by
James E. Miller
In the midst of the Great Depression, Treasury
Secretary Andrew Mellon famously advised President Hoover to “liquidate labor,
liquidate stocks, liquidate farmers, liquidate real estate” instead of propping
each industry up with tax dollars. This
liquidation doctrine would “purge the rottenness out of the system” and make
certain that “people will work harder” and “live a more moral life.”
Contrary to popular belief, Hoover did not take Mellon’s advice and went forth
with his own version of the New Deal that gave relief to farmers and supported
wage rates in certain industries. These efforts, which were exacerbated
under the presidency of Franklin Roosevelt, effectively prevented the market
from clearing. The boom of the
late 1920s that was driven by the Federal Reserve’s monetary inflation was not
allowed to bust. Instead of liquidating the debt and
allowing the economy to reach a sound footing, both the Hoover and Roosevelt
administrations attempted to manage it back to health. The result was the longest period of unemployment ever recorded in
American history.
Today,
Mellon’s advice is still spurned by most of the economic profession. The media
establishment, not to be outdone, is also on the side of intervention.
Government is looked to as a savior while markets are seen as inadequate in
providing for a satisfactory standard of living. With their incessant
need to fix what isn’t broke, the political class is praised for their courage
to take the reins of society and direct it toward a meaningful and just way of
life. Liberty is seen as barbaric in comparison to state-sanctioned
redistribution. Fighters of war are looked to as glorious warriors who
make a great sacrifice to their countrymen. Public office itself is seen
as an occupation of the righteous who give up the opportunity for profit.
Most notably, spending is regarded as the necessary elixir of economic growth.
The
old fashioned ideas of hard work and self-reliance are made out to be
anachronistic. It is no longer a virtue to succeed. What
is now honorable is men with guns and badges taking from some and giving to
others.
In
this context, it must be asked where did the
ideas of virtue originally come from and what role do they play in humanity.
Virtue
is typically defined as an attribute that is regarded as good in a moral
sense. Donating one’s income to the less fortunate is normally seen as a
virtue. A propensity to steal is usually looked upon as a ruinous vice
rather than a worthy trait.
In
the modern era, it would seem as if classic virtues (basic ideas of right and
wrong) have lost their appeal. In their place has been
a concentrated effort to promote those actions once thought of as deserving of
moral condemnation. To this writer, such a course of action is socially
destructive will end up severing the cooperative ties that mankind has
established within itself. Market economies are based on the ideals of
self-ownership and mutual effort. It is only through reciprocity that
material progress can be made to lighten the burden on human
existence. State interference creates distortions in favor of one
party over another.
St.
Thomas Aquinas famously defined the cardinal virtues of human life as being
prudence, temperance, justice, and fortitude. These virtues are
revealed in nature and make up the foundations of natural law. To
Aquinas, humanity naturally strives to achieve ends through the use of
reason. Because of innate imperfection, these qualities aren’t always
adhered to but are necessary for facilitating a rising standard of
living. Without temperance, the present is indulged to rather than the
future. In the absence of justice the incentive to carry forward with
life is handicapped through uncertainty over whether collaboration with others
will be successful. And without fortitude to face certain obstacles,
lofty goals will not be pursued. The guiding force for all actions is
prudence which enables men the capacity to decide whether an action will result
in ends being achieved. These virtues, it is held, stem from nature and
are discoverable through reason alone; a spiritual authority is not needed for
their confirmation.
Logically
and practically, it is obvious that persistent rashness and thoughtlessness are
not sustainable lifestyles in a world defined by scarcity. To achieve that which is desired, man must
act in way to best ensure his demand can be met. Behaving discreetly and
with respect toward others is often the best avenue for achieving happiness in
the long run. Government, with its slew of welfare benefits, attempts to
supersede this truth by creating dependency. In return for votes,
politicians and bureaucrats instill a sense of infantilism while posing as
givers of charity. Combined with
economic regulation which aids politically-favored firms and stifles the free
action of entrepreneurs, the state creates conflict amongst society since it
operates solely on funds plundered from the greater public.
As a monopoly of force, the state becomes a target for all those attempting to
circumvent the laws of nature.
With
central banking the concept of saving more than you consume is dismissed as a
relic of the past and the era where planners didn’t have the economy in their
firm grasp. Through
Keynesian economic policies, short time preferences are rewarded while looking
toward the future is punished. Retirees living on fixed
income struggle to make ends meet in favor of debt accrual. The state
invariably uses easy access to the printing press to fund its activities.
Resources that could be used for productive efforts are siphoned off in favor
of political interests. More egregious is that fact that central banking
itself is a client of the banking system and guarantees an unlimited supply of
dollars should bad investment decisions come to fruition. The rest of the
public must pay with using depreciated currency. Because of the allowance
of fractional reserve banking, credit is created out of
thin air. In other words, titles of property are effectively created to a
good which doesn’t necessary exist. Modern banking isn’t just a cartel
that operates at the expense of everyone else; it enjoys a government privilege
that would otherwise not exist under a free market. Yet many commentators have nothing but praise for central banking
and its ability to manage the business cycle.
In
the same vein, the conduct of war is applauded even as it extinguishes precious
life from the planet. President Obama personally makes the call for the
extrajudicial killing of people without any evidence of their wrongdoing.
Women, children, and other innocents often meet the same fate just by being in
the vicinity of a drone strike. In a new study from the Stanford Law School and New York
University’s School of Law, it was revealed that the number of “high-level
targets killed as a percentage of total causalities” from the drone program is
only 2%. The study also accuses the administration of downplaying the
number of civilians killed by strikes.
It’s
unfathomable how someone could even begin to ponder over supporting a man who
places the order for indiscriminate bombings that often result in the death of
innocent bystanders. But Obama still remains fairly popular to the
American electorate. He is seen as tough on terror while ordering for the
assassination of targets in complete secrecy and from the comfort of another
continent. His policies are painted as being admirable when they are
cowardly. In the name of ensuring peace he creates chaos. The media
stands all too ready to lap it up and parrot the message. These callous
murders should bring despair to anyone who values their own life but seldom
does. Death has
unfortunately become all too routine.
In
his personal memoirs, the great anti-state thinker Albert Jay Nock once opined:
All I ever asked of life was the freedom to think and say exactly what I pleased, when I pleased, and as I pleased.
I
agree whole heartedly with Nock’s sentiment. Not only do I seek the
freedom to speak without the overarching menace of a faceless big brother but
to do as I please as long as I bring no harm to others. The “live and let
live” existence is the only type that falls closest in line with the natural
virtues laid out by Aquinas centuries ago. Refraining from violence is
not just an ethical choice, it allows for the productive capacity of men to
blossom. And without hard
work and the putting off of immediate gratification, less becomes available for
the future.
In
the age of state welfare pandering, corporate subsidization, and Orwellian
monitoring, a longing for true liberty remains totally unconventional. To many, it is downright radical to take charge of one’s life and
wish only to be left in peace. How we have reached this
point is demonstrative of how pervasive the state has become.
There
isn’t a shred of decency in how governments or central banks operate.
Their functions run antithetical to the basic virtues of mankind. If we
as a species are to use our reason and free will to better our live, the
institutionalized violence the state embodies must be rejected.
No comments:
Post a Comment