Entitlements are moneys paid from the government to certain citizens on the basis
of some criteria -- there are dozens of entitlements, and it is with these that
Presidents and Congress want to tinker. A little change, here, a little change there,
is the idea. The problem lies not in which criteria are decided upon, or which is the
accepted beneficiary of these moneys, or even the plight of those who are receiving
the money.
The problem lies in the method of transfer -- and the end itself. If a person is entitled
to government money it means that as long as they meet the criteria set they can
receive the money. It is not a matter of privilege but of right. It is a "legal right" that
they receive this money. The government is the provider of this money -- but the
government has but one source of funds -- the taxpayer. The government is not
dispersing its money; it has none. The government is dispensing a person's money.
So we are faced with a situation where there is one person entitled to money --
which a second person promises to pay (congress) and then he can only get the
money from a third person. The government acts merely as a facilitator of the
transfer, providing collection, dispersal, monitoring and accounting services. And it
is all backed up by a gun if necessary.
If a person is entitled to anther's money, and money is just labor (as previously
explained), than the first person is entitled to the second person's labor -- which is
enslavement to the degree of entitlement. If one person is entitled to anther's
money/labor than it is not the labor/money of the second person. It belongs only to
the first. The enslavement is unlawful, unconstitutional and morally reprehensible.
Entitlement programs are on the left of the political spectrum because they violate
the right not to be forced, not to join, or the right to be left alone.
All of the programs that are entitlements violate these basic precepts, and only a
major shift in political view points, the paradigm shift, will have to occur before the
concept of entitlement programs is unmasked -- and then altered.
It is here that we can first begin to show that politics and economics are really
opposite side of the coin. These two are different from the culture and religion
elements of society. Politics is more complex than the idealists would have it.
The socialistic-leftist paradigm separates the politics from economics; there will be
further looks at this connection below.
Take into consideration that the entitlements, both in the collection and the dispersal
of the money, more than $800 billion in 2002, drastically affects the economy.
The Federal Reserve Board is constitutionally questionable because it regulates the
value of the currency, the value of money. It used to do so by gold, but now just the
full faith and credit of the United States Government. But Article 1 Section 8 of the
Constitution provides that only Congress has the right to regulate the value of the
currency.
The powers of the Constitution are really the people's -- which we "lend" to the
government by representatives. We did not give the Congress the right to give away
its powers that we lent it. Indeed the 9th and 10th Amendments specifically gives
powers not used by the government back to the states, or the people. Congress had
no right to give the power to regulate currency to the Federal Reserve Board, which
is independent of the government.
A rather simple analysis that can be flushed out legally elsewhere, here we are only
dealing broadly with the viewpoints of left and right.
It is fairly obvious that the Federal Reserve has an enormous impact upon the
economy.
These two have the biggest effect economically -- and they are the two egregious
examples of socialistic thinking in the current system.
Both are manifestations of the idea that we have to save capitalism from itself -- that
the system of "capitalism" creates needy people of one sort of another and
therefore we must help them. The Fed supposedly protects us from the business
cycle -- the vissitudes of up and down in business.
These two main concepts -- and realities -- are overarching for all government
programs. No other decisions made by government escape these two institutions.
Now back to theory momentarily. There is no doubt that the income tax, entitlement
programs and the Federal Reserve board are all political institutions -- politically
motivated, politically restrained. And yet they are the driver of the economy.
Everyone makes their decisions based on the current condition of the economy -- in
general -- which is controlled by the Federal Reserve Board. From the Fed's actions
everyone makes decisions economically, specifically, based on the tax treatment or
any potential gain from the government. From the welfare rural mother to the big city
tycoon these three things overlay all their decisions, both in daily specifics and
future planning.
In the practical matter of any country on earth, the taxes, the entitlements (or
subsidies) and the central bank -- all are the controlling factors of the economy --
and all are political.
They are political in both the policy specifically made, and in the underlying general
theory. An African socialist will make tax policy for his circumstances, and the
Canadian moderate will make tax policy for his circumstances -- but the effect is the
same -- a government decision affecting economic behavior. On the left -- right
political spectrum the socialist will make a more controlling policy, and in America a
less controlling policy -- but it is still a controlling policy.
In every region of the world there are governments, whether old or new, legal or
revolutionary, that seek to control the economy.. Whether through violence or law,
control of borders or taxes, the currency or banking -- it is only in degree that they
are different.
It is impossible for politics and economics to be separated. Politics is the way in
which we order society. People naturally congregate -- and work needs doing --
choices made, and that is politics. Economics is the way in which we survive.
People need to eat (they would need to do so even if they did not congregate
together naturally) work needs doing, choices made, and that is economics.
Both are choices made concerning organizing society so that it functions (politics)
and survives (economics). And how one does each affects the other. Though not in
happenstance, or mix and match, but in direct ratios, viewed more as more of one
and less of the other, like a see-saw.
There can be no political decision made that does not affect the economics. But
there are economic decisions that do not affect politics. Every law, every rule
promulgated by a government as politics will be to the benefit or detriment of some
or a number of individuals economically. Every decision made by individuals
economically does not affect the politics.
There are many economic decisions that do affect politics. These decisions are
those made in reaction to a political decision. Economic transactions that occur
totally within the law, simple things like grocery shopping, do not affect politics
directly. Even in revolution torn countries the procurement of food does not affect the
politics. It can not change the political situation. Though it is very obvious that the
political situation affects the food situation. These non-affecting activities are
everyday transactions, millions of small ones aggregating to a big chunk of an
economy.
There are decisions made in reaction to political decisions, that is, a change in the
tax code will automatically make some people change their economic behavior. In
America when the tax code is changed in a way which people do not quite agree
with we get tax evasion and avoidance, either legally or illegally. Like working off the
books and other trade deals. In other countries this evasion takes the form of
smuggling, or institutional theft and misreporting information. The larger the political
say in economics the more people try to react to preserve their interest
economically, including ultimately fleeing the country in question.
It is at this point that economic decisions affect political decisions. As the political
world reacts to individual economic situations new laws and rules are made.
Causing reaction in the economic world and it escalates, in some instances into
open rebellion. It is the beliefs of the political office holders that ultimately
determines the economic situation. These two can be on a basis of degree in the
among of effect upon each other.
The realization that politics and economics are inextricably linked -- with politics the
stronger side, alters your policy options and proposals. If one holds the socialist
view that economics creates the political system -- and then by changing the
economic system create a better politics, one must be driven to control all or most
or much individual economic activity. On the other hand, if one thinks that one
cannot wait for economic changes that change the politics -- one can change the
politics fast. And force the economic changes and then one controls all the political
activity. All of this can be expressed in degrees on a left to right continuum.
of some criteria -- there are dozens of entitlements, and it is with these that
Presidents and Congress want to tinker. A little change, here, a little change there,
is the idea. The problem lies not in which criteria are decided upon, or which is the
accepted beneficiary of these moneys, or even the plight of those who are receiving
the money.
The problem lies in the method of transfer -- and the end itself. If a person is entitled
to government money it means that as long as they meet the criteria set they can
receive the money. It is not a matter of privilege but of right. It is a "legal right" that
they receive this money. The government is the provider of this money -- but the
government has but one source of funds -- the taxpayer. The government is not
dispersing its money; it has none. The government is dispensing a person's money.
So we are faced with a situation where there is one person entitled to money --
which a second person promises to pay (congress) and then he can only get the
money from a third person. The government acts merely as a facilitator of the
transfer, providing collection, dispersal, monitoring and accounting services. And it
is all backed up by a gun if necessary.
If a person is entitled to anther's money, and money is just labor (as previously
explained), than the first person is entitled to the second person's labor -- which is
enslavement to the degree of entitlement. If one person is entitled to anther's
money/labor than it is not the labor/money of the second person. It belongs only to
the first. The enslavement is unlawful, unconstitutional and morally reprehensible.
Entitlement programs are on the left of the political spectrum because they violate
the right not to be forced, not to join, or the right to be left alone.
All of the programs that are entitlements violate these basic precepts, and only a
major shift in political view points, the paradigm shift, will have to occur before the
concept of entitlement programs is unmasked -- and then altered.
It is here that we can first begin to show that politics and economics are really
opposite side of the coin. These two are different from the culture and religion
elements of society. Politics is more complex than the idealists would have it.
The socialistic-leftist paradigm separates the politics from economics; there will be
further looks at this connection below.
Take into consideration that the entitlements, both in the collection and the dispersal
of the money, more than $800 billion in 2002, drastically affects the economy.
The Federal Reserve Board is constitutionally questionable because it regulates the
value of the currency, the value of money. It used to do so by gold, but now just the
full faith and credit of the United States Government. But Article 1 Section 8 of the
Constitution provides that only Congress has the right to regulate the value of the
currency.
The powers of the Constitution are really the people's -- which we "lend" to the
government by representatives. We did not give the Congress the right to give away
its powers that we lent it. Indeed the 9th and 10th Amendments specifically gives
powers not used by the government back to the states, or the people. Congress had
no right to give the power to regulate currency to the Federal Reserve Board, which
is independent of the government.
A rather simple analysis that can be flushed out legally elsewhere, here we are only
dealing broadly with the viewpoints of left and right.
It is fairly obvious that the Federal Reserve has an enormous impact upon the
economy.
These two have the biggest effect economically -- and they are the two egregious
examples of socialistic thinking in the current system.
Both are manifestations of the idea that we have to save capitalism from itself -- that
the system of "capitalism" creates needy people of one sort of another and
therefore we must help them. The Fed supposedly protects us from the business
cycle -- the vissitudes of up and down in business.
These two main concepts -- and realities -- are overarching for all government
programs. No other decisions made by government escape these two institutions.
Now back to theory momentarily. There is no doubt that the income tax, entitlement
programs and the Federal Reserve board are all political institutions -- politically
motivated, politically restrained. And yet they are the driver of the economy.
Everyone makes their decisions based on the current condition of the economy -- in
general -- which is controlled by the Federal Reserve Board. From the Fed's actions
everyone makes decisions economically, specifically, based on the tax treatment or
any potential gain from the government. From the welfare rural mother to the big city
tycoon these three things overlay all their decisions, both in daily specifics and
future planning.
In the practical matter of any country on earth, the taxes, the entitlements (or
subsidies) and the central bank -- all are the controlling factors of the economy --
and all are political.
They are political in both the policy specifically made, and in the underlying general
theory. An African socialist will make tax policy for his circumstances, and the
Canadian moderate will make tax policy for his circumstances -- but the effect is the
same -- a government decision affecting economic behavior. On the left -- right
political spectrum the socialist will make a more controlling policy, and in America a
less controlling policy -- but it is still a controlling policy.
In every region of the world there are governments, whether old or new, legal or
revolutionary, that seek to control the economy.. Whether through violence or law,
control of borders or taxes, the currency or banking -- it is only in degree that they
are different.
It is impossible for politics and economics to be separated. Politics is the way in
which we order society. People naturally congregate -- and work needs doing --
choices made, and that is politics. Economics is the way in which we survive.
People need to eat (they would need to do so even if they did not congregate
together naturally) work needs doing, choices made, and that is economics.
Both are choices made concerning organizing society so that it functions (politics)
and survives (economics). And how one does each affects the other. Though not in
happenstance, or mix and match, but in direct ratios, viewed more as more of one
and less of the other, like a see-saw.
There can be no political decision made that does not affect the economics. But
there are economic decisions that do not affect politics. Every law, every rule
promulgated by a government as politics will be to the benefit or detriment of some
or a number of individuals economically. Every decision made by individuals
economically does not affect the politics.
There are many economic decisions that do affect politics. These decisions are
those made in reaction to a political decision. Economic transactions that occur
totally within the law, simple things like grocery shopping, do not affect politics
directly. Even in revolution torn countries the procurement of food does not affect the
politics. It can not change the political situation. Though it is very obvious that the
political situation affects the food situation. These non-affecting activities are
everyday transactions, millions of small ones aggregating to a big chunk of an
economy.
There are decisions made in reaction to political decisions, that is, a change in the
tax code will automatically make some people change their economic behavior. In
America when the tax code is changed in a way which people do not quite agree
with we get tax evasion and avoidance, either legally or illegally. Like working off the
books and other trade deals. In other countries this evasion takes the form of
smuggling, or institutional theft and misreporting information. The larger the political
say in economics the more people try to react to preserve their interest
economically, including ultimately fleeing the country in question.
It is at this point that economic decisions affect political decisions. As the political
world reacts to individual economic situations new laws and rules are made.
Causing reaction in the economic world and it escalates, in some instances into
open rebellion. It is the beliefs of the political office holders that ultimately
determines the economic situation. These two can be on a basis of degree in the
among of effect upon each other.
The realization that politics and economics are inextricably linked -- with politics the
stronger side, alters your policy options and proposals. If one holds the socialist
view that economics creates the political system -- and then by changing the
economic system create a better politics, one must be driven to control all or most
or much individual economic activity. On the other hand, if one thinks that one
cannot wait for economic changes that change the politics -- one can change the
politics fast. And force the economic changes and then one controls all the political
activity. All of this can be expressed in degrees on a left to right continuum.
| CHAPTER 9 |
| Jim Hlavac |
The Socialist Era
| Poltics, Theory & Economics |
