Whether his interests center round his own physical needs, or whether his he takes a warm interest in the welfare of every human being he knows (altruism), the ends about which he can be concerned will always be only an infinitesimal fraction of the needs of all men.

This is the fundamental fact on which the whole philosophy of individualism is based.  It does not assume, as is often asserted, that man is egoistic or selfish or ought to be.  It merely starts from the indisputable fact that the limits of our powers of imagination make it impossible to include in our scale of values more than a sector of the needs of a whole society, and that, since strictly speaking, scales of values can only exist in individual minds, nothing but partial scales of values exist- scales which are inevitably different and often inconsistent with each other.

From chapter 5, “Planning and Democracy” from  The Road to Serfdom by F.A. Hayek.  Originally written  in 1944.

HKO Comment:

The presumption that greed or even the productive channeling of greed is the essence of capitalism is the greatest misunderstanding of its opponents. Capitalism is about the competition of ideas.  Capitalism is not about channeling greed productively; it is about  removing limits to human imagination. Whenever central planning replaces the market mechanism, unknown options with endless potential are replaced with the limitations of an elitist few.  The brightest leaders we have can never know a tiny fraction of what the universe of individuals can imagine.  Belief  in the ideas and imagination of the many individuals is the most important quality of an American leader.

It is not difficult to see what must be the consequence when democracy embarks on a course of planning which in its execution requires more agreement than in fact exists.  The people may have agreed on adopting a system of directed economy because they have been convinced that it will produce great prosperity. In the discussions leading to the decision, the goal of planning will have been described by some such term as “common welfare,”  which only conceals the absence of real agreement on the ends of planning .  Agreement will in fact exist only on the mechanism to be used.  But it is a mechanism which can be used only for a common end; and the question of the precise goal toward which all activity is to be directed will arise as soon as the executive plan has to translate the demand for a single plan into a particular plan.  Then it will appear that the agreement on the desirability of planning is not supported by agreement on the ends the plan is to serve. The effect of the people’s agreeing that there must be central planning, without agreeing on the ends, will be to rather as if a group of people were to commit themselves to take a journey together without agreeing on where they want to go; with the result that they may all have to make a journey which most of them do not want at all.

From chapter 5, “Planning and Democracy” from  The Road to Serfdom by F.A. Hayek.  Originally written  in 1944.  This may be the best explanation for the recent political reversal and the revolt against the health care bill. The President presumed an agreement on the ends which rarely occurs in a free society.

The statesman who should attempt to direct private people in what manner they ought to employ their capitals, would not only load himself with a most unnecessary attention, but assume an authority which could safely be trusted to no council and senate whatever, and which would nowhere be so dangerous as in the hands of a man who had folly and presumption enough to fancy himself fit the exercise it.

From Adam Smith’s An inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations, published first in the momentous year of 1776.

HKO Comment:

We think we need unique and new solutions to what we perceive to be a unique and new set of problems, but our problems are not new. They are in fact classical throughout  our history. The solutions and outcomes are also not new, though still painful.  We suffer for our lack of a sense of history.

There are two particular targets of American progressive political ideology: special interests and the curse of bigness, primarily in business. But the preferred solution of the progressives, central planning and regulation, only serve to make these matters worse.

The proliferation of lobbyists and their influence is a common campaign theme. Both parties appear to disdain them. At their best lobbyists serve to bring the pragmatic realities of constituents to bear on pending laws that will affect them.  This should help to fashion regulations and legislation that will actually work as intended without destroying the host industry or interest that is expected to produce the results.

At its worst lobbyists are just special interests that work to fashion legislation for their constituent self interest  at the expense of competitors and consumers.  When we hear of a large company or industry representative pushing for its own regulation, our skepticism should cause us to wonder if the ultimate goal is not to write the rules for protection from competitors.

Lobbyists are a byproduct of modern regulation.  The more we regulate, the more lobbyists are needed to protect the businesses affected and the more the political process becomes distorted by their influence.  The better answer to lobbyists and special interests is to reduce regulation and stop offering them the cover of preferential treatment. Regulations that intend and claim to level the playing field too often serve to tilt it to the special interest with the better political influence.

Big business is also often cursed by the progressive movement, but again their response is to encourage more bigness rather than less.  The intense and uncertain regulation, especially of the last two years, has created an enormous burden on business that is much more easily absorbed by the larger concerns who have the sophisticated infrastructure to comply with new burdensome rules.  Smaller enterprises who eventually get overwhelmed by the new and growing administrative burdens are more likely to sell out to larger concerns or just shut down, leaving the larger competitors with a bigger market share.

Progressives are defined not by the problems the seek to solve and the values they claim to cherish, but by their methods.  Their methods seek more regulations and more central planning.  This approach only makes the problems worse and only serves their own special interest to gain ever greater political power.

The zoning of the Mosque is an issue for the city.  We may have an opinion, but it is a local zoning issue.

We either have religious tolerance or we do not.  We either believe in freedom of religion or we do not. We cannot be just a little bit pregnant here. If that site was used to build a church or a synagogue would we have heard a peep? If the answer is no then we are being clearly discriminatory.

Either we hold all Muslims accountable for the action of the few on 9/11 or we do not.  If we do not hold all Muslims accountable then the Mosque should present no dilemma.  If the 9/11 terrorists were all Christian would we hold all Christians accountable?  I hesitate to ask the same question if the terrorists were Jews, because I fear many would hold all Jews accountable.

Much of the language surrounding the Mosque controversy has crossed the bounds of prejudice.  Many of us only hear of Muslims when the news involves terrorist attacks or acts of violence.  Too many seem unaware that moderate Muslims even exist. Examples are Fareed Zakaria and Irshad Manji.  We have allowed the news to feed our prejudices.

Irshad Manji

Newt Gingrich’s analogy is shameful. To compare building a Mosque in New York to Nazis building a memorial at Auschwitz is both morally and intellectually fraudulent.  To suggest that we will allow the Mosque when the Saudis allow churches and synagogues is pure demagoguery. Are we to set our standards by the most repressive examples?  Are we to lead by principle or follow by spite?

Newt Gingrich

A far better analogy was when the Carmelite nuns wanted to build a monastery near Auschwitz and the Jews were offended that another religion would try to usurp what they now considered holy ground. The Pope deferred to the sensitivity of the Jews and pressured the nuns to relocate which they did. The difference is that no single religion is claiming ground zero to be theirs.  Ground Zero is American.

Nuns at Auschwitz

George Bush chose to lead. When 9/11 hit he quickly cautioned America not to hold all Muslims accountable for the actions of a few. Republican New Jersey governor Chris Christie understands this.  But clearly many other Republicans do not.

If this building goes forth the next act should be to clear the way for the rebuilding of the St. Nicolas Greek Orthodox Church that was destroyed on 9/11 across the street from the site.

St. Nicolas Greek Orthodox Church before it was destroyed on 9/11

Muslims have a PR problem and many would consider it deserved.  Yes it would be wise to understand the funding sources for this undertaking, but once again we would never ask such from another religious group.  The Muslim religion has a problem that only they can solve.  We can either choose to be open and support the moderate elements or side against the entire religion.

While we are certainly sensitive to the feelings of the victims and their families,  should this have priority over basic principles and local law?

Perhaps this situation should be defused by relocating, but the damage done by the extreme rhetoric on this issue will continue.  It is amazing how many Muslims scholars I have found on Twitter with  the #tcot (top conservative on Twitter) hash tag.  I have learned that Muslims build churches where they have conquered.  Haven’t all churches done this? I have yet to find a bible that could not be used to sanction violence or intolerance in a mind already so predisposed.

Muslims have a real problem confronting and delegitimizing their radical elements.  We do not help them by trying to delegitimize their entire religion.