The Middle Road's False Promise

I was having a conversation with a family member at Thanksgiving about ethics and how it related to television shows like House, Lie to Me and Flash Forward. The conversation was wide ranging and turned on the assessment that Bill Gates' and Warren Buffet's value systems were "good." Before this my family member was denouncing the excesses of "capitalism," specifically, its tendency to reward "greed." He conceded that socialism creates the moral dilemma of and for those who choose to be dependent.

I let him continue for a long stretch, uninterrupted, only asking questions for clarification. I love these conversations because my family member is a very intelligent man with a Ph.D. in theology from Vanderbilt. He is a man for whom I have great admiration. He had gone on about the greed and hoarding of capitalists. He then asked the question, "how much does one person need?"

It was at this point that he adjudged Bill Gates' and Warren Buffet's value systems to be "good" because they have decided to give away their fortunes, thereby doing good for others. I argued had they not done "good for others," that they would not have the money to give away but I had two questions, how did he define "capitalism" and were the value systems of Gates and Buffet "good" during their accumulation of wealth? I could have answered his question, how much is enough, in absolute terms; enough is when I have as much as Bill Gates and Warren Buffet (adjusted for inflation). However, by asking my questions instead of responding in absolute terms, I had just taken his queen and a rook without material loss.

Sensing the mortal nature of his wound, he began to stagger toward an approach that accounted for man's sinful nature through the mechanism of government but it was time to go to the movie. About 30 of the family members including my wife and I and 4 of our children went to see The Blind Side (my wife's family is from Memphis where most of the film's storyline took place). Sandra Bullock is in tremendous physical condition, by the way (whew)!

Here's the problem with the middle of the road approach my family member was limping toward. His principle objection to capitalism is the sinful nature of man. My parry is simple; why overlay a powerful government full of sinful men atop the free exchanges of sinful men? How is that better, when I can easily demonstrate why it's worse? Free market economies don't prevent fraud, negligence or willful misconduct but just as Christians aren't sinless and we have a remedy for our condition, there is a remedy for wrongdoing in the marketplace. In the case of Christians, it's accepting the sacrifice of Jesus for their sins (on this "black Friday" this is the best Good Friday deal ever, by the way!), for market participants, remedy and relief is available through courts. It's imperfect but pretty darn good. It is also in the best long term interest of market participants to act in good faith, lest they be punished by the market.

Most people would prefer to go along to get along and finding a middle path is appealing to many but in this case, it is just wrong. The middle path of government over-regulation and imposition on what should be free and informed transactions only leads to the removal of what Americans used to cherish most; freedom. It also limits our opportunities and hence our prosperity. Rather than maintaining a society with a tremendous amount of income mobility, it locks people in where they are and places a barrier in front of the ambitious. It also creates envy and division where none existed. The middle road is just a winding, slower road to the abyss of the left lane.

Thanksgiving Blessings!

Malcolm X and Climate Science

I say again, ya' been had! Ya' been took! Ya been hoodwinked! Bamboozled! Led astray! Run amok!

Obama's Court Gambit

The Obama administration's announcement that 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed will be tried in a New York traffic court, has conservatives screaming that he will go free. He won't go free. Here's the game.

Liberal activists want the prosecution of our effort against Islamism treated as criminal activity not as a military operation. A "successful" trial of Mohammed, resulting in his permanent incarceration (liberals and Islamist pacifiers won't allow him to be executed) will give them fodder to say that they got a good result.

What this does is one, begin to disengage the military; two, elevate the role of courts (a subtle point but one that shouldn't be missed) and 3, extend rights to jihadists that exceed those of citizens.

How Is This Different Than Obama's Agenda?

1. Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes.
2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.
3. Abolition of all rights of inheritance.
4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.
5. Centralisation of credit in the hands of the state, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly.
6. Centralisation of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the State.
7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the State; the bringing into cultivation of waste-lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.
8. Equal liability of all to work. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.
9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of all the distinction between town and country by a more equable distribution of the populace over the country.
10. Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children’s factory labour in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production

Congress Fiddles While Obama Burns America

Unemployment shot above 10%. The handpicked commander in Afghanistan asked for more boots on the ground and most understand we should either fight or get out. The printing press is being used to pay government obligations and Congress is trying to gain control of private health insurance?

I'll let you figure out why.