Yelling "Stop"

Crossposted at Right Minds

As Barack Obama begins his occupancy of the White House, conservatives are rallying around and attempting to heed William F. Buckley’s example and “stand athwart history yelling ‘stop’.” They are seeking to stop Obama from instituting a sort of European style quasisocialism, and to prevent liberal style collectivist values from becoming entrenched in law.

That’s a worthy goal. But also one that is, in the long run, futile. Eventually, leftism must prevail. Conservatism as we know it cannot hold it back forever.

The reason for this is that all (or virtually all; the exceptions are few enough to be ignored) people do believe that greed is good. People want money: the most money for the least amount of work. And it is a whole lot easier to just vote yourself money instead of going to all the trouble to work for it. That explains why government programs are so popular. They might not be particularly efficient. But it is quite often more efficient to get an inferior product for free than to have to pay for a superior one.

(And yes, government programs are free. Unless you happen to be in the top, say, five percent of wage earners, you’re probably not paying for any significant chunk of government aid. The wealthiest one percent alone account for about a third of tax revenues—the average taxpayer’s dollars are a drop in the bucket).

The history of the United States bears this fact out. The Founding Fathers were the quintessential small-government libertarians—they were afraid that giving the federal government an army would give it too much power. So they designed a government to make it nearly impossible for the federal government to get too much control.

The Articles of Confederation didn’t work so well. So they tried again, and gave the federal government a bit more power with the Constitution. Although the federal government had much more power under the new model, it was still pretty limited. But as soon as it was enacted, the federal government started growing. In the beginning, the federal government didn’t even have a navy. Next thing you know, it’s fighting the Barbary pirates and starting a national bank and regulating commerce and ratifying the Fourteenth Amendment and declaring a military draft and the next thing you know, the Great Depression starts. And then government really took off.

During the Depression, the government started managing the economy and retirement. And to pay for all that, it raised tax rates to a nigh-confiscatory level (especially after World War II). Then came the Great Society, where the federal government set its eye on eradicating poverty, and set about reforming healthcare. And then…you get the idea.

The point of all this is that all of these expansions of government were driven by one common factor: the will of the voters. The common people wanted a national bank, and Social Security, and Medicare. These things weren’t forced on them overnight—people asked for them. The most popular presidents have been those who expanded government the most. (Hebert Hoover and Calvin Coolidge are not remembered as particularly good presidents. Teddy and Franklin Roosevelt are. Guess which ones expanded government more.) Big government is a key tenet of liberalism—but is driven by the demands of the common man.

And no one wants to lose anything coming to him. That’s why conservatives have been so completely incapable of rolling back any welfare programs. The people want their free money—and they won’t stand for anyone taking it from them.

Most people, nowadays, assume that democracy is the perfect form of government and to suggest otherwise is simple lunacy. (Personally, I agree with Winston Churchill: democracy is the worst form of government—except for all the others). But many philosophers have pointed out that in a democracy, there is little or nothing to prevent the people from voting themselves whatever they wish. And that is a weakness of democracy—the American democratic experiment is a perfect example of this.

Conservatism has been defined as “standing athwart history yelling ‘stop’”. But history doesn’t stop. It is possible to slow it down—conservatives have done an excellent job of doing so over the past half century. But in the end, all their efforts are ultimately doomed to failure.  

5
Your rating: None Average: 5 (1 vote)

Comments

can you cite me a source for that

"third of tax revenues"?

It's been my experience that those high wage/investment earners are notorious tax cheats (yes, some loopholes exist in the law, like munibonds).

data

http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-soi/05in04tr.xls

For tax year 2005, people who had an AGI of over $500,000 constituted 1% of the returns filed but paid 32% of the income taxes.

Generally correct but....

43's expansion of government hasn't won him much adulation.   Conservatives will someday have to resolve the contradiction in their worship of non elite folksy values and the assertion above that these same people are too self serving to deserve principled government.

Actually it depends on who your listening too.......

Because a quick search of the net shows that

The wealthiest 1 percent? According to IRS figures, these people pay an average personal income tax of 27 percent.

Last year alone I paid 29 percent and I am nowhere near the wealhiest 1 percent. While the "Poor". those making under 39 thousand only 5.4 percent, I think they might be happy to trade places with those wealthy and pay 27%.

I am not in favor of giving, giving and giving to the poor but we have to be honest about reality. Our inability to do so has gotten us to the worst place in history for this party.

Taxes

Actually, I understated the proportion of taxes the rich have to pay. It's closer to 39%. Source

And BulldogsRule, note that I said that the rich account for about a third of tax revenues, not that their tax rate is 33%.

Redistribution of wealth, the other way.

I'm not sure why conservatives can't see what is blatantly obvious if you think about it. Wealth is created only through the labor of people. If nobody works at Microsoft, Bill Gates gets no additional wealth, except investment interest. And even interest is only possible because someone somewhere is working to make it possible in a company where Gate's dollars are invested.

Gates is one very talented man, and deserves to get renumerated adequately for his work. But his income is orders of magnitude above that "fair" renumeration. Why? Because he has a contract with thousands of other workers to compensate them a given amount in exchange for their work. Their work is worth far more than he pays them. But they have all agreed the arrangement is "fair". The excess is Bill's to keep, because of the work contract they have all agreed to. So wealth has been redistributed by mutual agreement from the workers to Bill who is definately in the top 1%.

But there is also a social contract administered by the government that is on some level guided by the will of the voters. In a democracy, (we actually have a republic, but close enough) the people do indeed vote to get "free stuff." If the rich end up paying the bulk of the cost for the "free stuff", they do so with dollars that were redistributed to them from the work of the less rich. So now the wealth associated with work is flowing back to it's origin (the worker) through another contract, the social contract.

Just as Bill's workers are free to quit and get out of their employment contract, Bill is free to leave the US and get out of his social contract. If both choose not to do so, they are happy with the terms of their two contracts and their surroundings at Microsoft in the US. Both contracts are equally neccesary and valid. But for some reason conservatives venerate the first one and can't see the latter.

social contract

Oh we Republicans don't reject a social contract.  We just reject the Rousseauian version of it.  Plus, we also reject socialist ideas like the labor theory of value.

what is your version of a social contract?

... and what in sam hill is the labor theory of value?

social contract

The labor theory of value is, in brief, the idea that if a widget sells for $10 but the workers making a widget were only paid $8, then the workers were ripped off for $2.  You can understand why Marxists love this idea.

And centerfire's objections notwithstanding, my idea of a social contract is that government's overarching purpose is to preserve individual liberty, and in return I agree to fund those institutions which assist in preserving individual liberty.  Really, that's it.

What a bunch of crap.

The reason many of us on the right "can't see" the latter is because there's no such thing as a "social contract".  Locke was right about many things, but not this one: the very idea that the relationship between citizens and the state can be described in contractual terms is utterly absurd, given the complete absence of a process of offer and acceptance, the fact that any acceptance that could be given is entirely vitiated by the extreme duress ("Do as we want or get the fuck out!  Even if you do, though, we'll steal a bunch of your shit on the way out the door, and keep trying to steal from you for another 5 to 10 years.") the state imposes on individuals, and the lack of any legitimate consideration given by the state.

The "social contract" is a rationalization for authoritarians suffering from cognitive dissonance.  That's all.

 

Another weird success story.

I still think an individual indeed has options when it comes to accepting a social contract. I can give a very strange example. The late Paul Newman made millions acting in movies. Given that they were made over the course of five decades he paid very different tax rates on his income. In the 60's it was probably close to 75%, in the eighties closer to 25%.

The point is, he chose to make them at any given salary point he could get the studio to agree to. His skills cost him nothing as raw materials, and at some very early point in his career he was surely fixed for life, and making movies is pretty enjoyable work. So he could have made the movies for a couple of hundred or even one dollar if he chose to, and paid much lower taxes. He chose to hold out for the big bucks and pay the top rate. Good choice.

But, he probably never paid a dime of income tax from the billions of salad dressings and other foods he sold with his face on them. Because he chose to make no profit from his face and his recipes. After expenses it all went to charity. Again Paul made a choice associated with the social contract. He could have pledged 50% of profits to charity and still sold buttloads of dressing and made oodles of money for himself. And then paid the taxes on the profits he took. He worked for free instead of for top dollar. Again, a nice choice.

Granted Newman's case is far from business as usual. But it does illustrate that we always have the choice to buck the herd, say screw you to Adam Smith, and write our own version of the social contract. Nun's do it everyday.

Finally, something we can agree on!

Absolutely - let's all write our own social contract.  This is what me and other libertarian-minded conservatives have wanted for years.  If Paul Newman wants to give away all his money to the poor - good for him.  If I want to keep every single nickel of my earnings and hoard it away under my mattress like the fat cat capitalist pig bastard that I am, then I should be allowed to do that too.  The problem arises when busybodies think that my contract doesn't meet their standards and want to change it.  Invariably these busybodies are liberals.

nah, that'd be fine.

you'd get hit with tax evasion if you weren't so much of a miser, though.

Yes, screw you Adam Smith.

Screw the innate necessity of pursuing ones own interests!  Screw Adam Smith and his connection between prosperity, capitalism, and democracy.  Lets, or those of us who are so enlightened (elitists) write a new contract that binds society.  Screw individual choice, the masses don't realize what is in their best interest.  Lets implent these revolutionary concepts by force!   

 

"Adam Smith is in need of revision."

Anyone who saw the movie or read the book A Beautiful Mind knows Smith's economic theories are not a complete picture. Game Theory does to Smith what Einstein did to Newton. Smith is not invalidated, just expanded beyond the benefit of the individual to the benefit of the group. In our increasingly globalized world, our concept of the group grows everyday. And everyday Smith becomes a bit less important to our true economic circumstance.

I'm not Nobel economist, but even in my business I have to throw Smith out the window. I am the boss and owner of my dry cleaners. Smith would say I should make every one of my hundreds of decisions based on what is best for me individually. If I did that I would go out of business or at least not be very successful.

I have to have happy employees, happy customers, and happy landlord. Also, I have to keep OSHA and EPA happy. There is a culvert 25 yards out the back door. It would be best for me to dump my toxic waste in the culvert and not have to pay thousands a year to have it hauled away by a liscensed waste treatment company. But that would not benefit the community downstream where many of my customers and my landlord live. And if I get caught......

I don't want to sound all high and mighty, but it is just good business to put my own needs and wants last on the list. So that is what I do. It has worked out for me just like it did for my father and grandfather before me.

Adam Smith's Invisible Hand from the Grave

I'm not Nobel economist, but even in my business I have to throw Smith out the window.

No you don't.  I know absolutely nothing about your business and already I know this is false.  The fact that you even have a business is proof enough Adam Smith was on to something.  You could have just taken that capital investment you used for the equipment in your business and just stuffed it in your mattress.  Instead you used it to run a business.  Why?  Because you want to make money.  You, the selfish capitalist pig bastard, want to GET RICH!  Well maybe not mega-super-rich, but rich enough to feed your family.  Nothing wrong with that.  But through your selfishness you provide a useful service to others.  Your selfishness is transformed, via the magic of capitalism, to an act of virtue.

so, shamus,

you think this wouldn't be the case in feudalism? that serfs weren't greedy? that folks didn't create businesses?

seriously, this Adam Smith holy-one shit has GOT to stop! Yeah, he was insightful Insight seems obvious ten years later, same as Einstein.

kindly read the bloke before you defame his name

and then read something good on behavioral economics, as that REALLY changes the fucking picture.

Adam Smith would have favored the Estate Tax, and believed that you were acting in your own best interest by treating your customers fairly.