RoR: Forum

This should be posted in the Milwaukee Journal and the other Wisconsin newspapers...... as well, of course, in all the other papers on the country.... very much to the point....

Post 1

Wednesday, September 26, 2007 - 3:30pm

I had noted to myself recently that "It's a free country" was a common saying in my youth, but I don't remember having heard it since graduating highschool in 1986

Ted

Post 2

Wednesday, September 26, 2007 - 4:08pm

Sanctioned. Thank you Mr. Machan.

Post 3

Thursday, September 27, 2007 - 2:39pm

Dr. Machan- while I share your misgivings about the state of liberty in the U.S., I would assert that in many ways the situation has improved today compared to when you came to the country in the 50's. In 1956 the top marginal tax bracket was 91%, compared to 35% today. In 1956 the economics of the day was Keynesian, which perpetually called for inflationary Fed policies, high taxes and loose government purse strings. Today the realm of economics has gone to Freidman, as most individuals understand the importance of less government spending, low taxes, and monetary policy that's both independent and focused on limited inflation. In 1956 the U.S. was still on the New Deal path to increased government economic intervention, which wouldn't abate until the late 1970's when deregulation began in earnest. In 1956 about a third of the U.S. workforce was unionized- today it's almost a tenth, and far less in the private sector. In 1956 the media was largely sympathetic to Communism ("a noble experiment" as many called it). In the UK, the Labour party was still officially for socializing the entire economy. Today, even leftists in the U.S. and UK acknowledge the importance of (relatively) free markets, even if they try to limit its extensive boundaries. In 1956, there were more Communists than people living in democracies. Now, not only is the situating reversing, but the biggest enthusiasts for capitalism are those living in ex-Communist countries. In 1956, the US still had a mandatory military draft. Today, even talking about a draft is taboo for most politicians (a crazy left winger or two being the exception). In 1956 the country faced far higher barriers to trade and capital flows, whereas today, the tarriff and subsidy rates for the majority of goods (excepting agriculture) have declined precipitously, as presidents from both parties have liberalized trade around the world for over two decades.

While it's imperative that knowledgable people such as yourself caution individuals against complacency when it comes to freedom, it's also proper to put things into perspective. I much prefer today's capitalism to the situation of over half a century ago. While Americans may have been more apt to espouse the rhetoric of freedom in the 50's, it rang hollow in the wake of actions that followed.

Post 4

Saturday, September 29, 2007 - 5:03am

Scott,

=========
In 1956 the top marginal tax bracket was 91%, compared to 35% today.
=========
Good point.

=========
In 1956 the economics of the day was Keynesian, which perpetually called for inflationary Fed policies, high taxes and loose government purse strings. Today the realm of economics has gone to Freidman, as most individuals understand the importance of less government spending, low taxes, and monetary policy that's both independent and focused on limited inflation.
=========
Bad point. At a time when apparently "most individuals understand" -- we've got inflationary Fed policies (>5%), tight government purse strings (more subsidies and no-bid contracts than ever before), and more government spending (now into the trillions).

=========
In 1956 the U.S. was still on the New Deal path to increased government economic intervention, which wouldn't abate until the late 1970's when deregulation began in earnest.
=========
Bad point. The elephant in the living room is health care. Just turn on your TV or open up a newspaper -- and you will see what I mean about "government economic intervention" being as big a problem today (if not bigger) than it was in 1956. It has become greater than a trillion-dollar-a-year issue.

=========
In 1956 about a third of the U.S. workforce was unionized- today it's almost a tenth, and far less in the private sector.
=========
Good point.

=========
In 1956 the media was largely sympathetic to Communism ("a noble experiment" as many called it). ... Today, even leftists in the U.S. and UK acknowledge the importance of (relatively) free markets, even if they try to limit its extensive boundaries.
=========
Bad point. This quote shows-off your relatively short lifespan on this planet. I also have a relatively short lifespan on this planet (I wasn't around in the 1950s, either) -- but I listen to those who were. The squeaky wheel gets the grease. Sooo ... what was there to squeak about in 1956? And what about now? ...

Inflation was less than 1%, overall aggregate tax was less than a third of income, and whole families were supported and sent off to college on the income of just a single worker. It wasn't perfect, but it was economically freer back then.

=========
In 1956, there were more Communists than people living in democracies. Now, not only is the situating reversing, but the biggest enthusiasts for capitalism are those living in ex-Communist countries.
=========
Pretty good point -- with some very crucial exceptions, such as the worldwide nationalization of health care, for example.

=========
In 1956, the US still had a mandatory military draft.
=========
Good point.

=========
... today, the tarriff and subsidy rates for the majority of goods (excepting agriculture) have declined precipitously, as presidents from both parties have liberalized trade around the world for over two decades.
=========
Too vague to be a good point. An easy hypothetical - where agriculture was 90% of the problem - points this out. Now, agriculture's problem not 90% of the problem, but this doesn't let you off the hook and allow you to make unsubstantiated claims like you did above. In order to make the claim that you did above, you have to marshall data (i.e., numbers).

=========
I much prefer today's capitalism to the situation of over half a century ago.
=========
Even if the capitalism was better back then? I understand that, because of technology, overall life is better now -- but your point here is seriously sinister (even if that was unintended). It's a point that Michael Moore or his ilk might make (because of how cunning they are).

=========
While Americans may have been more apt to espouse the rhetoric of freedom in the 50's, it rang hollow in the wake of actions that followed.
=========
What your words mean - whether intended or not - is that there has been a surge in freedom since the 1950's. I find that hard to demonstrate with numbers (and suspect that you'd fail, if you attempted to prove it).

I'd appreciate you trying to prove (with numbers) this, though.

Ed

Post 5

Saturday, September 29, 2007 - 7:37am

Unfortunately, we have suffered a decent into anarchy. Democracy has overthrown our founding documents, principles and purpose. Now, if enough people "want" it, they can have it; unfortunately mob rule has never produced a sustainable society.
Lady Justice was given a seeing-eye bigot so that rights of the individual could be based on color, gender and sexual preference; instead of giving every individual the same rights, like the documents prescribe.
And they had her put down the scale because facts don't matter anymore; so they don't need to be weighted. They just have her point. Parental "rights" go to the woman, "responsibilities" go to the man and village. For sexual or physical violence, the man is always guilty and the woman is never guilty. The employer is always wrong; employee always right. and on....
She also gets coffee breaks now. So that "sanctuary cities" can legislate violation of federal law.
We even elect those who promise to obstruct enforcement of those laws, KNOWING they will give us their sworn oath to "uphold and defend" our Constitution. Yep, they demonstrate their absolute dishonesty, just like they promised; and the majority is corrupt enough to vote for them.

I too miss America.

Post 6

Saturday, September 29, 2007 - 8:32pm

At least back in the 1950s there were small pockets of honest (if ignorant) Communists -- something impossible now. Another way to say this is that the "bar" has raised -- for moral evaluation. Now -- with a perspective on the matter so seriously superior to what it was in the 1950s -- ANY talk of a Greater Good (or anyone promoting one with their actions) is immoral.

Granted, this makes demons out of Liberal Democrats who, without exception (I believe), talk about and act toward Greater Goods. But this doesn't give Conservative Republicans a free pass, however. Indeed, Rand was harsher on them for a good reason.

The poison of Conservative Republicans -- if and when it is doled out, as it has definitely been under GW Bush (and Rand would rip him apart for what he's done) -- is more insidious, more destructive, than a more straightforward or outright poison which is foul to the nose and tongue. I suspect that this notion, or one strikingly similar, was running through the mind of L. Peikoff -- when he said that you couldn't simultaneously call yourself an Objectivist; and vote Republican in 2008..

There hasn't been a president who spoke so boldly of Liberty as GW Bush in 2 decades; there hasn't been a president as undermining of it, either. And we thought Clinton was a good liar. At least he merely tried hard to convince us to eat poison "for our own good" (rather than to go a step further and fully market that poison as our Ultimate Value).

Ed

Post 7

Sunday, September 30, 2007 - 6:03am

This column, below, that I wrote just when "What Free Country?" was posted, may be relevant to this discussion. I admit that I have no way to systematically compare the old days to the new when it comes to how well liberty is spreading. Certainly in eastern Europe there is great interest in liberty and, yes, in America too, on some fronts progress has indeed been made. Yet it seems also clear that consciousness of the fully free society is minimal and the entitlement mentality, along with risk-aversive thinking, is dominant.

Tibor

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

Power versus Precaution?

Tibor R. Machan

Over the last few years of following the debates about both anthropogenic global warming and what to do about terrorism, it is odd that neither lobby group tends to worry about the erosion of individual liberties. To put it differently, those who want to set up Draconian precautionary public policies to deal with global warming tend to be the ones who reject Draconian precautionary measures when it comes to dealing with terrorism—and vice-versa!. Why? Alarmists about the environment are willing to ignore individual rights, as do those worried about terrorism who tend also to scoff at fears that anti-terrorist hysteria will erode our liberties.

This is odd. If I am concerned about government eroding protection of individual rights, why would I not worry in both the above cases? Why would I not complain that environmentalists are undisturbed when their proposals pretty much mean government regimenting people’s lives inside and outside their homes—dictating to them when they may drive, how much, what fuel to use, how much to consume, etc., and so forth—when I do complain loudly that taking measures against the prospects of terrorism will curtain civil liberties—impose snooping, require getting federal ID cards and the rest? How come that the agendas of the environmentalists may bring upon us major restrictions of our liberties but the agendas of the anti-terrorist lobby may not—or vice-versa? After all, both limit our liberties in very substantial ways.

Once again the answer appears to be that Left and Right are both willing to make use of the power of government if it comes to advancing their own particular agenda; but they oppose using government when the other side wants to deploy it for its own. The one thing both neglect is a consistent concern about our right to liberty.

So, if global warming is to be dealt with, never mind the rights of individuals. It is more important to set up measures to cope with the possibility of environmental threats. Never mind that it isn’t even clear that global warming would be such a terrible thing—certainly it takes no rocket scientist to realize that many people in Siberia and Mongolia, for instance, may indeed welcome that prospect. As to terrorism, the main thing to fear from the terrorists is that they would bring about a religious dictatorship, conscript us all to follow their faith, kill or maim us if we resist. But if resisting terrorism promises something very similar—those who fail to comply with the policies that supposedly thwart the terrorists are going to be dealt with pretty harshly—then it seems that fighting terrorism promises to be nearly as bad as experiencing it.

In a genuine free country the official legal policy should be to solve problems without abridging the basic principles of the system. These principles are individual rights, supposedly unalienable even in times of emergency. So whatever precautions need to be taken to deal with one or another hazard, threat, or prospective calamity must be made to conform to those basic principles. This is probably most evident in how a free society deals with crime. Regardless of urgency, the rights of the accused may not be disregarded. Sure, now and then officials and some members of the public propose to do away with due process, habeas corpus, and so forth. But this tends to be widely resisted as well. Most people seem to appreciate that in a regime of individual liberty—in a free country, in other words—there must be vigilant resistance to compromising the basic principles of the system.

It would be very gratifying and refreshing if both those who worry about global warming and those concerned with terrorism would focus a good deal of their energy on how do deal with those problems without violating anyone’s rights. Then, perhaps, members of these groups could even gain some trust among the general population, trust that they aren’t more interested in gaining power over others than in solving the problems that seem to serve as the excuse for gaining that power.

Post 8

Sunday, September 30, 2007 - 3:11pm