Corporatism and Socialism in America
by Anthony Gregory, Posted February 23, 2005
The introductory graphs are great:
Principled advocacy of the free market requires an understanding of the differences between genuine free enterprise and "state capitalism." Although the Left frequently exaggerates and overemphasizes the evils of corporate America, proponents of the free market often find themselves in the awkward position of defending the status quo of state capitalism, which is in fact a common adversary of the free marketer and the anti-corporate leftist, even if the latter misdiagnoses the problem and proposes the wrong solutions.
Indeed, corporatism, implemented by the state - whether through direct handouts, corporate bailouts, eminent domain, licensing laws, antitrust regulations, or environmental edicts - inflicts great harm on the modern American economy. Although leftists often misunderstand the fundamental problem plaguing the economy, they at least recognize its symptoms.
Conservatives and many libertarians, on the other hand, frequently dismiss many ills such as poverty as fabricated by the left-liberal imagination, when in fact it does a disservice to the cause of liberty and free markets to defend the current system and ignore very real and serious problems, which are often caused by government intervention in the economy. We should recognize that state corporatism is a form of socialism, and it is nearly inevitable in a mixed economy that the introduction of more socialism will cartelize industry and consolidate wealth in the hands of the few.
There's a great rundown of American history, including a section, "Corporatism versus liberty in the 19th century," explaining why I bristle when people think my moniker refers to the American Whig Party. (Without mentioning me personally. An oversight, I'm sure.)
And, just to whet your appetite, see why Gregory recommends the works of New Leftist Gabriel Kolko, who absolutely hates the way Libertarians use his books:
Gabriel Kolko's groundbreaking book The Triumph of Conservatism best advances this thesis of how the government expanded to accommodate, rather than curb, the interests of big business. Though a New Leftist, Kolko shows how political capitalists in every industry - from meatpacking to coal, from railroads to insurance - embraced the expanding regulatory state for their own gain - to push competitors out of the market and give government legitimacy to their companies.
The other article is
Once Again, Democracy Is Not Freedom
(and We Are Not the Government)
by Jacob G. Hornberger, February 28, 2005
Let me quote the three paragraphs I pretty much agree with:
It's not difficult to see how our American ancestors felt about democracy. They considered it so bad that they enacted the Bill of Rights to protect us from it.
After all, carefully read the Bill of Rights. You'll notice something interesting: It doesn't give people rights at all. Instead, it protects us from democracy.
The popular refrain, "We are the government," is false too. After all, if we are the government, then why does the Bill of Rights protect those of us in the private sector from those in the government sector?
Sadly, I don't think the rest of the article well supports the title. I wish it did. I'm sure Hornberger has written something better on this subject.
The citation of the Bill of Rights is essential to understanding what he's getting at here. Let's see if I can summarize it for you.
The Bill of Rights proclaims that the U. S. Government will actively defend your right to
Speak against the government and prevailing opinion
Print such thoughts
Assemble to discuss them
Petition the government about them
Practice orthodox or heretical religious beliefs (provided they don't breach the equal rights of others to the same)
Bear arms for self and communal defense
Maintain private property (many provisions - I'll elaborate later; protection of "persons, houses, papers and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures" gets a long way into it)
Trial by jury
The right to remain silent in the face of the authorities
And
Things the Founders didn't think of, but that Nature is later found to require
Things your state thought of that other states didn't.
Hornberger spends too much space attacking Bush. Liberals will agree with the attacks, conservatives won't - except for the Buchananites.
Update: FEE (unapologetic FEElosophers, to use Kirkpatrick Sale's smart-assed term) to the rescue! From
Democracy's Road to Tyranny
Published in The Freeman: Ideas on Liberty - May 1988
by Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn
Pondering the question of "Who should rule," the democrat gives his answer: "the majority of politically equal citizens, either in person or through their representatives." In other words, equality and majority rule are the two fundamental principles of democracy. A democracy may be either liberal or illiberal.
Genuine liberalism is the answer to an entirely different question: How should government be exercised? The answer it provides is: regardless of who rules, government must be carried out in such a way that each person enjoys the greatest amount of freedom, compatible with the common good. This means that an absolute monarchy could be liberal (but hardly democratic) and a democracy could be totalitarian, illiberal, and tyrannical, with a majority brutally persecuting minorities. (We are, of course, using the term "liberal" in the globally accepted version and not in the American sense, which since the New Deal has been totally perverted.)
Kuehnelt-Leddihn holds not merely the honorific "von" but also the title "Ritter," or Knight. Take that as you wish.
