efficient form of government, a dictatorship, but with the possibility that it could be entirely corrupt and affect changes that completely annihilate human virtue. On the other side you have a socialized democracy that has so much red tape that it never gets anything done, but does not do so much damage if it is corrupt because there are so many voices and none can do more harm than another. Neither case exists in the US. We have a melange of the two that leans both ways. But here's the catch. You don't have to lean just one way. It's not really a continuum. 

As Alexis de Tocqueville pointed out in his famous book Democracy in America, democracy's greatest tendency is towards centralization, bureaucratization, and consolidation of federal power. This is because in a modern democracy the desire for equality supercedes the desire for freedom. That is because democracy tends to flatten people. Not literally, but spiritually. In a democracy without any aristocratic vestiges like juries, courts, religion, free associations, or high ranking people to look up to, people tend to look in three directions. They look to themselves for guidance, the majority for guidance, or history for guidance. All three lead to the same conclusion. "I am insignificant and I am just a grain of sand awash in an endless sandstorm, therefore I follow the sandstorm." Instead of people finding something substantive to back their desire for equality like human virtue or God, they only want freedom to express an undefined vision of themselves that is defined by history and the majority. It is equality by default. Equality for the sake of equality. "What is good for me is good for me, but not necessarily good for you, and we can both be equal because no one's opinion matters more than anyone else's - they're all good!" It is simple relativism.

So what is the solution? How can we prevent people who, in their weakened self-deluding state, give the government more power over their lives because they want equality at all costs? How can people find meaning and purpose in their lives? Well, there is no simple equation. There is no all-encompassing theory. And guess what? That's okay. In a general sense we can see a need for aristocratic freedom. Rights have value because we are all human and there is something transcendentally good within us, whether you believe it comes from God or elsewhere. We need to believe in a foundation. And, we should all get involved, form groups, associations, coalitions, and provide some vertical lumpiness to our otherwise flat and unguided democracy. We need lawyers, judges, juries, newspapers, federalism, God, and upstanding strong-willed and morally ethical citizens to look up to. We need to believe that there is value in tradition and in the past while looking open to the future. However, we cannot sacrifice meaningful freedom and equality with the mantra of "change" or "progress" for the sake of progress and change. There must be purpose. 

This is an analogy that should help it all settle a little better for you. Let's suppose you have a house. But the house has no walls, no doors, no windows, no roof, no yard, but is just a vacant lot. To have freedom in that home is meaningless. What are you free to do? You are free to be free, but without any stairs, chairs, or doors, there are no real possibilities of exercising freedom. So, your house must have furniture, rooms, walls, windows, and maybe even a nice garden. With substance you have real freedom. With substance you have real equality. Without it you have relativism.

Getting Back to "The Issues"

I love it when I hear democrats say, "Let's get back to the issues." 

Historically, in elections, when democrats focus on the issues, they lose. That is why Obama has spent so much of his time on a soap box talking about a vague hope, and an unclear, but nonetheless forceful mantra of 'change.' 

And, focusing on the issues does not mean calling McCain Bush and trying to tie him to that administration. That is false campaigning. If they really want to focus on the issues they need to talk about McCain's record, not Bush's. And, if they really want to focus on the issues they need to tell people what an Obama administration would do to 'change' things. If they told America more about Obama's plans, most Americans would disagree. But, people don't vote on issues they don't know about, so instead they vote on character and personality, or, what they perceive as character and personality. So, let's talk about the issues:

Obama wants to cut taxes for the 'middle class' supposedly, and make up the difference by taxing those who make more, making our already unequal tax distribution more top heavy. 

However, his definitions of 'middle class' and 'rich' are not correct. Contrary to popular belief, people who make six figures, aren't necessarily rolling in dough. And, even people who make upwards of $50,000 a year aren't either.  And part of that is because they are taxed like they are rich, when they are not, and then those who make significantly less than them pay nothing. 

Obama wants to make more bureaucracy and government work programs like FDR did, federalizing medical coverage, and creating an 'Obama's Youth' movement. 

Now that might seem all well and good on the surface, except that when the government takes over any large organization or task, it tends to be miserably inefficient. The argument of 'you will pay less for your coverage' may be true on the surface, except if you pay less, you get less, and on top of it, you're not really paying less. To cover everyone's new "free" medical expenses, taxes will go up. And, those taxes don't go to R&D, new techniques, better training and better facilities. No, those taxes go to a new middle man. A technocrat who works for the government and tells you what the government will and won't pay for. The doctors will get paid a flat rate (regardless of their years of schooling and amassed debt from that schooling), and they will be forced to see ALL patients (even illegal aliens). But, so what?! Well, that means that doctors have less incentive to do their jobs well, and reduces the amount of time they can spend on patients, thus causing your "free" coverage to be worth just what you supposedly did not pay - nothing. 

The moral is, don't let politicians trick you into thinking you are getting "free" anything. The truth is, you pay for it. You know how everything in DC is "free"? That's because your federal taxes pay for all those museums and monuments. So, while it might appear to be "free," it's really not.

And, on liberal blogs, and news article forums I read elitist sentiments like this: "The American people are stupid. They are so easily duped by the republican machine. And those people in middle America aren't really Americans, and I sure as hell don't want them to run my country."

Wow. These comments come from people who live in big population centers on both coasts, who have no idea that most of what that they eat, and the electricity that runs their homes comes from those "people in middle America who aren't really  Americans." I love how people who live in big cities claim this moral, intellectual, and social superiority over those who live outside the city. It's a bunch of crock. Guess what? The kids who have an hour bus ride to their school from a podunk farm in rural Montana are often better educated than most inner-city kids. But, people who make these kinds of comments, that despise others who think differently than they (and call them stupid for not agreeing with them) are not inner-city products. Most of them have been fed from silver spoons, receiving their education at private institutions. Oh the irony!