An Open Letter To Occupy Wall Street

16 Oct 2011

An Open Letter To Occupy Wall Street

Hi. My name is Mark Trueblood. I'm an advocate of a Constitutionally-limited government, a supporter of some Republicans, an admirer of genuine Progressives, and a defender of free-market capitalism. And I don't blame you for being angry at the system currently driving our country off a cliff. I am too. I frankly question the sanity of anyone who isn't.

I'm writing this letter to suggest to you that solutions will come from a smaller, limited government rather than the larger and more domineering government many of you seem to advocate.

1. I have been vehemently against every single war the US has engaged in, in my lifetime. Grotesque military spending, adventurism, and "nation building" ideology represent the worst of our government's unholy alliance with global power elites. I agree with principled libertarians and progressives that many of the problems the US faces on the world stage are blowback from our own short-sighted actions. We need to re-focus our military on the Constitutionally-limited role of National Defense, rather than the current role of "Team America World Police."

2. I can't stand crony capitalism and corporatism. Bailouts, pork-barrel spending, and other sweetheart deals circumvent a functioning free-market capitalist system. Here's an area where I might raise your hackles: The "evils of capitalism" you decry are actually the result of anti-capitalist practices. We need MORE free-market capitalism, not less. Corporatism is not caused by free-market capitalism, it is in opposition to free-market capitalism. The reality is, special interests are opposed to free-market capitalism. They develop cozy relationships with government for favorable regulations and laws that rig the game in their favor.
Therefore, Occupy Wall Street's insistence for more regulations and more government spending are the last thing we need. What we need is a smaller Constitutionally-limited government and radically reduced spending. A smaller government that spends less gives special interests less incentive to lobby. This reduces corporatism, and reduces the phenomenon of government favoring their well-connected friends in the private sector. It will create a more level playing field for new business models and innovations. In the long run, it will help everyone with an idea and passion make an impact in our society. Innovation and creativity are the most powerful forces in society for improving our quality of life.

3. I'm a vocal proponent for social justice, though I disagree with most of the Left's solutions in these areas. Here's where I'm really going to tick you off. Neither the government nor society is responsible for taking care of you. As an adult, you're responsible for taking care of yourself, your family, and the community you've chosen to be a part of. Government programs designed to "take care of us" favor special interests, reduce individual liberty, and subsidize poor personal choices. The government's only role is to defend your individual rights, and perhaps provide a very limited social safety net. "A government big enough to give you everything you want is a government big enough to take from you everything you have." (President Gerald Ford)
Demanding that other people's money be redistributed to the needy is not moral, charitable, or just. Voluntary acts of charity are moral and just. Demanding other people's wealth be given to you is a shameful mob mentality. Private charities and philanthropic organizations have a much better track record than government of actually helping the needy. Best of all, through volunteering and philanthropy everyone is able to make an impact in the areas we are most passionate about.

4. The country's Ruling Class has gotten out of control, and both political parties are pretty much bought and sold by them. That's undeniable. As a solution, Occupy Wall Street proposes a few solutions: Tax the rich, end corporate personhood, and end political donations.
"Tax the rich." First of all, "the rich" pay FAR more taxes than the rest of us already. Secondly, increasing taxes tends to fetch diminishing returns in the long run. This is because higher tax rates give incentives to people to sit on their money, and/or send it overseas. If we want to improve the economy and our quality of life, raising taxes is not a solution. The solution is to make the US the best place in the world for business and investment. Contrary to conventional opinion, the US is not a business-friendly country. There are several countries around the world that offer a better business environment. Rather than raising taxes, we need to shrink government and simplify the tax code. The global investor class is very pragmatic and agnostic about where they put their money. They just want to get as much bang for their buck as they possibly can. If the US offers that, they'll invest here. If another country offers a better situation, they'll invest there. Let's make it here.
"End corporate personhood." I've never really understood what this is about. I think people propose this to reduce the evils of corruption and crony capitalism. But as discussed above, crony capitalism is the result of a big and unrestrained government. Special interests get away with corruption because they're very good at currying influence within government. And in turn, their government cronies wield the power of the State and the Treasury to do their bidding.
"End political donations." I think that Progressives demand curtailing political donations because they think it gives the Right Wing an unbalance of power. But that's just not the case. As many of you are probably aware, the Left has enjoyed tremendous support from the big banks for decades now, and Obama set a new record in Wall Street contributions. Furthermore, labor unions spend tens of millions of dollars every election cycle on politicians. In fact, they spend far more money than most corporations. Labor unions are organizations designed for the purpose of wielding political influence. As part of this mission, they give a lot more money in campaign donations and organizing than do corporations. Corporations have a board and stockholders to answer to. But beyond all that, campaign contributions are free speech, and protected by the Bill of Rights.

The Ruling Class is out of control because they have taken the reigns of an out of control government. Demanding bigger government to end the "evils of capitalism" is not the solution. Some powerful people will ALWAYS find a way to rig the game in their favor, no matter how idealistic we may want to be about our favorite political leaders. The solution is to shrink the power and influence of the government.

7 months ago Orion_rhino (Twitter) responded:

Hey, Mark,

I found you while looking for a review of The Idea Writers. I want to say a few things in response to your letter.

Your photo: 99% refers to that large segment of the population (including you) which owns relatively very little. The top 1% of American society own about 35% of its wealth. The 99% are people like you sharing your vision of a better tomorrow. Ending the wars and not engaging in future ones is a good place to start, so thanks for pointing that out.

I think you use too many one-liners. Not all special interests are alike (there are charitable special interests, for example). Business will lobby the government to promote their self-interest, which means selecting parts of the sweeping ideologies you discuss that best suit them. Sometimes they will oppose regulation. Other times, they will favor it. I think the primary question, which you do not address, is about democracy.

Who will the be the government's constituency? Money or individuals? Corporate profits have never been higher and neither has unemployment (since the Great Depression, anyway). Will wealth creation continued to be favored at the expense of society?

I wonder if you think gross wealth inequities within individual countries are acceptable? This is typically the logical extension of the meritocratic point of view (which is more false than true) and then we rely on the charity of Buffett and Gates. It's like a feudal society again.

I think you need to investigate the distinction between negative and positive rights. If we say that education is a right, then access to education must also be a right. That means leveling the playing field to some extent. I'm not sure how that will be done without a democratically accountable government.

Quality of life doesn't = $. I think that's what you're implying when you mention creativity and innovation. Quality of life is about having a trustworthy and reliable social network. So why shouldn't that be a model for government as well?

7 months ago MarkTrueblood (Twitter) responded:

Orion_rhino: Thanks for the thoughtful response. Here's my reply.

"Your photo: 99% refers to that large segment of the population (including you) which owns relatively very little. The top 1% of American society own about 35% of its wealth."

I know what it's referring to. What my sign is saying is that the Occupiers, those who say "We are the 99%," do not speak for all of us (including me) because they do not represent our views. When they say, "We are the 99%" followed by a list of demands they are implying that everyone in the 99% believes similarly. Not so.

"Not all special interests are alike (there are charitable special interests, for example)."

Didn't say they were. There are lots of special interests with different and often competing views.

"Business will lobby the government to promote their self-interest, which means selecting parts of the sweeping ideologies you discuss that best suit them. Sometimes they will oppose regulation. Other times, they will favor it."

True.

"I think the primary question, which you do not address, is about democracy. Who will the be the government's constituency? Money or individuals? Corporate profits have never been higher and neither has unemployment (since the Great Depression, anyway)."

I am as frustrated about unemployment as anyone, believe me. But you're setting up a lot of false dichotomies here. Corporate profits are not causing people to be unemployed. Much of the profits are a result of 1. global growth (Multinational corps benefit from global growth) 2. loose monetary policies at the Federal Reserve (corps and banks can borrow money for virtually no interest, which incentivizes them to borrow rather than spend their own capital to invest in various parts of their business) and 3. higher productivity (which, I admit, comes partially from layoffs and putting thumbscrews on their current employees.)

"Will wealth creation continued to be favored at the expense of society?"

Wealth creation is not necessarily in opposition to society. Wealth creation is in most circumstances a positive to society. To have a prosperous society, you have to create wealth. And in order to create wealth, you have to have a product or a service that people want to buy. This is a net positive and the principle that drives innovation in all industries. Wealth creation is only in opposition to society if it is creating wealth in harmful ways. If a company made a billion dollars by stealing people's kidneys and selling them on the black market, that would be wealth creation that is harmful to society (and a crime.) Someone might make the case that tobacco companies, for example, are generating wealth by causing harm but we also live in a (somewhat) free society where some people choose to purchase products that are harmful to them in the long term.

We do have one really good example from recent events of the financial industry becoming wealth by selling toxic assets. But that process was enabled and encouraged by the policies of Fannie, Freddie, and the Federal Reserve which are all government entities. So it is hard for me to say that that is even capitalist wealth creation, it was more like the government and the banks looking at dross and calling it gold.

"I wonder if you think gross wealth inequities within individual countries are acceptable?"

Yes, I think wealth inequities are perfectly acceptable, because they don't matter. What matters is how individual people are doing. And US citizens, despite our significant problems, are still FABULOUSLY wealthy compared to most of the rest of the world. Do you know how many billions of people would LOVE to take the place of a poor or working-class American? An income of $34,000 dollars a year puts you in the top 1% of incomes in the world.(Link:http://twitter.com/#!/jjauthor/status/131188879763058688) Every american, by birthright, gets a phenomenal amount of privileges (free K-12 education, clean water, a safe food supply, law enforcement, a strong national defense, etc) which they benefit from even if they never end up working a day in their lives. When you compare that to the conditions that most of humanity has lived in throughout history, that is living phat. And all comes to us as a blessing, regardless of "wealth inequality."

"This is typically the logical extension of the meritocratic point of view (which is more false than true) and then we rely on the charity of Buffett and Gates. It's like a feudal society again."

It only becomes like a feudal society if the whims of the ruling class trump the individual rights of the citizenry. And I strongly favor a government that protects individual rights, much more than it does today in fact.

"If we say that education is a right, then access to education must also be a right."

Every American, legal immigrant, and even some illegal immigrants get a free K-12 education for themselves (or their children.) It is possible to do well enough in public school that, through scholarships, you can get a virtually free secondary education. Adults also have an incredible access to free or low-cost education through community colleges and even just through a library card. All told, that is a hella lot of rights and privileges every american gets when it comes to education.

"Quality of life doesn't = $."

Agreed.

"I think that's what you're implying when you mention creativity and innovation."

Creativity and innovation are the chief drivers of a higher quality of life, as proven throughout history. Technological innovations that make us safer, healthier, and smarter raise quality of life. Creativity in the arts increases our enjoyment of life. Business-oriented creativity and innovation that increases prosperity raise our quality of life.

"Quality of life is about having a trustworthy and reliable social network. So why shouldn't that be a model for government as well?"

I don't know where you're getting that definition of quality of life from. Quality of life refers to the general well-being of individuals and societies. A person could live as a complete hermit their entire life and still have a high quality of life. Indeed, social networks do sometimes, in some ways, help us live a higher quality of life. But I don't want the government to have anything to do with managing my social network. In the bill of rights we have "freedom of association" which means we may associate with those we choose, or disassociate from those we choose, without interference from the government. I'd like to keep it that way. People are happiest in groups, when out of their own free will, they can share experiences with those of their choosing.

Artificial concepts of "equal" social networks will only create misery, because as George Orwell said "All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others." When authority figures have the power to engineer society, they have the power to favor those who they choose to favor. This is even happening in the Occupy / 99% crowd, as many of the special interest groups are very vocal in their wishes for a "Progressive Stack" to favor the views of some people more than others. (Link: http://feministing.com/2011/10/04/guest-post-my-hope-for-occupy-wall-street/)

MarkTrueblood

An Open Letter To Occupy Wall Street

Mark Trueblood's Space

Search

Archive