Enemy of the People

"Capitalism is the enemy of democracy." - Michael Moore

This is where Mr. Moore and I part ways. No economic system is equitable but non-capitalist economic theories have wrought worldwide bloody havoc. Certainly unbridled Capitalism is rapacious. Imperialistic. Exploitative. Enslaving. Just like the rest. But that's just an argument for a bridle given Capitalism’s virtues versus the empirical disasters that non-capitalist systems have proven.

Capitalism is unique because it can order individual self-interest in a way that failed systems like communism can't. Capitalism admits the overwhelming influence of two fundamental principles of human psychology that the other theories ignore or misconstrue at their peril: self-interest and the desire for freedom. Admitting and accepting that all humans primarily act in their own self interest frees Capitalism from utopian social engineering that in seeking to mitigate self interest in the name of equity only exacerbates inequity by providing the powerful with the means for suppression. Capitalism instead allows self-interest free reign within the boundaries of the rule of law thereby maximizing freedom.

The desire for freedom from hunger, want, disease, the elements, and the freedom to chose the life one wants to live is something that all economic theories strive for but Capitalism has proven more successful at than any other. Capitalism, unlike most of its competitors, was not theorized and then implemented; it was implemented and then theorized. This explains its empirical success. It evolved in the real world, and not at the desk of an academic. It successfully feeds billions of people daily. More people were lifted out of poverty by China’s turn towards Capitalism than at any other time in the history of the world.

The butcher does not sell you his meat out of benevolence as Adam Smith memorably said. We work for money to survive and to be free. Money frees us from agrarian barter and allows us to pursue our life unshackled from having to produce our subsistence. And attempts to do away with sale transactions, money, and the like by eliminating private property miserably fail because they prevent the individual from controlling the objects in the material world necessary to her survival and satisfaction. If anyone can take without consequence the tools you work with or the food produced by your labor your freedom to control your world has been diminished and you are subject to the often-wicked caprice of others who invariably act in their own self-interest despite the utopian fantasies of wistful theorists.

Private property creates freedom precisely because it protects self-interest and the freedom of the individual to chose what to do with their property, including the freedom to exchange it for value in mutually beneficial exchanges between contracting private parties with a minimum of governmental interference. Like the butcher does when he sells you his meat. This benefits society as a whole, as any empirical comparison between the world’s capitalist and non-capitalist societies demonstrates.

Finally, it is simplistic to say Capitalism is brutal and amoral. Capitalism as an empirical phenomena is constantly evolving: slavery is now illegal; the labor movement tempered Capitalism’s exploitation, and a body of law emerged recognizing equality and freedom of choice in a world awash in castes and inequality. Of course there is much work to be done (and I suspect this is what Moore’s movie is really about), but I’d much rather stick with a system that actually feeds people than ones that have only produced despotism and scarcity.

Teabirther Constitutionalism

Listening to the latest paranoid political fringe of Teabaggers and Birthers discuss the Constitution I find that I share some of their constitutional views. I support judicial review, that ultimate negation of the purported popular will by judicial fiat by unelected life time justices of the Supreme Court. It's not always perfect (see. e.g., Dred Scott), but it has proven effective in preserving individual liberties in the First, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth and Fourteenth Amendment contexts. The Teabirthers seek the judicial nullification on constitutional grounds (Article 2 sec. 1) of the democratic decision of the People as to their President. This is the ultimate act of judicial review. The Teabirthers want the Supreme Court to rule that the sitting President of the United States must step down. Radical. You don't get a more expansive view of judicial review than that. Too expansive for my tastes. Makes Roe v. Wade's judicial review look insignificant. Of course the Teabirthers ultimately fail because their view is unconstitutional under an unavoidable textualist reading of the Constitution. The Framers clearly intended the power to remove a President to reside with the People's representatives, not the judiciary. The power to remove a sitting President is solely vested in Congress through impeachment (Art I, secs. 2 & 3) and is not an Article III power delegated to the judiciary. This betrays the Teabirthers ignorance of the Constitution they so jealously guard. But I share their fervor for the Constitution.

I take solace that the Teabirther crowd is so angry that constitutional blasphemy is afoot. At least they are not citing biblical blasphemy (at least not all of them). I share their fervor for all things constitutional and their belief that the Constitution is what the living people say it is and not necessarily what the Framers allegedly said it was. After all, if they were textualists they'd have a hard time saying government health care or emergency (hopefully temporary) nationalizations of key industries and financial institutions are unconstitutional when the first sentence of the Constitution says one of its purposes is to promote the general welfare. And if keeping people from dying and preventing economic collapse isn't promoting the general welfare well let me know what is. But if you take a more plastic interpretation of the Constitution, one unmoored from its text, you could plausibly argue that some sort of liberty interest was being violated by government healthcare and industrial and financial nationalization. This view, however, is similar to the logic of Roe v. Wade and Miranda, decisions the teabirthers abhor. Thus goes the cognitive dissonance of their Constitutional theory.

Civil War

Civility was stillborn at the dawn of politics. So the frothing ad hominem nature of the recent debate on health care and the economy is not surprising. Nor is this country's trenchant racism coupling with rabid anti-communism anything new. The KKK has always hated niggers and communists equally. The spectrum has only shifted slightly in that black is the new red. It was naive to think that racism would dissolve in the glow of Obama's election.

Politicians have been calling each other liars since the birth of the Republic, but never has a Southern, confederate sympathizing representative called a black President a liar on the floor of the House. And precisely the fact that we've never had a black President until now amplifies Joe (not his real name) Wilson's tantrum. What's the answer to the question as to why we haven't had a black President until now? Racism, duh. Ignoring the historical context of a white southerner denouncing a black President in a House divided is not rational given the overwhelming history of slavery and apartheid in this country. Well over half a million Americans died in the civil war, to say nothing of the horrors of the Atlantic passage and the "peculiar institution." This is just not the same thing as booing a white President.