Beware - Don't Do "Damage to the Broader Economy"
posted by Doug Reich @ 9:00 AM
Given the torrent of frightening news related to the abrogation of freedom in America, it is hard for me to be even taken aback anymore. Then I read this article in the Washington Post.
But not to worry:
So the Treasury secretary would merely have to deem a firm a potential threat to the "broader economy" in order to seize the firm. And who decides this vague and arbitrary standard? He would have to "consult" with the President and get approval from the Federal Reserve Board, an unelected board whose chairman is nominated by....the President.
Once again, we see the devastation wrought by the rejection of reason and principled thinking in favor of pragmatism. Note the line stating that at present the government only has the powers to seize banks. Is it shocking that if the government was given the power to seize banks that it would only be a matter of time before it sought to seize any financial institution? How long will it be before the word "financial" is removed and the government applies this argument to other industries?
This is the pattern of virtually all abridgements of our rights. At first, the government only seeks a limited intrusion to be applied to a small sub-set of individuals or firms and only under special circumstances. Individuals and businessmen especially, unable or unwilling to think in principle, do not see the broader implication of the new policy, and since it appears to not directly affect them right-now-this-minute, they either do not object or are willing to compromise. Of course, granting the government any power sets a precedent, i.e., establishes a justification to be used in the future. Therefore, when the government seeks a broader application of this power, the pragmatist is helpless to resist.
To resist such government policies would require the ability to think in principle. It would require the ability to understand the fundamental justification of a policy and the power to abstract the broader implications. It would require at least a cursory understanding of the nature of individual rights and the proper role of government. It might even require a knowledge of history to be used as a guide by which one can isolate similar events in the past and observe the consequences. In short, it would require the ability to reason.
And where would anyone obtain such an education today? The universities teach that reason is invalid, that objective knowledge is impossible, and that there are no black and whites. Therefore, economics today consists of the study of empirical relationships of quantitative data divorced from any general understanding or principles. History, they teach, is always biased by the historian and can only be seen through the prism of race, gender, and ethnicity. The history of the nation which brought about the greatest prosperity and happiness in world history is reduced to the study of the native American "genocide", slavery, and misogyny. Business schools use the "case study" method to reinforce the idea that the world is a stream of random concretes with no connection to one another. Psychologists tell us we are a product of our genes or environment. Moralists argue that ethics consists of self-sacrifice to God or in modern times, the "environment", and that man by his nature is a cancer to the planet. In short, the modern student is taught that principles are useless, everything is relative except that man (well, Western man) is evil and is destroying the planet, and his duty is to sacrifice.
Given the state of modern philosophy and its ripple effects throughout university curriculum's, is it any wonder that this country is in decline?
Jefferson was supposed to be the source of the quote: "The price of freedom is eternal vigilance" which is absolutely true. Vigilance means paying close and continuous attention and implies an ability to understand the broader implications of any action by the state. If man is stripped of his essential faculty, the reasoning mind, and told that it is useless to seek knowledge and abstract principles - if man is told that life is meaningless - if man is told that he has no control over his life and is a product of his genes or environment - if man is told that he is evil by nature and that his sole purpose is sacrifice and/or to minimize his "carbon footprint" - how can he be "vigilant" in this sense?
It is not the Obama's and Geithner's of the world that are responsible for our loss of freedom. The cause is a lack of "vigilance" brought about by the systematic attack on the efficacy of the human mind and therefore on individual rights. Nothing short of a philosophical revolution will allow and inspire vigilance once again.
The Obama administration is considering asking Congress to give the Treasury secretary unprecedented powers to initiate the seizure of non-bank financial companies, such as large insurers, investment firms and hedge funds, whose collapse would damage the broader economy, according to an administration document.
The government at present has the authority to seize only banks.
Giving the Treasury secretary authority over a broader range of companies would mark a significant shift from the existing model of financial regulation, which relies on independent agencies that are shielded from the political process. The Treasury secretary, a member of the president's Cabinet, would exercise the new powers in consultation with the White House, the Federal Reserve and other regulators, according to the document.
But not to worry:
The Treasury secretary could act only after consulting with the president and getting a recommendation from two-thirds of the Federal Reserve Board, according to the plan.
So the Treasury secretary would merely have to deem a firm a potential threat to the "broader economy" in order to seize the firm. And who decides this vague and arbitrary standard? He would have to "consult" with the President and get approval from the Federal Reserve Board, an unelected board whose chairman is nominated by....the President.
Once again, we see the devastation wrought by the rejection of reason and principled thinking in favor of pragmatism. Note the line stating that at present the government only has the powers to seize banks. Is it shocking that if the government was given the power to seize banks that it would only be a matter of time before it sought to seize any financial institution? How long will it be before the word "financial" is removed and the government applies this argument to other industries?
This is the pattern of virtually all abridgements of our rights. At first, the government only seeks a limited intrusion to be applied to a small sub-set of individuals or firms and only under special circumstances. Individuals and businessmen especially, unable or unwilling to think in principle, do not see the broader implication of the new policy, and since it appears to not directly affect them right-now-this-minute, they either do not object or are willing to compromise. Of course, granting the government any power sets a precedent, i.e., establishes a justification to be used in the future. Therefore, when the government seeks a broader application of this power, the pragmatist is helpless to resist.
To resist such government policies would require the ability to think in principle. It would require the ability to understand the fundamental justification of a policy and the power to abstract the broader implications. It would require at least a cursory understanding of the nature of individual rights and the proper role of government. It might even require a knowledge of history to be used as a guide by which one can isolate similar events in the past and observe the consequences. In short, it would require the ability to reason.
And where would anyone obtain such an education today? The universities teach that reason is invalid, that objective knowledge is impossible, and that there are no black and whites. Therefore, economics today consists of the study of empirical relationships of quantitative data divorced from any general understanding or principles. History, they teach, is always biased by the historian and can only be seen through the prism of race, gender, and ethnicity. The history of the nation which brought about the greatest prosperity and happiness in world history is reduced to the study of the native American "genocide", slavery, and misogyny. Business schools use the "case study" method to reinforce the idea that the world is a stream of random concretes with no connection to one another. Psychologists tell us we are a product of our genes or environment. Moralists argue that ethics consists of self-sacrifice to God or in modern times, the "environment", and that man by his nature is a cancer to the planet. In short, the modern student is taught that principles are useless, everything is relative except that man (well, Western man) is evil and is destroying the planet, and his duty is to sacrifice.
Given the state of modern philosophy and its ripple effects throughout university curriculum's, is it any wonder that this country is in decline?
Jefferson was supposed to be the source of the quote: "The price of freedom is eternal vigilance" which is absolutely true. Vigilance means paying close and continuous attention and implies an ability to understand the broader implications of any action by the state. If man is stripped of his essential faculty, the reasoning mind, and told that it is useless to seek knowledge and abstract principles - if man is told that life is meaningless - if man is told that he has no control over his life and is a product of his genes or environment - if man is told that he is evil by nature and that his sole purpose is sacrifice and/or to minimize his "carbon footprint" - how can he be "vigilant" in this sense?
It is not the Obama's and Geithner's of the world that are responsible for our loss of freedom. The cause is a lack of "vigilance" brought about by the systematic attack on the efficacy of the human mind and therefore on individual rights. Nothing short of a philosophical revolution will allow and inspire vigilance once again.
Comments:
Links to this post:
<< Home
the american people are asleep. i think it is complacency. as much as the democrats have screamed "great depression" and "bush" to win the election first and now pass massive government expansions the fact is americans are all doing well economically. hence, complacent. not too mention so much love for democrats all around. it would take some major, major, major things to change the mindset of auto-pilot democrat voters. it is a full on love affair. there is no need to check anything. dangerous potential.
Comment posted by 
: 3/26/09 10:41 PM
: 3/26/09 10:41 PM
I disagree that it is "complacency". I get the sense that most people sense that something is wrong. However, they are unable to think in principle and do not have the philosophical tools to integrate the facts and make generalizations about the causes of what is wrong. Therefore, the events that are taking place are a bewildering array of isolated, unconnected concretes which appear to have no solution. The economy is collapsing - who knows; the government is spending trillions of dollars -maybe it will work; the government is threatening to censor the media - it won't affect me, I'm not a writer; Iran's building a nuclear bomb and Russia wants to build bases in Latin America - who cares; Al Gore says we are going to roast in an apocalyptic hell on earth -better reduce my carbon footprint...
I think the sense you get that people are complacent is really a form of intellectual paralysis, i.e., an inability to make sense of what is happening. This leads people to focus on what they can control and what they do understand, i.e., what is in front of them in their everyday life.
I made the point in a previous post (http://dougreich.blogspot.com/2009/02/dont-tread-on-me.html) that the American colonists were far less taxed and regulated than we are today but risked their lives and went to war to secure their liberty. Why? Because they thought in principle. They understood that the harassment, regulations, and taxes they faced would only get worse and that they would need to declare independence to free themselves of an oppressive monarch. This intellectual integration led to the philosophy of "give me liberty or give me death" not "well I guess I don't mind if I'm a slave for 6 months since my 401k went up 8% this year" which is the unfortunate intellectual state of most American's today. Consider another example: Ayn Rand wrote Atlas Shrugged in the 1950's when one could argue that the country was far more free than it is today. If you read her writings, it sounds like America was about to collapse, i.e., it sounds like she was writing yesterday. Why? She thought in principle and understood the implications of the smallest infringement of rights or the smallest flaw philosophically which could lead to errors.
My point is that people that think independently and reason are passionate about ideas because they think in principle and no matter what their circumstances can abstract the dire implications of government policies. People who can not think in principle (most people educated in modern universities) are docile conformists unable and unwilling to exude the slighest outrage over the most heinous abrogrations of liberty in modern history. I believe the solution is a philosphy that upholds reason and the power of the human mind: Ayn Rand's philosophy of Objectivism.
I think the sense you get that people are complacent is really a form of intellectual paralysis, i.e., an inability to make sense of what is happening. This leads people to focus on what they can control and what they do understand, i.e., what is in front of them in their everyday life.
I made the point in a previous post (http://dougreich.blogspot.com/2009/02/dont-tread-on-me.html) that the American colonists were far less taxed and regulated than we are today but risked their lives and went to war to secure their liberty. Why? Because they thought in principle. They understood that the harassment, regulations, and taxes they faced would only get worse and that they would need to declare independence to free themselves of an oppressive monarch. This intellectual integration led to the philosophy of "give me liberty or give me death" not "well I guess I don't mind if I'm a slave for 6 months since my 401k went up 8% this year" which is the unfortunate intellectual state of most American's today. Consider another example: Ayn Rand wrote Atlas Shrugged in the 1950's when one could argue that the country was far more free than it is today. If you read her writings, it sounds like America was about to collapse, i.e., it sounds like she was writing yesterday. Why? She thought in principle and understood the implications of the smallest infringement of rights or the smallest flaw philosophically which could lead to errors.
My point is that people that think independently and reason are passionate about ideas because they think in principle and no matter what their circumstances can abstract the dire implications of government policies. People who can not think in principle (most people educated in modern universities) are docile conformists unable and unwilling to exude the slighest outrage over the most heinous abrogrations of liberty in modern history. I believe the solution is a philosphy that upholds reason and the power of the human mind: Ayn Rand's philosophy of Objectivism.
How do you propose to implement this philosophy? Not through the universities, evidently. Perhaps by dissemination of taped lectures?
(The american people are asleep. i think it is complacency. as much as the democrats have screamed "great depression" and "bush" to win the election first and now pass massive government expansions the fact is americans are all doing well economically. hence, complacent. not too mention so much love for democrats all around. it would take some major, major, major things to change the mindset of auto-pilot democrat voters. it is a full on love affair. there is no need to check anything. dangerous potential.)
Comment posted by Anonymous : 3/26/09 10:41 PM
I believe the human condition here is apathy, as it pertains to the current state of political and economical destruction. I’m with Reich on this one, considering pragmatism is the default philosophy of this nation. One cannot rule out the role of mysticism here, considering people abandon reason and gravitate towards faith in times of distress.
It is going to take a cataclysm to force political and economic reform, and expose the failed ideology of pragmatism. AR hypothesized the cure for government tyranny in Atlas shrugged, an economic strike by the industrial and business consortiums. At the consumer level I would abstain from buying durable goods; why would anyone want to bolster the economy to be an indentured slave sacrificed on the altar of capricious immoral government spending?
Herein lies a caveat. Economic collapse will most likely erupt into open class warfare; our government has already drawn the battle lines. Chaos may dissolve into fascism and communism — history here has a way of repeating itself.
In order to unite the masses —philosophical differences aside —an encompassing moral theme must emerge, that theme is freedom as prescribed by the constitution. Hold no moral ideal higher than the individual rights of free men. Let freedom be the catalyst for philosophical change.
Comment posted by Anonymous : 3/26/09 10:41 PM
I believe the human condition here is apathy, as it pertains to the current state of political and economical destruction. I’m with Reich on this one, considering pragmatism is the default philosophy of this nation. One cannot rule out the role of mysticism here, considering people abandon reason and gravitate towards faith in times of distress.
It is going to take a cataclysm to force political and economic reform, and expose the failed ideology of pragmatism. AR hypothesized the cure for government tyranny in Atlas shrugged, an economic strike by the industrial and business consortiums. At the consumer level I would abstain from buying durable goods; why would anyone want to bolster the economy to be an indentured slave sacrificed on the altar of capricious immoral government spending?
Herein lies a caveat. Economic collapse will most likely erupt into open class warfare; our government has already drawn the battle lines. Chaos may dissolve into fascism and communism — history here has a way of repeating itself.
In order to unite the masses —philosophical differences aside —an encompassing moral theme must emerge, that theme is freedom as prescribed by the constitution. Hold no moral ideal higher than the individual rights of free men. Let freedom be the catalyst for philosophical change.
In relation to the last few comments - I wrote a post linked below that attempts to address it - let me know what you think and thanks for the comments
http://dougreich.blogspot.com/2009/04/whats-obvious-and-not-so-obvious.html
http://dougreich.blogspot.com/2009/04/whats-obvious-and-not-so-obvious.html
Links to this post:
<< Home
Post a Comment