In a piece published by Forbes today, the writer poses an enormously important question: what are we to do about the economy? But he frames the debate in a meaningful way. Typically, pundits and “academics” (I use the word loosely to describe the delusional Paul Krugman) spend their ink debating the merits of a centrally-planned, welfare state versus the laissez-faire, market mechanism for creating wealth in our economy.
The thing I found refreshing about this piece is that it transcends that argument, as we ought to as citizens. It is clear to both me and the author that central planning, government intervention and manipulation, and the redistribution of wealth result in misery. It has been discredited in theory and practice countless times. The government cannot create wealth; at its best it can only protect it.
I have no doubt that more freedom, the laissez-faire, market-driven society produces more wealth. But, the author expresses a disbelief that uninhibited people left to do whatever their appetites and lusts drive them to do will create a stable society. His skepticism is well founded. Anarchy is no solution to a bloated and burdensome government.
In sum, when the government controls us and our economy it results in abuse, repression, stifled freedom and ultimately those in government, the empowered, dominating the weak. If we are left completely uninhibited, unchecked, it results in wanton orgies of consumer self-gratification, greed, dishonesty, and the powerful dominating the weak.
So what are we to do? We cannot embrace the domination of the government over its citizens. Nor can we condone the lawlessness of anarchy. The only hope is what the Founders of this nation set out to do hundreds of years ago. These United States are an experiment in self government. We must govern ourselves first. The primacy of restraint is vested in the individual. And how do we become self governing? The natural state of human liberty must be tempered by man’s outright embrace of a moral code. It is imperative.
Ultimately, the real root of the economic problems we face, the real crises is found in our moral, ethical, and social failures as a nation. We have a moral crisis ten times the size of the economic malaise.
We have broken homes and families and scratch our heads wondering why our educational system lacks support. We have built and entitlement society, where wealth isn’t earned, it’s a right, and wonder why people are greedy. We tell people it is just fine to murder their unborn children if their childhood would be inconvenient (92% of women cite “social” or “other” as the most important reason they terminated the pregnancy, 25% say they’re just not “ready”) to the parent, and can’t figure out why people are selfish. We have a government that forcibly steals from the wealthy to buy the votes of the poor, and wonder why charity suffers. We have eviscerated the moral authority of the Church, mocked and ridiculed people of faith, and wonder why people don’t behave ethically anymore. Moral relativism pervades our society today.
This nation has spent the past 50 years divorcing and divesting itself in the most valuable resource a capitalist, free market system has: the morals of the people living in the society. Until we embrace moral behavior, unless we resuscitate the social mores that once tempered lives of the citizens, people in this country will cease to be free.
Self government is the answer. The state should not be forced to dictate my charitable giving, my light bulb usage, or the distribution of economic resources. We must make the right choice individually. If we fail to answer the author’s question we will be a nation of slaves: whether it is an individual without morals, enslaved by their own intemperate lusts and desires for wealth power, or we are dominated by an oppressive government, the result is the same. Freedom dies and the experiment in self government expires in a tragic end.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
My boy Mark Steyn likes to say that the motto "Live free or die" is not so much a proposition as it is a tragic reality: the less freedom you have to discharge your individual responsibilities, the less you develop your potential as a human being -- morally and spiritually. And so you if you don't have freedom, you start to sort of die on the inside...
I really appreciate the balanced insight and reasoning of your blogs. You present a level of analytic that shows you research your opinions before you present an argument.
As someone from outside the monotheistic faiths though, I find it puzzling in this blog why you mention "the moral authority of the Church" being "eviscerated?" I completely agree with you that people of faith are mocked and ridiculed - though I would argue this is done as much by individuals with religion as those without it. You argued in an early post, "The Best of All Possible Motives" (15 Nov 2009), that killing in the name of Allah is as much an indication of issues with Islam, as say the Puritans & Evangelicals are with Christianity.
Why do you suggest differently now then? I mean, (again as an outsider), I would think the Catholic Church if anything would contrast a call for moral self governance? In terms of faith, history itself has shown us that Christians and Muslims have had a greater legacy of blood than any other religion in history just by body count alone. I guess I would be considered a Pagan/Gentile so please don't consider my inquiry as some attack from some atheist/agnostic anarchist (in-spite of my silly sn). I may have misunderstood the point you raised here, so I am just perplexed.
Apokolypes, just noticed your comment now, glad to see someone is keeping our archived articles honest.
The "Best of all possible motives" post was by me, and this one is by Steve. And indeed, I think it is a good thing to mock people of faith when they place faith before reason. I also don't think the church has moral authority, nor do I think anyone needs religion to tell them what is right and wrong.
As a test, try to think of good action you would take only because of religion. That's difficult. And now, try to think of a bad action you would take only because of religion. You probably thought of a few before you finished reading that sentence.
Still, Islam is not Christianity. I've read the Koran and it's not the bible. Much more violent, paranoid, belligerent, hateful. My biggest problem with Christianity is actually it's pacifism.
But regardless of the church, Steve and I agree on the main point, that freedom and free markets give individuals dignity and produce more wealth.
Post a Comment