Jim Hlavac
| Politics Home The Practicalist The Socialist Era Politics Re-Explained Fundamentals Domestic Affairs Economic Theory Foreign Affairs Libertarian Ideas Political Theory Philosophy Royalty & Theology |
Economic Theory
| Economic Theory |
When the United States was founded every other country on the
planet was a kingdom of one sort or another. Those kingdoms relied
squarely on the divine right of Kings. Some of these kingdoms were
friendly, such as France. Others hostiles, such as England. And others
indifferent, like Spain. But these kingdom were working against each
other -- and used their support or hindrance of the United States to
their advantage.
Starting with the French Revolution and then spreading during the
1840's, kings were overthrown, and replaced -- by king-like rulers
who used other titles to give them power. There was no
fundamental changes in the rule of the people or of the economy and
political scenes. Even where the king was removed the noble
families still owned the land and the factories and were a major
political force.
Throughout the world between 1848 -- the publishing of the
Communist Manifesto -- and the end of World War II there were lots
of revolutions, and overthrowing of this emperor or that king. All
were supposedly in the name of democracy and the rights of the
people. Hundreds of countries "changed" their form of government.
Supposedly democracy was now spread throughout the land. The
South Americans overthrew the Spanish and Portuguese. Often with
our help -- because to some degree we had the naive belief that we
were helping to create democracy and free trade with these
countries newly freed from despots.
What we didn't grasp was that the new leaders aspired to the
exact same thing as the kings of old. They didn't want change -- they
wanted control. They didn't want democracy, or economic freedom,
free speach -- or anything else that the successive presidents of the
United States thought we would be getting through our help.
There was a degree of anti-Catholicism, racism, and even greed.
There was no doubt unscrupulous people involved in the removal of
the Spanish from the Americas. But we were wholly unprepared to
have Kings replaced with "kings" who now called themselves
president.
Because these then were the rulers that we were going to deal
with if we were going to deal with these countries in the first place.
And here were our options throughout the centuries:
1. We refused to deal with countries that we disagree with their
government -- basically sanctions. And now that we have a sanction
against Cuba, and against North Korea, we are vilified by the statists
who insist we are the cause then of the lack of freedom and lack of
wealth in these countries. We are bad because we won't trade with
them.
2. We can go to war with them, and try to change their regimes.
And we have done so a lot -- and the longer we occupy that place
the better off it is in the terms of political freedom and economic
freedom. Japan was just as bad as Pinochet in Chile -- but we
occupied Japan for 60 years and they learned. It took the Chileans
another 50 years of the divine right of the president/king to rule
before they saw the light. We are bad because we go to war with
them.
3. We can embrace them and do business with them just the way
they are. And do nothing about the conditions which the leaders
impose on upon the people. We often worked with countries that
were repressive towards their own people. The more strenuous we
were engaged the more we were told we were imperialist and
hegemonic and trying to destroy their culture -- "just give us your
money," these leaders said. But we laid down with the dogs because
there were more fearsome wolves out there.
Now we have taken care of the wolves -- the former Soviet
Union -- because no matter how absurd the fight was the reality was
that there was a fight going on. We didn't want it - they insisted that
it was the inevitable situation of mankind for the two systems to be
at war with each other until Socialism triumphed. They were wrong.
However, now we have to face all these little tin pot dictators
whom we laid down with -- and explain to them that it's now their
turn to get rid of their oppressive regimes
planet was a kingdom of one sort or another. Those kingdoms relied
squarely on the divine right of Kings. Some of these kingdoms were
friendly, such as France. Others hostiles, such as England. And others
indifferent, like Spain. But these kingdom were working against each
other -- and used their support or hindrance of the United States to
their advantage.
Starting with the French Revolution and then spreading during the
1840's, kings were overthrown, and replaced -- by king-like rulers
who used other titles to give them power. There was no
fundamental changes in the rule of the people or of the economy and
political scenes. Even where the king was removed the noble
families still owned the land and the factories and were a major
political force.
Throughout the world between 1848 -- the publishing of the
Communist Manifesto -- and the end of World War II there were lots
of revolutions, and overthrowing of this emperor or that king. All
were supposedly in the name of democracy and the rights of the
people. Hundreds of countries "changed" their form of government.
Supposedly democracy was now spread throughout the land. The
South Americans overthrew the Spanish and Portuguese. Often with
our help -- because to some degree we had the naive belief that we
were helping to create democracy and free trade with these
countries newly freed from despots.
What we didn't grasp was that the new leaders aspired to the
exact same thing as the kings of old. They didn't want change -- they
wanted control. They didn't want democracy, or economic freedom,
free speach -- or anything else that the successive presidents of the
United States thought we would be getting through our help.
There was a degree of anti-Catholicism, racism, and even greed.
There was no doubt unscrupulous people involved in the removal of
the Spanish from the Americas. But we were wholly unprepared to
have Kings replaced with "kings" who now called themselves
president.
Because these then were the rulers that we were going to deal
with if we were going to deal with these countries in the first place.
And here were our options throughout the centuries:
1. We refused to deal with countries that we disagree with their
government -- basically sanctions. And now that we have a sanction
against Cuba, and against North Korea, we are vilified by the statists
who insist we are the cause then of the lack of freedom and lack of
wealth in these countries. We are bad because we won't trade with
them.
2. We can go to war with them, and try to change their regimes.
And we have done so a lot -- and the longer we occupy that place
the better off it is in the terms of political freedom and economic
freedom. Japan was just as bad as Pinochet in Chile -- but we
occupied Japan for 60 years and they learned. It took the Chileans
another 50 years of the divine right of the president/king to rule
before they saw the light. We are bad because we go to war with
them.
3. We can embrace them and do business with them just the way
they are. And do nothing about the conditions which the leaders
impose on upon the people. We often worked with countries that
were repressive towards their own people. The more strenuous we
were engaged the more we were told we were imperialist and
hegemonic and trying to destroy their culture -- "just give us your
money," these leaders said. But we laid down with the dogs because
there were more fearsome wolves out there.
Now we have taken care of the wolves -- the former Soviet
Union -- because no matter how absurd the fight was the reality was
that there was a fight going on. We didn't want it - they insisted that
it was the inevitable situation of mankind for the two systems to be
at war with each other until Socialism triumphed. They were wrong.
However, now we have to face all these little tin pot dictators
whom we laid down with -- and explain to them that it's now their
turn to get rid of their oppressive regimes