Can We Compromise With The Statists?

Posted by Larry Miller on June 21, 2009 under How, Why | Be the First to Comment

Sometimes we read a book or paper from the past and find ourselves amazed at how much of it applies to our current situation. It’s merely a confirmation of what we read in Ecclesiastes 1:9 where we are told: “What has been will be again, what has been done will be done again; there is nothing new under the sun.(NIV) Even though we have a new president was coming in office, we see his ideas of hope and change are nothing new… and when they have been tried before, they did not succeed.

In 1944 Ludwig von Mises published Bureaucracy, where he declared:

“The characteristic feature of present-day policies is the trend toward a substitution of government control for free enterprise. Powerful political parties and pressure groups are fervently asking for public control of all economic activities, for thorough government planning, and for the nationalization of business. They aim at full government control of education and at the socialization of the medical profession. There is no sphere of human activity that they would not be prepared to subordinate to regimentation by the authorities. In their eyes, state control is the panacea for all ills.”

For those who would be our masters, who fancy themselves more caring and having more wisdom than the unwashed masses who are too foolish and ignorant to accept their utopian solutions. Because of this acknowledged lack of acceptance by the commoners, they know the only way they can inflict their “wisdom” on the public is through mandatory compliance… otherwise known as the use of force. However, because they believe it is for our own good, they are relentless. C.S. Lewis understood this thinking when he wrote, “Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive”

Because those who see the state as the ultimate good (and God) sincerely believe they have the answers to the ills that plague humanity, it is not possible to have a calm discussion of issues where differences of opinion are heard and respected. If they are correct, and of course they are… in their own minds, all discussion to the contrary is wrong and misleading to the hoi polloi. This causes confusion and hinders their plans… it must be stopped.

For those who doubt the nature of our conflict, witness the way those who doubt Algore and his rantings about man made “climate change” are vilified and harassed. Observe those who would reinstate the “fairness doctrine” in an attempt to silence the popular, but questioning talk radio of the likes of Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity and Glenn Beck. Failing that, up to this point, they are not only trying to destroy them professionally, but questioning their mental stability. There is no attempt to logically refute these dispensers of truth… because they statists know then can’t.

In his 1944 work, von Mises continued, “Today the fashionable philosophy of Statolatry has obfuscated the issue [of tyrants versus popular government]. The political conflicts are no longer seen as struggles between groups of men. They are considered a war between two principles, the good and the bad. The good is embodies in the great god State, the materialization of the eternal idea of morality, and the bad is the ‘rugged individualism’ of selfish men. In this antagonism the State is always right and the individual always wrong. The State is the representative of the commonweal, of justice, civilization, and superior wisdom. The individual is a poor wretch, a vicious fool.”

Anyone who had joined the battle and defended the cause of freedom before the purveyors of statist orthodoxy, most likely know the personal invective that substitutes for logical discussion these days. As one of the talk radio gurus is fond of saying, it’s enough to make your head explode.

What does this tell us about our approach to working in this arena. Among other things, it tells us not to be taken in by leftist claims of looking for bi-partisanship and broad support. They usually mean that they have gotten some from the other side to bite on their bait and sell out their values. It means any concessions they give are only temporary and the goal will be taken up at a later date.

It means that, like the communists during the cold war, peaceful coexistence is only an illusion. There is no substitute for victory. Instead of trying to call the era of Reagan over, as some of our faint hearted associates would have us do, we need another Ronaldus Magnus to lead us out of the wilderness… perhaps even a William Wallace.