The Portrait of Socialism

Share

I recently began re-reading Oscar Wilde’s, “The Portrait of Dorian Gray.” It was prompted by two things actually: one, a friend recommended I see the latest cinematic adaptation of it (“Dorian Gray”), which I didn’t know existed and two, I came across a copy of Wilde’s essay “The Soul of Man Under Socialism.” “The Soul of Man...” reminded me of Wilde’s hatred of Socialism and the masterful way that he weaved his political views so seamlessly into his work; granted, “The Soul of Man Under Socialism” wasn’t exactly subtle.

“The Portrait of Dorian Gray” tells the story of a man who inhabits a stately London home while enjoying the extravagance common to those of his class. A friend paints his portrait and before long, Dorian Gray develops a deep hatred of the piece. That portrait will forever be the image of the beauty that he will surely lose as the years progress. Consumed with maintaining his youthful beauty Dorian delves into the dark arts and falls every more into depravity. Dorian has found a way to remain young and beautiful forever but the portrait begins to show his true soul and with each act of debauchery the picture grows more hideous. I wont give away the ending here since I would hope that you would either read the book or see the film. But in re-reading it, I suppose it was inevitable that a political connoisseur like me would see something deeper in a story that is essentially more to do with vanity and narcissism.

In brief, this story is a perfect allegory of modern socio-economic conditions. Consider the US where Socialists now control or dominate every area of society: labour, academia, journalism, religion, entertainment, government and the judiciary. Nearly 200 years ago, when the proponents of these ideas first began their crusade to reshape man and the world he inhabits they did so openly and honestly. Their romantic utopianism was a beautiful thing. But as time passed, they could not hide the hideous nature of their beliefs. Despite its desire to present itself as a purely altruistic endeavour on behalf of mankind, Socialism produced nothing but economic calamity, social decay, national and ethnic hostility, mass murder, internecine conflict, serfdom and one dictator after another (to name a few). By the mid 20th century, it was more important than ever to banish that image to the attic. The French Revolution and the flurry of bloody revolutions it spawned throughout Europe have been stripped of all traces of Socialism, Stalin and Lenin are forgotten, Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge erased from history, Hitler posthumously relegated to the “political right” and every radical Socialist movement of the Islamic world is treated as nothing more than religious fanaticism. The errors of Socialism mount year after year and the degrees to which the adherents will go to hide those errors seem limitless.

But try as they may, the portrait still shows the hideousness of the idea and those fortunate enough to see it recoil in horror. They have thus far succeeded in hiding it from the world and themselves, but it remains there; a constant reminder of who and what Socialism truly is. Like Dorian Gray, I know that they occasionally gaze at that portrait in anguish knowing that the utopia that others see is only a masque to hide their true identity.

Barbarians at the Gate

Share

What I am about to say will sound like the ramblings of an extremist. I know this. But as the late Barry Goldwater once said, "Extremism in defense of liberty is no vice."

During the Nuremburg trials following WWII, several former German officials based the entirety of their defence on the fact that they did nothing more than follow orders. What more, they offered irrefutable evidence of the fact. Yet the question before the tribunal concerned was one of individual malfeasance. Without regard to their duty to obey the orders of their commanders, they had a moral and ethical duty to refuse orders which necessitated unconscionable barbarity.

I was reminded of this yesterday when I came upon a California Highway Patrol checkpoint. Now I didn’t know it was a checkpoint. Actually I saw orange cones and equipment ahead which led me to believe someone was working on the road. I was somewhat taken aback however when a uniformed officer beckoned me to the side of the road. My first thought was that I might have been travelling too fast in a construction zone. But to my utter shock, the officer informed me that the State of California has decided to randomly subject motorists to “on-the-spot” smog checks. Never mind the fact that my registration tags were current. In California you cannot receive these tags unless and until you submit evidence from a licensed Smog Test Centre, that your vehicle’s emissions fall below the State’s mandated threshold. From a legal standpoint I should not have been stopped unless (1)my tags were expired, (2)my vehicle was spewing smoke and/or (3)I had committed a moving violation or reasonably presumed to be wanted in connection with a crime. Nevertheless, I was being stopped so that the State’s police agencies could conduct an impromptu pre-emptive investigation to determine IF I had violated the law. What on earth could have prompted this gross violation of the law by the people sworn to uphold it?

Well, the State of California decided to crack down on illegal Smog Text Centres who, for a few extra greenbacks on the side, will doctor the results of the test to obtain a passing Vehicle Inspection Report. Rather than simply go after these violators, the State, in all its Stalinistic wisdom, arrogated to itself the authority to subject its citizens to these unlawful investigations. Now I know that some people will accept any government intrusion into their lives even when it involves obvious violations of one’s Constitutional rights. Some will even say, “Well, if you have nothing to hide, what’s the harm?” The harm in is the very act of conducting an investigation without cause. The harm is in being stopped by law enforcement agents not because I violated the law, but to allow them to see if I had. What is the next evolution of this concept? Will they begin conducting random searches of private homes just to see if one has anything illegal therein? “Extreme!” you say. Once you surrender the principle, there is no limit to its applicability. We have seen it time and again and not only here in the U.S.

For my part, I refused to allow them to conduct the test. Clearly this was an unxpected turn of events, for the poor patrolman had to call a supervisor for assistance. They simply had no idea how to handle this situation. Without going into the details of our exchange, I can only say that the officers were forced to concede my point and bid me goodbye with their apologies. Perhaps I could have been more cordial in my response to this assault but cordiality was beyond me. These people are sworn to uphold and defend the Constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic. They are charged with protecting and serving the people. Yet more and more they are becoming the government’s weapons against the people. They routinely behave as if their duty is to protect the government from the people. Just as those officials in Nuremburg were ultimately punished for failing to refuse immoral and unethical orders, this country’s police agencies should be expected to live up to the same standard. The orders in hand may not violate the laws of the land but they most assuredly violate every law of decency and humanity. Any man or woman capable of wearing the uniform is also capable of making this distinction.

My only regret is that I did not have the presence of mind to capture this on video during the initial encounter. I did however return later to record the scene. Unfortunately the cell-phone video isnt exactly stellar.

What Is Economics?

Share

It never fails that when I ask people to describe the field of economics, the typical response is that it is the study of money or how to earn money. Moreover an ever increasing number of people regard economics as a form of politics or perhaps political science. Grading on the simple pass/fail basis all would of course fail.

Economics is mistaken for finance by some and politics by others. The later tends to sting a bit. Nevertheless, perhaps the confusion is understandable. After all economics must by necessity address matters common to both areas of understanding. Such has been the case since inception. Be that as it may the fact remains that, economics is best described as the study of human behaviour.

“What?” you say. “What about money, debts, saving, budgets?” Well economics certainly involves all those things and economists have been known to go on for hours on the pros and cons of public policy decisions. But at its core economics is the study of how flesh and blood human beings (not abstractions thereof) and the institutions they engender actually respond to various types and degrees of stimuli. Economics addresses financial implications without addressing the organization of financial data which is best suited to financial experts. Economics addresses the incentives and/or disincentives resulting from public policy and not necessarily the policies themselves which is best suited to politicians. Hence the economist focuses not so much on the tax rate as on the manner in which said rate affects human behaviour which in turn has a direct even if long term effect on the overall state of social institutions. Most importantly, economics answers the ever-ellusive “Why?” Why does an increase in demand drive prices higher? Why does welfare (corporate and social) incentivize licentiousness on the part of the recipient? Why do even good ideas generate diminishing returns over time? Why do certain policies produce results at odd with the intensions of those who author them? Why?, Why?, Why?, ad nauseum.

The problem is not that the confusion exists. Rather it is the fact that it causes the layperson to misconstrue economic laws for political rhetoric. This is particularly problematic when one is confronted with Austrian Economics for the “Austrian” is always deemed to be championing the political views of a specific politician and/or political party.

How to correct the problem? Well, I’ll leave that to the social theorists. I’m only an economist.