When to Socialize and When to Privatize

I have been doing a lot of thinking lately about when certain businesses should be socialized. For example, should AmTrak have been socialized? What about the Postal Service—should that be privatized? There is a lot of debate about these things, especially since Republicans keep saying they want to privatize Social Security, and in Idaho, they have succeeded to a great degree in privatizing Medicaid.

I think there are two criteria, usually dependent on each other, which determine when something should be socialized. A business should be socialized when:

• It would be unethical for the producers not to produce the product.
• It would be unethical for the consumers not to consume the product.

Here's my rationale: When a private company engages in business with a product, there will inevitably be times when it is financially advisable not to distribute the product, or to distribute it incompletely, or to make the product faulty or addicting in some way. All of these things hamper the full transmission or consumption of the product. If it is unethical for the transmission of the product not to occur (the ultimate hampering of transmission of the product), it is, logically, therefore, unethical for the product to be privatized. It should be socialized.

Clearly, this does not cover all businesses. M&Ms should not be socialized. Neither should Technics speakers. There are some gray areas: for example, what about private transportation? Some may argue for socialization, some may argue against it. But partly because of the clear-cut examples of businesses which should not be socialized under my model, I am not a Socialist. It is not necessary for all businesses to be socialized, and, perhaps, it is not desirable for them to be. We all know that healthy competition and the profit motive can lead to innovation. Centralization of wealth to a certain degree can lead to good investments. I, for one, think that the entrepreneur, the essence of Capitalism, is one of the more powerful and often positive forces in our world. So I don't think the control of every business should be transferred from entrepreneurs to committees.

But there are, to be sure, some clear-cut examples of businesses which should be socialized, and, I would contend, most Liberals would agree with these. Health insurance should definitely be socialized. So should Social Security. But in addition to these, there are some positives which many might find surprising. For example, staple food production. By my account, this should be socialized. This conclusion surprised me, and at first it led me to reconsider my criteria—perhaps I had made a mistake. But no, now that I've thought about it, I emphatically agree: staple food production should be socialized. If we socialized food, we would, in one fell swoop, (probably) eliminate diabetes and obesity. If we socialized food, we would end unfair government subsidies of corn. We would also do away with so much exploitation in the third world, and also improve conditions for farmers here in America. No, food production should be socialized.

This doesn't necessarily mean that managerial control be taken out of the hands of the farmers. (I'd bet most farmers feel they're already managed enough by the government!) Rather, it means that the mechanism for providing capital, and the mechanism for distribution, should be at least subcontracted by the government according to the principles of just law.

I think my criteria hold up to much philosophical scrutiny. If I were a justice of the Supreme Court, I would use these criteria. I also think these criteria should also guide public opinion. Use them wisely, grasshopper.

Why Capitalism is More Ethical Than Marxism

The material value of a thing is not reducible to the labor required in its production. It's reducible to the amount of work it does for society—it's value as an organizing concept which enables the welfare of others. This is the value. The exchange value is not the same as the value, but it is similar: it involves the willingness of society to support the thing created. Capitalism is all about the centralization of wealth; when wealth is centralized, it has the potential to become capital, which is then used to create more wealth. The wealth takes on the trappings of an organizing concept, or a commodity, something with material value, as defined above. This is the positive virtue of capitalism: it creates more wealth for everybody. It creates an endless cycle of more wealth, for everybody.

Communism, on the other hand, does not involve the centralization of wealth at all. Wealth should not be centralized, because such can only be done through labor extraction. I think this is based on flawed arguments, and anyway is not the case. Wealth should be centralized, to a certain extent, because concepts are centralized, so decentralized wealth is the sign of an economy devoid of concepts—an ignorant economy. Concepts are centralized because they organize thought—they are the central elements which allow us to organize the way we think.

Let me make a couple of qualifying statements. Capitalism, by definition, should be the continued production of capital, as defined above. Any production of capital which does not produce a net increase of value, or the potential to create more capital, as a system, should not be regarded as capitalism. Therefore, when a factory owner creates wealth for himself and condemns his workers to a never-ending cycle of oppression, he is not a capitalist, because he is not creating net wealth. Rather, he is contributing to the decline in well-being and perhaps death of his workers. Also, when Goldman Sachs bets on mortgage securities which are designed to fail, it is far from capitalist. It produces a relatively small amount of wealth for a very few number of people, and a drastically huge decline of wealth for a very large number of people. How can something be called "capitalist" when it destroys more capital than it produces?

Capitalism, as an ideal, is a worthy ideal, when aligned with generosity. If "capitalism" ignores real, meaningful generosity, the kind of generosity which lifts people out of poverty and lends them creative capacity, it is not capitalist, because it is destructive. Capital is inherently creative by virtue of its definition. Capital can only be used to create goods, or it isn't capital, it's just money.

I, for what it's worth, am a capitalist.

Where Liberals Have Gone Wrong

I've been busy writing up the business plan for my website (www.netcultpolitics.com), and have come to a surprising conclusion:

I am not a Liberal.

during my research, I had to do answer some fundamental questions about the American political marketplace. And one of the questions I had to ask was, first of all, what is a Liberal? (And, more importantly, what is a Conservative?)

"Liberal" can mean many things. A liberal used to mean a Communist, back in the early part of the century. After World War II, however, that changed; American communism fell apart. After that, Liberals were people who agreed with the F.D.R. tradition, following the lead of the Great Society. But the Great Society had a rotten core because, while it supported domestic improvements for the common man, it also supported imperialism and war, implicit racism, and big business. This is where Liberalism shot itself in the foot. When the civil rights movement came, as it inevitably would, along with the (also inevitable) anti-war movement, Liberals fractured. And today, unfortunately, this legacy of Liberalism continues. This is why I say, I am not a Liberal. I am not a Lyndon Johnson Liberal, because I disagree with a) the Vietnam war and interventionism in general, b) selfish Capitalism, and c) racism.

When the Liberal movement failed, of course, conservatives immediately filled the vacuum. It was the same old story—racism, big business, and imperialism—but with the added feature of enhanced propaganda and an attitude of "screw the common man." (While I'm not a Johnsonian Liberal, I am certainly not a conservative.)

However, I think we are in the process of redefining what it means to be a Liberal. I, for one, do not fully associate Liberalism with Lyndon Johnson's tradition. I think Liberalism has more to do with being generous and letting people go their own way without interference. It's like Libertarianism, except with generosity—real, systematized generosity (i.e. welfare). In this sense, I definitely am a Liberal. I think we need this kind of politics. And its roots are everywhere. Our culture is filled with generosity. We have soup lines, food banks, the Salvation Army, the gospel, Buddhism—all kinds of generous potential. This potential has moral force. The conservatives may have political power, and economic power, and propaganda power, but Liberals in general have more moral power—at least, under my newer, updated definition of the word "Liberal."

So what does it mean to be a Conservative? Essentially, I think, it means that you are against regulation, but for laws. "Regulation" means laws that govern business. There are also other laws you do not support—laws regulating guns, and protecting the environment. Conservatism also means you support freedom from all kinds of interferences, but you think this freedom must be protected by military might. Finally, it means upholding traditions, especially the tradition of Democracy. I think a lot of these traits are admirable, and if we had people in office who lived up to these ideals, we wouldn't be so bad off. The problem is that Conservatives do not honor the rules. They follow the letter of the law, sometimes, but don't live up to its spirit. The purpose of Democracy is to preserve the freedom of individuals, which means they need deliberative freedom (i.e. freedom from propaganda) and political freedom (which entails representatives being held accountable to their public). On these two counts, the conservatives are lacking greatly.

Where do we go from here? Well, we have to stand for something. We have to uphold our true values as human beings. We have to capitalize on our potential for generosity. Liberalism, while under threat, will by no means die out, because things have changed enormously in history. Human beings have actualized their potential to be decent people to a great extent. With my values as my touchstone, I tend to think it is easier to redefine the word "Liberal" to reflect this than it is to redefine the word "Conservative," because of the damage done by the Heritage Foundation and all the others. That is why, in my own way, I truly am a Liberal.

January 29th two school officials held a luncheon prayer at a booster lunch. They were charged for violating a court order against "promoting, advancing, aiding, facilitating, endorsing, or causing religious prayers or devotionals during school sponsored events" (Hannigan, "jail time"). On the 17th of September, school officials from Pace High School in Florida were cleared of charges, because the prosecuting attorney failed to prove criminal intent (Hannigan, "Judge rules"). Although the judge remarked that America is not a theocracy, this is a dangerous ruling. With vigilant Christians constantly trying to unnecessarily burden teachers with creationism, we should be on guard against theocracy as much as ever. But why does God belong outside of government? Why should political concerns be secular? After all, shouldn't politicians uphold God's will? Wouldn't we all stand to benefit from God-fearing politics?

While God ought to guide politics, God should be kept out of politics. Our politics are our concern, not God's. But I don't think we are harmed by exposure to God, as many people think. The usual line of argument is that we should keep God out to respect the religions of others—so that we don't force one religion on everyone else. While I agree with this, I think too often this tack is made because people get offended when you defend God. But this isn't about that. God should be kept out of politics not because God desecrates us, but because because religious politics desecrate God.

Authority structures are temporal, plain and simple. Since they're temporal, authority structures have never been under the complete jurisdiction of God. Rather, they've been given to us to govern (by God, ironically). So when a politician claims that she is a servant exclusively of God, insofar as she is acting as a politician, she is making a false claim. She may be acting under God's advice, but her post is not a heavenly one. It is worldly. In fact, I propose a simple litmus test to check whether something is worldly: If a computer can predict it, it's probably worldly. Computers can and do predict public policy, at least according to Bruce Bueno de Mesquita (with 90% accuracy), and so public policy is probably worldly. Obviously there are some problems with this approach—if a computer can't predict it, does that mean it isn't worldly? Probably not (though I'm not sure). But computers work based on things that are concretely defined. And, concretely defined things are worldly—this is what it means to be worldly. Public policy, too, works with things that are concretely defined: laws, incentives, petitions, vested interests, etc. So the business of public policy is the business of this world.

When people try to employ God in the business of the world, I think they get the roles mixed up. They try to make God conform to the authority of man, instead of the other way around. This is because they confuse what they want with what God wants. Setting public policy is about what you want done, as a man. When you speak to others, you speak as a man. Perhaps God inspires you, perhaps God guides you, but you do not in any way create or control God. Therefore the overzealous motivation to spread the gospel in public policy is wrongheaded. The best case scenario is that you are rejected as a fanatic. The worst case scenario is that you fetter any actual devotion to God, and instead people become devoted to you. I don't think selflessly spreading what you consider to be the truth is wrong, but I think you should live with the fact that you are actually getting nothing done. If anything good happens, it happens helplessly, because of God. We should watch out for people who pursue any kind of public policy, and we should ask, what authority do they have? Why are they making these decisions? What assumptions am I making about them? And most importantly, are my assumptions wrong?

It's not easy for anyone to check whether their assumptions are wrong. Sometimes the idea that you're wrong can be frightening. But if we can't find a way change our minds about public officials, even when they're wrong, how can we expect them to change their minds for us? Public officials are fallible, and are often wrong. This is why I think faith is so important—because we're so often wrong. We have to have faith that no matter how wrong we get, somehow we can manage to proceed on the spiritual path. If a man uses Christianity to guide his way, and that man is a public official, I see no problem. Perhaps that man has faith, and perhaps that faith will help him in difficult situations. But if that man creates difficult situations by trying to write laws with the authority of God, excluding all other possibilities, I see a problem. I see a man playing God. That is why we can't have a Christian nation: we have to ask, whose Christianity?

Writing laws with the authority of God places all of the responsibility on God. On the one hand, the man expects the law to be enforced—promoting his authority. But on the other hand, the man expects God to take responsibility for the law to be enforced, and/or he expects God to glorify him for making the law, and/or he expects to be protected in God's name from those who oppose the law, etc. This, again, conflates the authority of God and man. If man wrote the law, it is man's device, it carries the authority of man, and whatever happens because of the law happens because of man. If God were to come into the picture, it would be through man. But not because of man. That is, when man says, "This shall be done," it is man saying it perhaps because of God, but certainly not God saying it because of man. In fact, the responsibility for everything we say, do, and put into law, is ours. This is not a secular idea—it has support in the scriptures.

Speaking of the scriptures, the idea that God should be kept out of politics can be inferred from the New Testament. When the centurion approaches Jesus, he says he's not worthy for Jesus to come under his roof. (This occurs in Luke 7 and Matthew 8.) Why? Because he's a man of "authority"—all he wanted was for Him to heal his slave. What the centurion is doing is denying himself and his own authority, and adopting faith in Jesus. And Jesus affirms his faith, saying it's greater even than the faith He found in Israel. The centurion didn't want Jesus to come into his home because he didn't want to reduce Jesus to a celebrity endorsement. He knew that Jesus wasn't going to affirm his worldly authority, but rather affirm his faith, and in fact He does. We can infer from this story that Jesus' role is not to prop up powerful people, but rather support our faith.

Another piece of the New Testament confirms my suspicion about men trying to use God to their advantage. In Matthew 19 and elsewhere, Jesus discusses how difficult it is for men with great worldly possessions to enter heaven, saying that it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle. The disciples are astonished, and ask who can possibly be saved, to which Jesus responds that with man it is impossible, but with God, all things are possible. This makes me wonder, what exactly are evangelicals trying to do when they preach fire and brimstone? What are they trying to accomplish by propping up Republican politicians? Do they think they're saving people? It seems to me more likely that they're misguided. Perhaps even to the extent that they willfully ignore the meaning of the scripture to benefit themselves. This doesn't harm God, I submit. Desecrating God doesn't harm God at all. Desecrating God harms ourselves. The more God enters into politics, I argue, the further we get from God.

True, Moses was given the ability to evoke God, and give commandments. Jesus was given to do this as well. But are people like Bill O'Reilly really Moses or Jesus? Or, is it more likely that they are what they appear to be—bullies and thugs? I think these people desecrate the name of God by trying to inject God into politics. The irony is, God probably avoids politics. If He wanted to get involved in politics, Jesus probably would have been a king. I think politics are temporal, and it is perverse to use the Word for temporal gain. That would be rendering what is God's to Caesar.

Citations

Hannigan, Joni B. "On Constitution Day, Sept. 17, two school administrators face jail time for lunch prayer." Florida Baptist Witness. Florida Baptist State Convention, 16 Sept. 2009. Web. 4 Oct. 2009.

Hannigan, Joni B. "Judge rules in favor of Pace school officials on trial for meal prayer." Florida Baptist Witness. Florida Baptist State Convention, 18 Sept. 2009. Web. 4 Oct. 2009.