Wrestlemania
It’s easy for conservatives and libertarians to agree that those
who profit through fraud should be punished and that one of the few
proper functions of government is to enforce the rule of law. As a
libertarian, however, I must disagree with Philip Klein’s
conclusion (in “Wrestling With Capitalist Pigs,” TAS,
April 2009) that, “For conservatives, prudent regulation focused on
improving disclosure is a noble goal.” As Klein goes on to point
out, “government regulators are also susceptible to corruption,
conflicts of interest, and poor judgment.” What we need is
less regulation and more personal responsibility.
Caveat emptor. Whether it’s a firm buying derivatives, a
borrower agreeing to a loan, or an insurer guaranteeing against
risk, let the buyer beware. More regulation creates a moral hazard
whereby the consumer believes that risk has been magically
eliminated by an all-knowing third party, and thus even risky
practices are perceived as safe. Why does Klein believe that
suddenly these regulations will work, when all of the
previous regulations have put us in the position we find ourselves
today?
Dave Peterson
Oxford, Florida
Live for Today
In his article about avoidance of personal responsibility (“The
Long Run,” TAS, April 2009), Roger Scruton makes passing
note that John Maynard Keynes was a homosexual but does not tie
this aspect of the Englishman’s life in with Keynes’s promotion of
economic irresponsibility. Mr. Scruton should have because the two
are, indeed, related.
Keynesian economics is a live-for- today-type philosophy. It
favors current pleasures over the future. This dovetails exactly
with the childless homosexual view of life, and contrasts sharply
with the view of parents who care as much, if not more, for the
future as they do for the present, for the sake of their children
and grandchildren.
And it is utter nonsense to argue that Keynes’s private life
should be kept separate from his professional life. When something
as emotional as the forbidden sex is fundamental to a man’s being
as homosexuality was to Keynes, there can be no
compartmentalization. Mr. Scruton, who studies the culture, should
appreciate this more than most.
The essence of the Obama economic program is to rob from the
future to avoid discomfort today. Call me politically incorrect,
but I feel America would be better advised to move toward the
Prophet’s advice and away from the homosexual’s.
Peter Skurkiss
Stow, Ohio
Ways the World Works
Brian Wesbury’s contrast of supply-siders and demand-siders is
on target (“Demand and Supply,” TAS, April 2009), but is
only the economic manifestation of a broader phenomenon. He hints
at this. I would propose to state it more plainly.
Demand-siders take a mechanistic view of society. They can’t
conceive that anything will happen unless they create a mechanism—
a law, bureaucracy, regulation, etc.—to make it happen. Perhaps
more ominously, they don’t believe that anything important happens
which is not caused by mechanisms of social coercion. If they “tax
the rich,” they expect the rich to quietly give it up. It seems to
me that this blindness, as much as anything else, accounts for
demand-siders being soft on foreign policy. They don’t have the
leverage over other societies that they enjoy over our own people.
So, they prefer using the power of government to dominate America
instead of defend it.
The mechanistic view also explains their anti-family policies.
They hate families in the same sense that land developers “hate”
trees. It’s not that they’ve got anything against trees; they’ve
just got other plans, and the trees are in the way.
Supply-siders hold an organic view of society. They expect and
enjoy the fact that things will happen that are not in anybody’s
five-year plan. They are counting on unforeseen innovations coming
along, and know that people need freedom to adapt and take
advantage. Wealth is the seed corn of prosperity; if it is allowed
to be planted, it produces more abundance for everyone. They
understand that a society enjoying life, liberty, and the pursuit
of happiness will be seen as prey by the predators of the world.
So, a strong defense is government’s job number one.
Families are the vessels that carry a society into the future;
they are not some curious sort of hobby. As France, Italy, Russia,
and Japan are learning, a society that neglects its families
cancels its own future.
Jeffrey Payne
Winter Springs, Florida
