Reviewing the literature of natural rights advocates, one
finds recurring themes; e.g., capitalism has provided a miraculous economic boom. That boom, in turn, has advanced the
well-being of all who live in a capitalist nation. Or stated another way, capitalism has found a
way for people – either at the individual level or at the group/organizational
level – to cooperate and coordinate themselves and others to do those things
necessary to first establish and then maintain a modern life. This is no small accomplishment.
Also, in those accounts there are
recurring descriptions of human nature as conniving, self-centered, and readily
relying on violence, brutalization, and other such means to acquire immediate
desires. A prime message is that because
human nature is what it is, a way to direct such tendencies needed to be
discovered so that the advancements one associates with modern life could have
been attained. And that basically refers
to developing free markets.
One such work is offered by Jonah
Goldberg in his work describing the formulation of The Miracle – aka,
capitalist economies.[1] He not only provides a description of how
human nature exhibited itself before the advent of capitalism, but also issues
a warning that capitalism is facing challenges that might lead to its
demise.
What constitutes the danger? Basically, the still present anti-social
nature humans possess finds ways to express itself under various guises; ones
that are amenable to a modern perspective but are simply ways for misguided or
corrupt individuals to re-establish a more brutish social landscape. How? By
either direct methods or through programs that undo free market arrangements.
These programs undermine, to various
degrees, the ability of the individual to exercise his/her freedom with either straight
forward coercion or through government action to meet the wants of some
“deserving” faction or interest group.
Whatever the rationale, the bottom line is that such efforts go contrary
to the basic interactive – invisible hand – operations upon which free markets
function.
Along with the economic aspects of this
development, there are the political ones as well. Since, the Western nations, through a variety
of programs, have betrayed basic attributes of a natural rights political construct,
the political liberties/freedoms of people are in high jeopardy and one can
expect that an end to “The Miracle” is a real outcome as the abuses to freedoms
continue to pile up.
There are a lot of signs and
developments that point to this demise – too many to list here, but one is the
rise of the bureaucratic state. Goldberg
pinpoints the beginning of this trend in the US to the Woodrow Wilson
progressive administration, but it was later institutionalized during the New
Deal of Franklin Roosevelt.
But before describing this danger
further, this writer likes to point out what to him is an obvious miss use of a
term. Goldberg calls his view of a desired
sense of rights as natural rights – what this blog describes as the extreme
sense of individual rights. But Goldberg
uses the term after describing the anti-social nature a natural person is apt
to exhibit once any coercive force that keeps human nature under control is
compromised.
It reminds one of the scenes, in Gone with the Wind, when the southern
soldiers are withdrawn from Atlanta and Rhett Butler knowingly says, in effect,
all hell is about to let loose. Goldberg
admits early in his work – the one cited here – that any capitalist society
needs to socialize its members to hold and believe in moral precepts that deem
extreme selfishness as sinful.
Yet, natural rights cares little
about such things; what is needed is some extra-theoretical basis, such as
religion or some belief in a narrative, that provides a reason to place human
nature at bay. So, is the term, natural
rights, the best word or sense of what should be sought? Of course, this blog has offered another perspective
concerning rights; i.e., federal rights.
Goldberg does hold that without respecting
natural rights, corrupt factors start taking hold. The forces of nature are constantly eroding
what un-natural capitalist norms get people to do. At its heart, those norms can do that by
establishing win-win interactions. Yet,
because segments who really don’t buy in, but instead seek immediate win-lose
advantages – such as exploiting tribalistic or aristocratic or bureaucratic arrangements
to their advantages – they unleash corruption that begin to undermine individual
freedom.
For example, the US bureaucracy,
according to Goldberg, has – as the often-cited popular moniker indicates –
truly become the fourth branch of government.
It is not elected, but it does, through regulations and judication of
regulations, enact laws to which citizens are subject. They also tax – using the term, fees – without
Congressional authorization. This, on
the face of it, is unconstitutional.
Elements of the bureaucracy exist,
according to their legislative mandates, to provide for perceived needs of
segments of the population. While the
rationales of the various departments or agencies have ultraistic aims, they
are made up of staffs that are “naturally” seeking their own selfish interests
– apparently healthy salaries and protected job security are not enough to solicit
from those workforces the intended outcomes.
One senses that the only answer to this problem is that government
cannot provide such services without undermining individual freedom.
Goldberg offers the Veterans Administration
as his example. He relates such an
example as just a modern version of an aristocratic-style entity that uses,
what has been generally deemed to be a legitimate group, to further their self-serving
aims. The aristocracies of the Middle Ages
used religion, modern bureaucracy, in the case of the VA, uses a common sense
of debt to those who have served the nation in the armed forces to provide a
government service outside the discipline of a market arrangement.
Such misguided efforts are primed to
become corrupting organizations that erode the individualist basis for
eliciting desired behaviors upon which modern society is based. Of course, this posting can only skim the
elements of the argument. Federation
theory is at odds with this argument.
And that opposition has many levels.
For one, markets fail to meet all wanted or needed outcomes.
Federation theory ascribes to markets
the role of being the primary means to provide those goods and services by
which a federated populace can be established and maintained. But markets are not always successful, and keeping
a federated populace is primary to any economic arrangement. When markets fail and volunteerism is not enough,
then government is called upon to meet those requirements. One such requirement is viable health care
and a thankful nation is wise to provide it to those who served it.
This writer will not pass judgement
on the VA – he simply does not know enough about that government program. But he does believe that generally government
services are good, and they hire committed people who do good work. To bolster that claim of competency, the
reader is directed to read Michael Lewis’ work, The Fifth Risk.[2] This writer will address Lewis’ findings in
future postings.
No comments:
Post a Comment