“We need to shake up the status
quo.”
“We need to get rid of the whole
system; it’s not working. Then we can start from scratch and do things right.”
This is the kind of argument being tossed around this
election year—eight years into the Great Recession. And also the argument of
anarchy groups like Black Lives Matter, Occupy Wall Street, white supremacists,
and Islamist terrorists. If there is any seed of sanity under their attacks on civil
society, it must be the burn-it-to-the-ground-and-start-over theory.
Clearly there are things to be dissatisfied about. But do we
need to throw out our whole system? Our Constitution? Our economy? Our money?
If we did, would we be likely to create something better? That
totally depends on who is doing the creating and what principles they follow.
Chaos is something we don’t like. It means we all fend for
ourselves, safeguarding our own lives and property, with no expectation of help
from a government. It is another form of tyranny: rule of the strongest and
best armed. Not very different from the statist version of that, which
guarantees that the government is the strongest and best armed and can
therefore take your life, freedom, or property at will.
There’s the Marxist theory, practiced by Trotsky and Lenin,
of purposely creating chaos (revolution, they called it) so that the very instigators
of the revolution could step in and say, “Let me rule, and I’ll make everything
better for you,” which translated means, “I will rule absolutely, and I won’t
allow disorder or dissent.”
Rahm Emanuel said, “You never want a serious crisis to go to
waste.” That was the same thing; use any sign of chaos, label it as bad (it
often is bad, but people can be
stirred up to think it’s critically urgent to get relief), and insist that more
government control is the solution.
So there’s an oscillation between chaos (non-governmental
tyranny) and governmental tyranny.
There’s an event in Pearl Bucks The Good Earth, where the general population is suffering greatly,
living in tents and huts on the streets, while the wealthy rulers live in
luxury behind great walls. At last the people can take it no longer. They riot and break
in, oust (kill) the elites, take their belongings, and eventually use
the confiscated wealth to buy land and settle down to work the land and begin
building up their wealth. Then the next occupants of power and wealth begin
doing the same things as before. The oppression caused misery. And then the chaos
caused misery. And then the previously oppressed seize power and use it to
oppress others.
Principles that would lead to general prosperity help when
followed, but they’re hardly ever followed, and they’re hindered by those in
power.
So, if we were to suffer some significant chaos here in
America, what is the likelihood that would lead to greater freedom, prosperity,
and civilization?
The Spherical Model helps us see where movement from statist
tyranny to chaos takes us. Statist tyranny is in the southeast quadrant:
principles of freedom and free enterprise are ignored, and control is in the
hands of government at the highest levels, rather than the most local. Chaos is
in the southwest quadrant: principles of freedom (honoring and protecting each
person’s right of life, liberty, and property) are not followed, and control is
in the hands of whoever seizes power through force.
The Spherical Model, looking at the division between local and global interests |
Movement from statist tyranny to chaotic tyranny is a
lateral move, from east to west, while remaining in the southern hemisphere
where God-given rights are not protected. When the people can’t take the chaos
any more, they turn for relief to whatever strongman or organization claims to
be capable of controlling the chaos. It’s a lateral move again, this time from
west to east.
That is the typical story of human history. Moving
north—toward freedom—is rare. It requires people who understand what it takes
to move northward. We had such people at our founding—as if God had raised up
people who would understand how to form a more perfect union:
·
Government must be strictly limited to its role
of safeguarding our natural rights to life, liberty, and property.
·
Economics must be free-market, allowing everyone
the right to pursue their choice of work, leading to entrepreneurism and
innovation that benefit everyone. Government’s only role is in settling
disputes and safeguarding property, which may include standardizing the form of
money and enforcing laws.
·
Those unable to care for themselves are cared
for charitably by families, churches, and philanthropy.
·
A critical mass of the people must be righteous.
They must recognize that our rights are unalienable because they are God-given,
not man- or government-granted. And God requires that people must live lives
that honor God, family, life, property, and truth.
·
A critical mass of the people must raise
children in families with married mother and father, to pass along the
principles of freedom, prosperity, and civilization.
There are plenty of details within each of these principles,
enough to fill books and college courses. But the basics are easily knowable.
So the question isn’t about whether creating chaos might be
a good thing; it isn’t. But leaving the status quo with a bold and direct move
northward—that would be a good thing. Such a startling change might appear to
create chaos, but only while people readjust to something unfamiliar.
For example, getting rid of Obamacare would remove a huge
burden and expense from the economy. But the immediate concern would be how to
get health care to those who couldn’t afford it before Obamacare was forced on
us as the solution. But the problem was there because of interference with the
free market. There are free market solutions that could take hold: health
savings accounts, choosing to pay directly rather than with insurance except
for catastrophic coverage, insurance across state lines, insurance connected to
the person rather than the employer. Add in some philanthropy and the market
would do a better job than government interference ever could.
Another example would be education. Assume for a moment that
education could be done entirely privately. Doing away with all government
education would be drastic and chaotic—especially during the middle of a school
year. Eventually the free market would meet the need. There are so many options
now, because of online information. Free market solutions combined with
philanthropy could also meet the needs of those who can’t afford education, so
that the next generation doesn’t get stuck in uneducated poverty.
But the solution would seem drastic, and the adjustment
might take some years to readjust. A learning child doesn’t have years to waste
while the adults who should be educating them get their act together. However,
removing the federal government layer immediately would do no harm, and would
allow education money to stay within states. A movement toward local would be a
good next step. More school choice, through charter schools, educational
savings accounts, or homeschooling are just common sense.
The solution shouldn’t be toward chaos; it should always be
northward toward freedom, free market, and civilization.
No comments:
Post a Comment