Memo To Occupy Wall Street, Progressives, & Democrats: According To A Japanese Proverb, “You Can Know Ten Things By Learning One”

"Even in literature and art, no man who bothers about originality will ever be original: whereas if you simply try to tell the truth (without caring twopence how often it has been told before) you will, nine times out of ten, become original without ever having noticed it."
 

- C. S. Lewis

From debating with OccupyWallStreeters and OccupyLSXers, I have been amazed at how unbelievably ignorant they are, as well as misinformed about the beliefs and positions of Libertarians and Conservatives.   

A few examples:

1.  I do not like Capitalism because it was founded by Karl Marx.

2.  Libertarians are Corporatists and love Crony Capitalism.

3. "Limited government" means anarchy and its proponents should move to Somalia, but actual anarchists should share tents with OccupyWallStreeters in the effort to destroy Capitalism.

4. Democrats are the party of the Middle Class.  Er, no, John McCain won 60% of the Middle Class vote.   Obama won with a coalition of affluent white liberals, African-Americans, Hispanics, homosexuals, environmentalists, pro-abortionists, pro-immigration, etc.

5.  Republicans are the Party of Wall Street.  No, Wall Street has given 4 times as much to Democrats.

6.  News Corp is an arm of the RNC, which doesn't make much sense considering 58% of its campaign donations have gone to Democrats since 1989 and President Barack Obama is the all-time leading recipient of News Corp donations.

7.  They take selective umbrage on "Wall Street."  They marched to Rupert Murdoch's building, but he wasn't bailed out nor was he involved in the housing and financial crises, but they did not march on the residences of Jeffrey Immelt or Jon Corzine.

Nevertheless and in the interests of deeper understanding, here are ten things which Libertarians and Conservatives believe.   Once you know them, you should realise that we are not pleased with either Washington or Wall Street. 

Granted, I doubt that any of my Lefty readers is going to have a Road to Damascus moment once they have finished this post; still, let's hope that they are, at least, intellectually honest enough to #1) accept the information; #2) allow it to give them a clearer idea of what we actually believe; #3) recognise that we hate crony capitalism; #4) understand that one of the reasons that we advocate limited government is to prevent the abuses, such as special carve-outs, insider trading tips in exchange for positive legislation or regulatory language, etc., because of the corrupt relationship between Washington and Big Business, Big Labour, Big Pharma, Big Agra, Wall Street, Big Education, Big Oil, etc.; and #5) remember that the first victims of the Tea Party were not Democrats -- they were Republicans, who voted for TARP, among other BigGov legislation.

 

When they've gone, who will pay our taxes?

As Daniel Hannan has written:

 

1. Free-marketeers resent the bank bailouts. 

This might seem obvious: we are, after all, opposed to state subsidies and nationalisations. Yet, it often surprises the Left, who mistake our support for open competition and free trade for a belief in plutocracy. There is a world of difference between being pro-market and being pro-business. Sometimes, the two positions happen to coincide; often they don’t.

2. What has happened since 2008 is not capitalism. 

In a capitalist system, bad banks would have been allowed to fail, their profitable operations bought by more efficient competitors. Shareholders, bondholders and some depositors would have lost money, but taxpayers would not have contributed a penny.

3. If you want the rich to pay more, create a flatter and simpler tax system. 

This is partly a question of closing loopholes. Mainly, though, it is a question of bringing the tax rate down to a level where evasion becomes pointless.  Between 1980 and 2007, the US cut taxes at all income levels. Result? The top one per cent went from paying 19.5% of all taxes to 40%. In Britain, since the top rate of income tax was lowered to 40% in 1988, the share of income tax collected from the wealthiest percentile has risen from 14 to 27%.

Roy Hattersley, a British Labour politician, author, and journalist, once said that, given the choice, he'd rather have 5% more equality than 10% more prosperity.  Do American Progressives agree? 

4. Those of us who believe in small government are not motivated by the desire to make the rich richer. 

We’re really not. We are, in most cases, nowhere near having to pay top rate tax ourselves; our most eloquent champions over the years have been modestly-paid academics. We believe that economic freedom will enrich the country as a whole. Yes, the wealthy might become wealthier still, but we don't see that as an argument against raising living standards for the majority.

5. We are not against equality. 

We generally recognise the benefits in Scandinavian-style homogeneity: crime tends to be lower, people are less stressed etc. Our objection is not that egalitarianism is undesirable in itself, but that the policies required to enforce in involve a disproportionate loss of liberty and prosperity.

6. Nor, by the way, does state intervention seem to be an effective way to promote equality.

On the most elemental indicators – height, calorie intake, infant mortality, literacy, longevity – the West has been steadily becoming a collection of more equal societies for centuries. It’s true that, around half a century ago, this approximation halted and, on some measures, went into reverse.  There are competing theories as to why, including globalisation, technological advances, etc., but one thing is undeniable: the recent widening of the wealth gap has taken place at a time when the state controls a far greater share of national wealth than ever before.

7. Let’s tackle the idea that being on the Left means being on the side of ordinary people, while being on the Right means defending privileged elites. 

It’s hard to think of a single tax, or a single regulation, that doesn’t end up privileging some vested interest at the expense of the general population. The reason governments keep growing is because of what economists call ‘dispersed costs and concentrated gains’: people are generally more aware the benefits they receive than of the taxes they pay.

8. Capitalism, with all its imperfections, is the fairest scheme yet tried. 

In a system based on property rights and free contract, people succeed by providing an honest service to others. Bill Gates became rich by enriching hundreds of millions of us: I am typing these words using one of his programmes. He gained from the exchange (adding fractionally to his net worth), and so did I (adding to my convenience). In a state-run system, by contrast, third parties get to hand out the goodies.

9. Talking of fairness, let’s remember that the word doesn’t belong to any faction. 

How about parity between public and private sector pay? How about being fair to our children, whom we have freighted with a debt unprecedented in peacetime? How about being fair to the boy who leaves school at 16 and starts paying taxes to subsidise the one who goes to university? How about being fair to the unemployed, whom small businesses can't afford to hire because of the taxes that they pay in order to fund the out-of-control government, including the plush benefits enjoyed by existing public sector employees?

10. Let’s not forget ethics, either. 

There is virtue in deciding to do the right thing, but there is no virtue in being compelled. Choosing to give your money to charity is meritorious; paying tax is morally neutral (see here). Evidence suggests that, as taxes rise, and the state squeezes out civic society, people give less to good causes.

Well, while I doubt you will move back into Mummy's basement when crapping on police cars is so much more fun; perhaps, we might at least engage honestly on some of these issues rather than talking past each other. ¡Hasta la victoria siempre!