Posted on 04/15/2014 8:30:30 AM PDT by Academiadotorg
The startling thing about the books academics typically dismiss as relics of the past is the uncanny manner in which they anticipate the present. “Democracy extends the sphere of individual freedom,” Alexis de Tocqueville wrote in 1848. “Democracy attaches all possible value to each man while socialism makes each man a mere agent, a mere number.”
“Democracy and socialism have nothing in common but one word: equality. But notice the difference: while democracy seeks equality in liberty, socialism seeks equality in restraint and servitude.” The de Tocqueville quote was resurrected nearly a century later by Friedrich A. Hayek in The Road to Serfdom.
The Austrian economist and philosopher himself proved to be quite prescient in his own analyses. “Indeed, it could almost be said that wherever liberty as we know it has been destroyed, this has been done in the name of some new freedom promised to the people,” Hayek wrote. “Even among us we have planners who promise us a ‘collective freedom,’ which is as misleading as anything said by totalitarian politicians.”
“‘Collective freedom’ is not the freedom of the members of society, but the unlimited freedom of the planner to do with society that which he pleases.” Think of some of the exotic freedoms we have been promised lately.
Here are some other Hayekian insights which arguably still resonate 70 years after they first appeared in print:
“Almost all the traditions and institutions which have moulded the national character and the whole moral climate of England and America are those which the progress of collectivism and its centralistic tendencies are progressively destroying.” [In case you wondered where the progressivism comes in.] “Great danger lies in the policies of two powerful groups, organized capital and organized labor, which support the monopolistic organization of industry.” [Crony capitalism, anyone? Perhaps someone should build a statue of Hayek that overlooks Detroit.]
The distinguished émigré also offered a poignant coda for those of us with grandparents who left their homelands because they didn’t want to be born into the job they would die in: “Nothing makes conditions more unbearable that the knowledge that no effort of ours can change them. It may be bad to be just a cog in a machine but it is infinitely worse if we can no longer leave it, if we are tied to our place and to the superiors who have been chosen for us.”
Finally, read this little passage of Hayek’s, written before World War II drew to a close, and realize how long we have been bereft of accuracy in either the media or academia: “The younger generation of today has grown up in a world in which, in school and press, the spirit of commercial enterprise has been represented as disreputable and the making of profit as immoral, where to employ 100 people is represented as exploitation but to command the same number as honorable.”
The US car industry for much of the 20th being a classic example.
The UAW extorted massive wages and feaher-bedding from the companies. But they didn't care. Why should they?
They only faced competititon from two other companies, each of which were forced to deal ith the same unions. And they could of course compensate by selling low-quality autos at high prices to the captive audience of the American people.
A union, or a high minimum wage, or any other constraint on a business, is not in and of itself a problem for that business. As long as it has an assured market and competitors face the same constraints.
It's only when a competitor doesn't face those constraints, or when an outside group moves in on the market, that a company is in real trouble.
The issue is one of equality.
Democracy brings legal and hopefully social equality.
Socialism attempts to take that a step farther and ensure economic equality. That is, of course, a step too far, and can never be achieved.
Attempts to do so only result in the loss of freedom and of social and legal equality, without doing much to bring economic equality any closer.
Our Pledge of Allegiance tells all in the words ... "... and to the Republic for which it stands."
Our nation is not a democracy.
I don’t think we’re on a “Road to Serfdom.”
I think we are being driven down a chute...
Our nation has been a democracy for almost 200 years now.
The Founders’ original vision was of a government dominated by social elites, with the Senate and President chosen indirectly, filtered through the state legislatures, which themselves consisted of each state’s elites: wealthy, disinterested men. Only the House would directly represent the People. The whole system was based on the notion that the People would instinctively defer to the educated, wealthy disinterested elite who alone could be trusted with power.
The Electoral College, for example, was supposed to consist of respected individuals chosen by their states to themselves choose the man THEY thought best suited to be President. THAT didn’t last long. The Electoral College functioned as intended only twice, for Washington’s two elections. Thereafter it increasingly became simply a somewhat inefficient method of registering the popular will.
With the election of Jefferson and, especially Jackson, the notion that the government would be run by wealthy disinterested elites went out the window and was replaced by the idea that balanced interested groups competing for power would keep the country on an even keel. The People, possibly correctly, no longer believed in the existence of educated, disinterested elites who could be trusted to run the country.
The last real vestige of a Republic disappeared with the 17th Amendment. The Electoral College can be considered such only if its function in practice is ignored. At the present it’s merely a way of differentially weighting effective individual votes by state.
So, no, I’m sorry to say, we don’t have a Republic rather than a Democracy. Not any more. It disappeared in 1800, 1828, or at the latest in 1913.
Interestingly, much of the history of the last 100 years can be seen as the attempt of a group that views itself as an elite with a right to power to get it back. IOW, a variant on the Founders’ original intention, though a very different type of elite than what they had in mind.
If I was a billionaire in a family with a long line of billionaires, it might make sense to me to back intellectuals, authors, researchers, etc., who would make the case for unrestricted free trade.
Of course, it would make sense to not publicize the fact that I’m backing them.
Just quietly give grants to universities, etc., and make known to those in charge the general direction I’d like to see in their writings. University of Chicago was founded by the Rockefeller empire.
If I had real audacity, I’d actually also do the same for support of socialism and communism, since that would enable me to lock up entire nations as captive markets for my factories, financing, building projects, etc. No competition allowed, by order of the “communist” government.
Then, the two sides, “free trade” and “communism” could fight out continually, neither ever completely winning.
The fight would distract everyone from the fact that I’m behind both sides, just subtley, quietly influencing just the leadership of both sides.
I’d be an “evil rich guy” that seems to just never go away, and has whole governments in my pocket.
>> “ The whole system was based on the notion that the People would instinctively defer to the educated, wealthy disinterested elite who alone could be trusted with power.” <<
.
Sherm, you’ve been peddling your Soft Marxism here for over seven years, and we all know what you are by now.
Our founders were not a “disinterested elite,” but a well educated and morally sound body of very interested and motivated Christians.
We all know how much that word rankles you, but as long as you insert yourself here, you’re going to have to live with it.
.
“Free Trade” is nothing but welfare for unproductive Communist regimes.
They’ll never fight because they are just branches of the same immoral ideology.
.
We’re in freefall.
Following is from Federalist Papers, Madison No. 10.
In the extent and proper structure of the Union, ... we behold a republican remedy for the diseases most incident to republican government. And according to the degree of pleasure and pride we feel in being republicans ought to be our zeal in cherishing the spirit and supporting the character of federalists.
“Disinterested elite” was not meant as a criticism. Disinterested means “not influenced by considerations of personal advantage.”
If you were familiar with the writings of the Founders, you would be aware that they viewed men who were involved in the struggle to make a living as unsuitable to be in charge of national affairs. Such men are by definition “influenced by considerations of personal advantage.” The Founders thought only men who had moved beyond this were capable of the necessary detachment from self-interest.
That’s why Franklin retired from business before becoming involved in public affairs. That’s why Burr was so distrusted by the other Founders. He was a politician openly out for himself, of a type we’ve been familiar with for the last 200 years. But one that the others all still felt the need to at least pretend not to be.
Revolutionary America was in process of transformation from a society with a traditional hierarchy, almost aristocratic (but without aristocrats) to the aggressive frontier POV that “one man is as good as another.”
The Founders expected the role of the People in government to mainly have the judgment of picking out those who were better than they were. When politics quickly became a low jobbing trade, if there were any disinterested elites still in government, they mostly quit in disgust.
I’m unclear what word you think rankles me.
#6 and #12 about sum up the de facto situation.
Yes, the Constitution describes a Republic, but you’ve described what actually happens in practice.
The financial elites during this time have always loved the idea of popular elections and campaigns because they are so easy for them to control their outcomes, thus having their own minions in power with a veneer of public support.
You’ve demonstrated your Marxist elitism with aplomb!
I find nothing in the writings of the founders and commentators that demonstrates such arrogance. Even Payne didn’t sink that far.
Probably true. However, I’m with Churchill.
Democracy is the worst of all possible system of governments, until you take a closer look at the others.
The ideal system is and always has been benevolent dictatorship by a truly wise man. Unfortunately, such men are rare, and even if you get one, he eventually dies. The chance of his being replaced by an equally wise and benevolent dictator verges on zero.
Democratic republics (or constitutional monarchies, which are really crowned republics) have had by far the longest run in history of general liberty for their citizens.
Would that we were still a landed democratic republic where only men of property could vote.
The Constitution left it to each state to determine those eligible to vote. North Carolina in 1856 was the last state to forego the property requirement.
Interesting mini-history here:
http://www.laits.utexas.edu/lawdem/unit01/reading1/history_to_vote.html
Socialism attempts to take that a step farther and ensure economic equality. That is, of course, a step too far, and can never be achieved.
My opinion of "Democracy" is the same as that of James Madison, widely labeled as the "Father of the Constitution." Like Madison, I favor the rule of legal principles, not counting the noses of the mob.
Let me go a step further. The idea of "social equality" is as absurd a goal as is "economic equality," and for precisely parallel reasons. Just as an economic leveling denies productive families the fruits of their unique labor and ingenuity; so social eguality would deny those families the legitimate consequences of their behavior down through the generations. Socialism stifles material incentives; and social egalitarians stifle cultural, moral & spiritual incentives.
As the cultural, moral & spiritual may ultimately be more important than the material, social egalitarianism may have a more disastrous effect on a people, in the long-run.
I would suggest to you, that Americans have never embraced social egalitarianism. What we have embraced, particularly in the Old South & West, was an appreciation of the importance of mutual respect among all productive elements of a healthy community. What is destroying America today, is a blame & envy culture, which over-turns that concept of mutual respect, and reduces us to seething jealousy & antagonism.
See Blame & Envy.
William Flax
William Flax
I’m afraid we’re going to have to disagree on the family class thing. People should be judged on their own individual behavior and character, not that of their relatives or ancestors.
Attainment of family wealth and social status, even for several generations, does not necessarily connote a family culture of integrity. As numerous families in this country, such as the Kennedys, and many aristocratic lineages of Europe demonstrate beyond all doubt.
Personally, I try to treat all people with the same presumption of decency and honor until it is demonstrated that they deserve to be treated otherwise.
Americans far too often make value judgments of others based on their perceived degree of financial success. My Dad taught me to believe that all honest work is honorable.
Certainly, what you say is true as to judging any individual. But the fact that people in Massachusetts, for generations, looked up to the Adams family, was constructive--even though we may disagree with the opinions of some of the Adams family. Similarly, Virginians honored the Lees--what wonderful role models;--and in many a small Midwestern town, around 1900, we had local families, striving to maintain the standards of those who won their position, who exercised a constructive role in setting standards to which others could benefit by emulation.
The bottom line is that virtually no where in the more sentient varieties of life in nature, do you actually have "social equality." It is a fantasy sought by those who have a problem accepting how very different are the individuals in any sentient species. The goal, in all things, should be to excel; to be the best one can be. Equality is a poor, pathetic substitute for a real goal.
William Flax
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.