<Originally posted at damienmanier.com>

(Originally posted at damienmanier.com)

The Supreme Court case, National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) v. Jones and Laughlin Steel Corporation, a new precedent was established through which what remained of state power and sovereignty and individual rights would be trampled by the ever growing federal government. In this case, the NLRB charged Jones and Laughlin Steel Corporation (Defendants) with “unfair labor practices affecting interstate commerce” because they allegedly fired workers who chose to organize into a union.(1) The Circuit Court of Appeals found for the defendant and ruled that the order to cease “unfair labor practices” by the NLRB was unconstitutional. The Supreme Court heard the case and reversed the decision, marking a “dramatic departure…from a century and a half of precedent”(2) and putting another nail in the coffin of federalism.

In 1824, not long after the Constitution was written and adopted, the Court granted the federal government powers beyond the “narrowest definition” of the commerce clause, “to make regular” or “facilitate the free flow of goods, but not, except in cases of danger, to prohibit the flow of any good”(3); and instead adopted the position that the power granted by the commerce clause allowed congress to regulate interstate commerce in any manner it deems fit, limited only by “the political check of the voters.”(3) However, Chief Justice Marshall also made clear that since the framers of the Constitution felt the need to enumerate this specific power than there must be unenumerated power that was not granted and that “something, if we regard the language or the subject of the sentence, must be the exclusively internal commerce of the state.”(3) Following this decision, “Congress was relatively careful to limit its use of the commerce clause” to justify legislation. Until Franklin Roosevelt decided, in the midst of the Great Depression, to greatly expand federal government and its powers. This led to the Supreme Court striking down many of the laws he advocated as unconstitutional [Railroad Retirement Board v. Alton Railroad Co. (1935),A.L.A. Schechter Poultry Corp v. United States (1935), Carter v. Carter Coal Co. (1936)] All of these cases maintained most of the precedent set in the 1824 case. However, after Roosevelt politicized the Supreme Court’s decisions, comparing them to the very racist Dredd Scott decision, and threatening to pack the court with sympathetic judges the Court appears to have given in to the pressure in NLRB v. Jones and Laughlin Steel Corporation. In this decision, the Supreme Court held that Congress could now regulate intrastate activities that have a “close substantial relation to interstate commerce” making regulation “essential or appropriate to protect that commerce from burdens and obstructions.”(4) This ruling has led to almost limitless expansion of the federal government as almost any activity can be shewn to be related or connected to interstate commerce, as demonstrated in Wickard v. Filburn, where the federal government was able to regulate even home-grown wheat used by the grower themselves to feed themselves and their horses since they had they purchased the wheat it would be reflected in the national market and could therefore be regulated.

Congress’s power under the commerce clause has continue to expand ever since and has almost been upheld every time, with a couple of exceptions [United States v. Lopez (1995)]. This has destroyed the system of federalism that founding fathers intended.

1. http://www.lawnix.com/cases/nlrb-jones.html

2. United States v. Lopez (1995)

3. The Heritage Guide to the Constitution. Edited by Edwin Meese III. 2005.

4. Men in Black. Mark R. Levin. 2005.

Corporations are firms or companies (private, publicly traded, for profit, and/or non-profit) that agree to be regulated by certain rules, corporate law, that regulates the relationships and interactions of corporate management, shareholders/owners, employees, creditors and the government. Companies agree to these rules because they provided limited liabilities to all actual persons who are a part of the corporation by creating an artificial “person hood” status for the corporation and limiting the liabilities to that entity. The government also uses its state power to protect, from competition through tariffs and regulation, and subsidize these entities. In return, the government is able to manipulate the economy through few points, they can regulate the significantly fewer large corporations easier than they could coordinate and regulate different stores on every corner, and they will be working with voluntary and cooperative participants who want the continued benefits of state power. Understanding “corporate welfare” is a bit more complex since no one wants to claim to support such measures but nearly all political parties and platforms do in some form or another. In fact, the entire concept of the “corporation” is a form of corporate welfare, or redistributing wealth or interfering in the market on behalf of companies or firms. Support for corporate welfare is never described as such but almost the entire political class does support it in its more overt forms or it’s more subtle indirect forms. Libertarians, on the other hand, oppose all forms of corporate welfare when they are not being negligent or inconsistent with their principles.

The left supports several types of corporate welfare. The recent “Kelo” case involving eminent domain gave private lands to corporate interests and was decided by liberal judges. Also, many of the regulations that are supposedly done to restrict corporate actions are supported by the corporations themselves because it makes it more difficult for new competitors to enter the market. Roderick T. Long in an essay written for the Cato Institute, “Corporations versus the Market” wrote that , “the ability of colossal firms to exploit economies of scale is also limited in a free market…unless the state enables them to socialize these costs by immunizing them from competition- e.g., by imposing fees, licensure requirements, capitalisation requirements, and other regulatory burdens that disproportionately impact newer, poorer entrants as opposed to richer, more established firms.” (1)

The right also supports several types of corporate welfare, but they may be more dangerous since they shroud their policies in the cloak of the free market. For example, they advocate tax breaks for certain businesses or industries but “when a firm is exempted from taxes to which its competitors are subject, it becomes the beneficiary of state coercion directed against others, and to that extent owes its success to government intervention rather than market forces.” (1) The right’s use of privatization is often of a similar nature. In free market terminology privatization would be the removal of government and its influence from an industry but the right often uses it to mean a transfer of monopoly status over an industry to some contracted firm or corporation. Thus the monopoly status is maintained and the governments involvement and influence is still present.

The right and left both justify the more overt types of corporate welfare that they end up supporting, such as TARP and the bailouts of the auto and financial industry, as necessary evils. However, necessary evil is a contradiction as if something is necessary than it must be good and not evil. Here we can apply one of Ayn Rand’s famous quotes “Contradictions do not exist. Whenever you think you are facing a contradiction, check your premises. You will find that one of them is wrong.” (2) In this case, either the bailouts were necessary and good, having a positive effect, while the principle that labeled them evil must be ill founded or the principle that makes such bailouts evil is correct and they were not in fact necessary. The contradiction should force us to check the two premises “necessary” and “evil” and see which one is wrong.

Libertarians, and the position I support, holds that all corporate welfare is wrong. The current “conflation” of corporatism and capitalism is especially dangerous since it rallies and multiplies the opponents of free markets who somehow see them tied to pro-corporate policies and also allows statist policies to be sold under the mantle of the free market. The current failures of “capitalism” and the “free market” are really only failures of the current system which is often labeled capitalism but is only one step away from socialism. In socialism, the state owns industry but in our current system, often labeled capitalism, the states of privatized profits and socialized costs in exchange for regulation and influencing willing participants and created corporatism which should not be confused with real capitalism or free markets.

1. http://www.cato-unbound.org/2008/11/10/roderick-long/corporations-versus-the-market-or-whip-conflation-now/
2. http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/a/ayn_rand.html/ The quote is also found in her novel, “Atlas Shrugged.”

Another good article I read while doing my research, but did not have room to include in my post was:
http://97.74.65.51/readArticle.aspx?ARTID=22594/ An article in FrontPageMag.com

UPDATE: Made some semantic changes to essay. Changed Pure A Priori to Pure A Priori thought process. Also, gave new definition of a priori in terms section. Real content of essay unchanged but wanted to prevent semantics from being a diversion.

The following essay is in response to recent conversations that I have had. I have kept in fairly general so it can be understood outside of the context of those conversations. However, I plan to follow up with a short essay more specifically addressing some of the topics of the conversation with context provided. I will also post any responses from the opposing parties on this topic. The available formats for viewing the essay are after the break.

html

doc

National Security issues and particularly warfare are issues I am currently struggling with. I have moved from very right wing (social conservative, fiscal conservative, national security hawk) to more libertarian views on most issues. However, I have found it difficult to get behind most libertarians when it comes to foreign policy and issues of National Security. I am currently exploring their arguments to see if I can be convinced and since libertarians, specially Austrian economists, have a pretty strong record of being right it is a strong possibility. In the mean time, here is an essay I wrote regarding threats to National Security in a globalized world. The insights are still applicable even if you may disagree with the policies I advocated at the time I wrote it. Once I’ve done more research into these topics in general I hope to revisit this essay and provide updates. I would also appreciate lessons learned from others’ reasearch. Just send insights on these issues or comments on this essay to me through the Contact button on the menu bar. The Essay is after the break in both HTML and Wor DOC formats. Enjoy.

html

doc

[DDET Healthcare] This is an issue that I am currently researching. The topic is very complex as there are many player and interconnected parts. I am definitely against a single payer (taxpayer/government) system due to it being a direct threat to freedom and a gaurantee of inefficiency. How will people stand up to a government that they depend on for life saving treatments and vaccinations for their children and what government record are people looking to make themselves believe that something as complex as healthcare for a country can be centrally controlled and run by the government.[/DDET]

[DDET Social Security]  Currently I have to take a pretty unpopular stance on Social Security. I believe that it was intended (right or wrong) as a temporary fix to help the elderly during the great depression. However, that time has come and gone and Social Security has become the greatest example how something sold as a temporary fix to a crisis becomes a permanent entitlement with far reaching consequences and infinite potential for expansion. We can see this in the fact that Social Security not only is used as a retirement supplement for the elderly but is the sole income for some and has been expanded to cover the disabled and children of deceased citizens until they turn 18 (sometimes 21 if the continue going to school.) The government can never be trusted to limit itself and social security displays all that is wrong with entitlements.[/DDET]

[DDET Taxes] I have been avid supporter of the Fair Tax (all federal taxes, except excise taxes, replaced by a national sales tax) since I first learned about it. Many issues could be helped with this system of taxation and it would bring much needed transparency to the cost of government. It would be good for American business and the American financial system. While I can see the arguments of libertarians about eliminating all taxes (except possible “voluntary taxes”) I don’t believe America is prepared for that bold a step and I would be very pleased with this large step in the right direction.[/DDET]

[DDET War] I don’t think anyone would consider themselves pro-war, I am not in favor of war for the sake of war or for the confiscation of resources (land, treasure, people or power). However, I am currently in favor of military action up to and including war for the sake of protecting our National Security, which includes protecting our way of life. I believe that we are still at a point in civilization where military force has to be used to stop tyranny and other forces acting against the interests of the people of the United States. However, I am currently looking into the idea that more is lost than gained by the exercise of military force or projection. If I discover that the Cons outweigh the Pros when it comes to the interests of the people of this country I would whole heartedly change my position of support for military force.[/DDET]

[DDET Electoral College] This is an issue I have not been able to come to a firm conclusion on. Currently I am leaning towards the category of opposing the Electoral College. Most of the original arguments for the Electoral College seem to be outdated and I have found several arguments against. I am actually in favor of fairly radical (in today’s status quo political environment) change in much of the structure of government.[/DDET]

[DDET Federalism] One of the greatest political tragedies of American history has been the overwhelming centralization of power in the federal government. From the very beginning this was the debate that caused the founders to fracture into parties and it is only natural that the central governing body will always try to grab more and more power but the check against it was supposed to be the states acting in their self interests to protect and cling to that power for themselves. Somewhere along the line the states rolled over or sold out and that is a trend that needs to be reversed. Diversity between the states is what allows people and business to vote with their feet moving where the laws are most friendly to them. When all blurs together and all laws are basically handed down from the federal government there can be no competition between the states or experimentation to find the best new ideas. Each voice of the people also becomes less and less heard as they are drowned out by the larger and larger masses ruled by an ever more centralized government.[/DDET]

[DDET Constitution] I am a strict constructionist when it comes to the Constitution. It should be interpreted as its writers intended to include each ammendment. The Constitution can be a living document without judicial activism in its interpretation. The founders included a way for the Constitution to adapt to modern times throught the amendment process. The difficulty of this process was intentional in order to limit the power of government, since it makes that laws that governs itself a fairly rigid document that needs the concurrence of competing powers is required to provide that limitation and shouldn’t be circumvented by a handful of judges.[/DDET]

[DDET Immigration] I support a policy that makes it much easier to come to this country to work, go to school or even live. At the same time I advocate much stricter standards for citizenship. I have not been able to do enough research to see exactly what standards I would ask be required but I am sure that in order to protect the integrity of our political system, to maintain an American culture and promote integration into society stricter standards are absolutely necessary. As to how much easier I believe it should be to enter this country, the only standard I would apply is a direct threat to the security of the country or the residents of the country. I do not mean a perceived threat to jobs or things of that nature but a national security threat or a criminal record. This freer flow of immigration would be much easier for people to support, however, if they did not fear that the influx of immigrants would be added burden due to the ever growing welfare state. Also, my way of dealing with illegal immigrant already in this country would be to grant them permanent status, we would then be aware of who is in our country and the would be recognized and not forced to live in the shadows. However, I would put limits on their status so that they could not become citizens unless they returned to their homecountry, without penalty, and re-entered the US legally behind everyone else who is waiting. They also would not ever be allowed to sponsor family members or other immigrants unless they returned to their home country first and entered legally. This would basically continue the status quo as far as their established lives, they currently can not sponsor relatives or become citizens, with the benefit of giving them basic rights and registering them in our systems so that they are accounted for; and it would alleviate fears of exponential growth in immigrants due to chain immigration after they are legalized and the culture shock of an addition of that number of immigrant citizens.[/DDET]

[DDET Education] I am a strong advocate of school vouchers. I have found that an educated society has many spillover benefits and thus is one of the few items that I believe the government justifiably can fund. However, I do not trust the government to run our education. There is a conflict of iterest there in that young minds being shaped by those in power is a very dangerous thing. Also, the “common experience” “one size fits all” philosophy behind the public school system is a fails to achieve the goals that most citizens and parents see for schools: to instill children with knowledge and skills that will benefit them. Also, when choice is stifled and parents are compelled to send their kids to public school, usually not even able to choose which public school, it creates an environment where parents are either forced to accept someone else’s views, ideas and educating methodology, or to force their views on someone else’s kid. This has led to the great controversies in education that could have been largely avoided if parents had more choice and were able to more freely send their kids to schools they didn’t object to.[/DDET]

[DDET Globalization] While I may disagree with Thomas Friedman on many issues, I did find his books “The Lexus and the Olive Tree” and “The World is Flat” pretty useful. The conclusion he came to was that it doesn’t matter if we agree with globalization or because it’s happening. To ask if you agree with globalization would be like asking if you agree with the sun coming up in the morning…it’s going to happen regardless. The question is how do we live and adjust our views to fit that of a globalized world economy. We should recognize the new interconnectedness of not only countries but of issues. The economy is now directly connected to national security and our domestic politics are watched by countries around the world. Individuals can now do what only countries could do decades ago, moving large amounts of goods around the globe, conducting foreign policy, conducting business in several countries from their home or office.[/DDET]

[DDET Death Penalty] While reserved for heinous crimes like murder I agree with the Death Penalty. Even if I found some philosophical objection to it, it still wouldn’t bother me that a murderer or serial killer gets executed. It weighs zero on my conscience.[/DDET]

[DDET Abortion] In my personal life and personal advice I am against abortion. I think the debate is skewed and that I do not think there is a pro-life and a pro-death side of the issue or a pro-choice and anti-choice side of the issue but that there are those who believe that at some point during the pregnancy, some as early as conception, that a person exists. There are others who believe that it is only a clump of cells or some sort of animal or non-person fetus (I admit I am not sure what they classify it as, but I am giving them the benefit of doubt in my mind that they do not believe it is a person they are killing.) If there is a person in the womb then that person has rights including the right to life. If it is not a person then its rights are far less defined but I do not think that anyone can claim that it is not a living organism that is being killed in the abortion process. That is where I think the debate lies, in the personhood of the baby or fetus and when it becomes a person. Not about women’s rights. If it is not a person, I think few would object to a woman’s choice, but if you believe it is a person it can not be expected that you would sacrifice that person’s life for the convenience, career, plans, or even psychological trauma of the mother. Unless the life of the mother is in danger, I do not currently believe abortion is right.[/DDET]

[DDET Global Warming] Anthropological global warming is a religion loosely veiled in science. The motivation for this fraud is great due to the huge sums of government money pouring in to finance it and the agenda of those pushing the theory is clearly anti-business and anti-capitalist. The deceit and misinformation that I have found prevalent in the science and theories in global warming has led me to believe that this is not just an incorrect theory but intentional misleading of people to make them act against their true self-interests and probably the greatest fraud in my lifetime. This politicized science, when finally exposed, will hurt the credibility of the scientific community for years to come and that is unfortunate.[/DDET]

[DDET Gay Marriage] Frankly, if government got out of the marriage business: did not make tax laws, entitlements, legal recognition; then this would be a non-issue. However, gay marriage advocates are naive if they believe they can force acceptance on society or individuals. The government definitely should not prevent gay couples from living together, leaving eachother in their wills, granting eachother medical power of attorney, visiting as family in hosipitals; those should all be individual choices beyond the scope of government control regardless of who is chosen. At the same time, churches who do not recognize gay marriage should not have to perform the ceremony or allow one to take place in their building, employers who do not recognize gay marriage should not have to include the spouse on insurance plans or other benefits and employers who do recognize gay marriage shouldn’t have wait for the government to provide those benefits. If the government is not involved in the issue it will not give everyone what they want but it will provide everyone the choice of acting according to their own conscience.[/DDET]

[DDET Right to Bear Arms] I believe the second ammendment is clear in the right to bear arms as individual citizens. There is little more I can say about the issue because I can not see where the debate is. As to regulations on selling and buying weapons, it does not bother me that there is a holding period, ID verification, and check in a federal registry to prevent the sell of weapons to felons or people with certain mental conditions.[/DDET]

[DDET Global Aid] The idea of the “Millenium Fund” of President Bush and of certain policies in regard to Foreign Aid under Reagan would be acceptable if pursued more strictly and across the board. A country should not just give away money to failing nations. They should tie that aid to reforms or to actions that are in the giving country’s interests. Otherwise nothing changes and the root problems that caused a country to need the aid remain. This does not necessarily apply to emergency aid due to natural disasters like the Tsunami in Indonesia and South Asia or even aid to the victims of genocide or oppression by their governments, but to the “lending” or providing of treasure and aid directly to governments.[/DDET]

[DDET UN] The League of Nations and the UN are both failures in much of their goals. This is because most of the participating recognize and act in their own self interests and try to use the body to advance their own agendas. I do not blame them for this because it is the natural and right thing to do. However, we should not kid ourselves that the UN is some higher body trying to do the greater good. The UN is also very ineffectual due to the VERY different and often opposing agendas of the permanent council. It was George Washington who warned against permanent alliances. The US should make foreign policy based on what is in its interests and let those join who agree and consider the consequences of going against those who disagree and then take action with the US government being the one who decides not an international body unelected by the American people. The UN can be a place where ideas are discussed among countries but should have no binding power over sovereign nations.[/DDET]

[DDET Affirmative Action] I am too young to have lived through the Civil Rights Era so I will not speak as to whether Affirmative Action was a justified policy at one time or not. However, I do believe that it has outlived any usefulness or justification it might have had. People should be given jobs based on merit, experience, and need not the color of their skin. Not hiring someone because they are white is just as racist as not hiring them because they are a minority. Issues like this do not cause greater acceptance between races but cause greater division and resentment.[/DDET]

[DDET Intellectual Property Rights] Recently I have began to look into the idea of IP. Where only a few months ago I would have defended IP as being nearly as sacred as property rights themselves. However, with recent research it would appear that copyright and patents have done considerably more harm than good. This may be simply due to the fact that they are abused and last for much too long a time. Further research is necessary but it would appear that history supports the argument that innonvation still thrives with out IP and that in fact copyrights and patents, through the monopolies they create, are what stifle innovation.[/DDET]

[DDET Eminent Domain] Property rights are one of the foundational cornerstones of a free society. The taking of land from one private citizen and giving it to another private citizen is fundamentally wrong and should never be allowed. Actions of that nature should be met with great outrage from citizens because they could be next. I am not sure if I would make exception for eminent domain for the purpose of building roads and other government infrastructure but that would definitely be more tolerable than current uses of eminent domain laws.[/DDET]

[DDET Drugs] Like most issues that involve “personal choice” I do not care if someone uses drugs as long as I am not expected to pay, through taxes, their medical bills from either long term damage or emergency room visits, their food, their rent or their unemployment. It is only when people’s poor choices beome a burden on that I find it acceptable to regulate such behavior. However, employers, to include the government, should be allowed to maintain their own standards on drug use and hire and fire based off those standards. The Drug war is a huge waste of money and time from what I can tell.[/DDET]

[DDET Unions] The theoretical union that is usually presented in arguments, that protects workers from unsafe and inhumane working conditions and helps the every day Joe stand up to an abusive employer does not bother me. In fact, if unions were simply the voluntary organizing of workers to negotiate with an employer, based on what they both offer eachother, and nothing else I probably would not have a problem with them. However, unions do not focus on negotiating with employers but instead lobby congress and the government to force employers to meet their demands. This is wrong. An employer should be able to hire or fire anyone he wants for any reason…its his money and his business. If an employer is acting unfairly or oppressively it is up to the employees to take a stand on behalf of their coworkers or their own rights and if they offer value to the employer then the employer will have to negotiate or suffer the consequences, or they can be held to account by the consumers of their product or services who do not want to support such practices, which can be used by competitors to draw the market away from bad actors due to a poor public image. The government’s role should be limited to enforcing legal contracts and that is it. If unions would stick to this more fundamental role they actually have a positive effect. Also, there does not need to be an ever present union collecting dues from employees whose survival dempends on constantly convincing their members they should not be satisfied with their current status. Unions live in a paradox that if they are successful in implementing good work conditions they are no longer needed and must therefore act against their self interest to fulfill their promises and only a naive person could believe they act against their self interest.[/DDET]

[DDET Torture] I do not believe we should torture people. However, in the recent debates on torture that term has been applied very loosely. The literature put out by human rights groups claiming that the US is using torture, for example, classify the following into that category: standing for long periods of time; playing loud music; having dogs present at interrogations; females shaving the beards of muslim men; and waterboarding. If these things are going to be classified as torture then I have to rethink my position. I do not find discomfort or cultural insensitivity to be torture. As for waterboarding, if out interrogators can go through it for their training then a few, three reported instances of its use, terrorists with vital information that can save American lives can be exposed to it as well. There has been no reported permanent physical damage from the practice and like the Death Penalty, even if I could find philosophical objections to the rare use of waterboarding it would not bother my conscience that it happened to men like Khalid Sheik Mohammed.[/DDET]

[DDET Stemcell] I have not firmly decided where I think life begins and could not say for sure if I find the use of embryonic stem cells morally wrong. I do think it is wrong to use stem cells from aborted fetuses or any embryos that were not specifically created in a lab for this purpose. It would also be better to use alternatives such as umbilical stem cells and adult stem cells if possible to avoid the possible ethical challenges. As far as government funding goes, the amount is most likely small compared to the overall budget of the research and if people truly believe in the potential of stemcells there should be plenty of people willing to support its research so that federal funding is not necessary.[/DDET]

[DDET Monetary policy] I support a 100% banking system as opposed to a fractional reserve banking system. There are also great arguments to return to a commodity money as opposed to fiat money. I agree with these arguments in principle but have not yet become convinced of a method of this return that would not have grave short term consequences. Theoretically, the benefits of commodity money could be mostly realized with fiat money if the government was prohibited from artificially growing money by use of the printing press and were only allowed to print money to replace DESTROYED old currency. Another benefit of commodity money is that it was an international standard and so minimized the effects of currency trading and sabotage on nations’ currencies. If an international fiat money was adopted that could not be printed for any reason other than replacing retired currency then I think many of the benefits of commodity money would be realized. At the same time, I do not expect that government, especially international institutions, can live up to the standards or be trusted not to manipulate currency that is under their control.[/DDET]

[DDET Religion] After a long journey looking for what I truly believe I have found the ideas of Deism. I would consider myself a positive deist and have no reason to disparage the faiths of others if it is providing them happiness, strenght and a solid moral ground that does not lead to them harming those around them. I hope to write more in the future on my personal understanding of Deism and the path that led me to it.[/DDET]

[DDET Evolution] There is no argument that living things adapt to their environments and that mathematically speaking those that adapt the best are most likely to survive and pass those traits along. However, from the research I’ve done, which admittedly is not extensive but probably more than average, I have not been convinced of Darwinism or Macroevolution. There appears to be some flawed logic and ample opportunity for logical fallacies and philosophical agendas to drive the conclusions of Darwinism. Currently, I do not believe that life was created by chance in the form of RNA, protein, single celled organism or some even simpler variant of life yet to be discovered that evolved into all the life that exists today. The more we study the more we see that even the most simple organisms are more complex then we could have imagined which makes macroevolution even more unlikely. I do not have a religious agenda against evolution, if it were proved it would have no effect on beliefs. I just do not find the arguments for it compelling.[/DDET]

[DDET Individualism] Individualism, free-will and human reason are probably the cornerstones of my entire philosophy. Free-will is a topic that I waste little time debating, the arguments are usuall circular, but accept as inherently true. I am very aware of the limitations of human reason but do not accept the skeptic’s view that we should accept nothing as true because of these limitations. The limitations should be recognized but we should act on what our reason tells us. Individualism and social evolution are what provide the safegaurd and advance human reason as poor or incorrect reasoning will be weeded out as more successful reasoning becomes more prevalent. The idea is similar to that of biological evolution that as people adapt the ones who are most successful are most likely to be the ones whose ideas are accepted or spread. The probability of discovering the best ideas is exponentially greater when individuals are free to pursue their own reasoning as opposed to a collective society where new ideas stifled because by their very nature they are not accepted by the majority or only the ideas of one person or organization are tried and so the likelihood of finding the best idea is greatly reduced as only one idea out of infinite ideas are being tried.[/DDET]

In “Human Action” Ludwig Von Mises explains human nature or human action as being the result of social evolution that began with the very basic need of survival. Modern society is also the result of the evolutionary process beginning with the most primitive forms of the division of labor which even Marx appears to recognize. “In every society…we find a particular mode of cooperation, corresponding to a particular level of echnological development, in which different productive tasks are relegated to different people. The most basic form of the division of labor…is that manifested in the sexual act. It takes two people each performing a unique role to produce a third.  Almost as basic is what Marx calls the “spontaneous” division of labor found in very technologically primitive societies. Here different tasks are assigned on the basis of natural or biological attributes. The stronger will become the hunters, the weaker food gatherers, and so forth.” (Text, 329) However, this seems to imply that society created the division of labor instead of the division creating society. This is why Marx is apt to conclude that society and “for the benefit” of society are and should be the primary motivators of men. The truth, however, is that men formed societies out of self-interest, a motivation evolved from the very basic instinct of survival. If this is in fact true the idea of communism nearly crumbles from this false assumption alone.

Another fatal flaw to communism is Marx’s misperception of economics. Marx posits a theory that “asserts that the market or exchange value of any commodity is the amount of labor embodied in it.” (Text, 335) However, history and modern economics have proved that labor is not necessarily what determines the value of a good or service but rather supply and demand. Demand being the subjective value placed on a good or service by those who would purchase it, the price they are willing to pay, as well as the number who wish to receive said product or service. Supply is simply the availability of the product or service. Supply and demand are what determine price which is what determines the allocation of property, not necessarily the amount of labor. Value has always been subjective to the individual and so is hard to incorporate into a general philosophy. The text also makes the following claim in reference to objections to Marxism or communism: One “objection implicitly assumes a condition of scarcity in which well-being, even survival, depends upon the ceaseless struggle to acquire more. Such a condition will not exist in a communist society.” (Text, 347) The very nature of economics is the assumption of a “condition of scarcity” based on finite resources. If communism somehow provides infinite resources and eliminates the concept of “scarcity” then it may very well work. A third economic problem with Marxism is the doing away with “specializations”, which are generally recognized as drastically increasing the efficiency, in a communist society. “In Marx’s words, communism ‘makes it possible for me to do one thing today and another tomorrow, to hunt in the morning, to fish in the afternoon, rear cattle in the evening, criticize after dinner, just as I have a mind, without ever becoming hunter, fisherman, shepherd, or critic.’” (Text, 346) Without experts or specialists progress will be much more difficult to obtain and quality and innovation will almost certainly suffer. More advanced fields that take years of extensive training to master will all but fade away. For this the suggestion appears to keep some specialists but with the following caveat: “The specialist need not acquire more than others simply because he or she performs a highly skilled function.” (Text, 347) However, if a man could receive the same benefits from doing a task that can be learned in a day and requires significantly less effort to perform why would he spend much of his life studying and expend vast amounts of energy to perform a more specialized task. Marx claims the man would because it would benefit society and he would have no desire to receive more for his increased efforts. This, however, defies common sense and the burden of proof that such a consciousness can be achieved is on those who defy common sense with their theories and speculations.

Marx recognized that his ideas were contradictory to common sense or what he called consciousness so he claimed that the current consciousness was based on false perceptions and that his ideas would both require and cause “the transformation of social consciousness.” (Text, 348) While it may true that reality both forms the consciousness and is formed by it or that the actions of man are determined both by nature or the environment as well as man himself; the transformation of social consciousness is not likely to occur abruptly through revolution but gradually through evolution. That is why even if it were some day possible for leadership to lead solely “at the behest of the whole community” and that their “relations with others will be cooperative rather than conflictual” it is not according to the current consciousness and that will not change through any sort of revolution.

The evidence that Marx’s philosophy is incompatible with today’s social consciousness is through his own standard of praxis or practical application of his theories. Those who have claimed to be Marxists have failed to achieve anything remotely similar to that posited by Marx and “the failure of the proletariat…may be interpreted as a failure of Marx’s theoretical analysis of capitalism and, by extension, of the whole philosophy of historical materialism upon which it rests.” (Text, 351) Some may claim it is because the principles were never properly applied but the reason they were never properly applied is because they are incompatible with the nature of man in his current state of evolution. I can not say whether or not the nature of man will ever be compatible with communism or if it will ever be a viable philosophy. However, if it is in our future of social evolution it is more likely to occur as the Marxists who hold the classical view of Marxism insist…after capitalism has “become a worldwide phenomenon.” (Text, 354) Even then it will happen gradually and not through revolution.

Note: This essay was written for a college class. The source “Text” used in the citations refers to:
Nelson, Brian R. Wester Political Though: From Socrates to the Age of Ideology. 2nd Edition
Prentice Hall. New Jersey: 1996.

In order to effectively reform education every aspect of education must be questioned, including why the government funds education in the first place. Education has what Milton Friedman in “Capitalism and Freedom” describes as “neighborhood effects” (86), meaning that it benefits society as a whole and since the beneficiaries of education can not all be charged individually in any practical way the government collects taxes and pays on their behalf.  Following this logic Frederick Hess in “Common Sense School Reform” writes that it is evident that the purpose of the public funds are to educate children, thus indirectly benefiting all of society, not to necessarily support a public school system (92). If education of children is the primary goal towards which public funds should flow then education reform should reflect this.

Federalism is a part of American history and a philosophy the forefathers intended to be used, according to the Amendment X of the constitution, when contemplating issues such as education reform. Federalism is the philosophy that decentralizes power, lessening the influence of the federal government and giving power to the individual states. With this in mind, any education reforms should be implemented on a state by state basis with each state adapting or modifying the reforms to reflect the needs of that particular state. However, a voucher system, that forced public funds to follow the children to the schools of their parents’ choosing, and creating a competitive environment that encouraged accountability and flexibility while at the same time providing an incentive for the creation of specialized schools that would meet the diverse needs of America’s children, would be a good basis for each state to begin their respective education reforms….

html

doc