As I watch the masses buying into the recovery scam, I wonder what the next distraction is that the Obamaviks and their socialist media allies will come up with to make it possible for them to continue feeding the fake flames of hope even while the real flames of disaster can be heard crackling in the background.
One thing of which you can be certain is that these nefarious wealth destroyers will continue to push for more central planning — and, increasingly, “world planning” — as the salvation to our economic woes. After all, unrestricted sovereignty leads to nationalism, which in turn leads to conflict. To deny this is to be a right-wing extremist or, at a minimum, naïve.
The party line is that some kind of ironclad international cooperation is needed to solve economic antagonism among nations. And to the socialist, international cooperation means international planning. Planning sounds like such a nice word … such a friendly word … such a responsible word. How can anyone possibly be against planning?
Of course, the far left tries to smooth over the historical reality that planning is the heart and soul of socialism/communism. You do remember those super-successful five-year plans in the Soviet Workers’ Paradise, don’t you?
But for a capitalist, planning is not the solution. Planning is the problem. That’s because when statists use the term planning, what they mean is government planning — planning by politicians and bureaucrats. Worse, plans are meaningless unless they are implemented, and the only way government plans can be carried out is under the threat of force — or, if necessary, the actual employment of force, a tactic on which the government has a strict monopoly.
To the socialist, of course, government planning is nirvana. But to a capitalist — a true capitalist — it is the antithesis of free enterprise and private ownership of the means of production. Nevertheless, from Bob Dole (back from the dead, thanks to Chris Wallace) to Mush McCain … from MittMan to Johnny Boehner … from George W. Bush to Eric Cantor, compromise is the medicinal virtue that will cure all our ills.
But how do you compromise between socialism and free enterprise? Ringer’s First Rule of Government: When you compromise between good and evil, good soon disappears. Evil always has the advantage, because it’s … well, evil. Purveyors of evil have no qualms about employing deception, lying, and coercion to deal with anyone who stands in their way.
On the other hand, good doesn’t engage in any of these tactics, because it’s … well, good. Good may overwhelm evil in the long term, but in the short term evil can make, and has made, millions of people miserable.
The fact is that central planning and capitalism are incompatible. Keynesians can babble all they want about the efficacy of a “mixed economy” (i.e., part capitalism, part socialism), but the entire concept is a myth. The only thing socialism contributes to an economy is that it slows down capitalism and thus prevents more people from being better off. Never forget that how far mankind has progressed is not a reflection of his true potential. It is his true potential minus government interference.
The plans of entrepreneurs are based on how to make the greatest amount of profit by producing products and services that people will value in the marketplace. Of course, established companies, by and large, like government interference, because, by contributing to the campaigns of politicians, the latter will do their bidding and help kill off competition in their industries.
The ultimate in central planning is “world planning,” which is but a euphemism for world socialism. But it’s worse than that. It also means substituting the cooperative intervention of many governments for the intervention of individual national governments.
How, you might wonder, do people arrive at the conclusion that central planning is good for the masses? The people who promote this notion are the losers of society — individuals who cannot accept the idea that each person is born with the natural right to live his life as he so chooses.
In other words, they cannot adapt to a world where people are free to choose. To them, the vast majority of individuals are morally and intellectually incapable of making their own decisions. These self-anointed saviors of mankind are right out of Eric Hoffer’s The True Believer — people who passionately think they are smarter and morally superior to the masses. As such, they feel a moral obligation to protect their brothers and sisters by ruling over them. To the true-believing central planner, it’s simply a matter of manifest destiny.
The true believer of central planning dreams of a paradise where he, and he alone, makes decisions for everyone. For the good of mankind, he gives the orders and everyone else must obey them. If you think about that for a moment, you’ll understand why the statists in Washington view the Constitution as an annoyance. After all, it gets in the way of their goal: dictatorial power over the ignorant, morally inferior masses.
Make no mistake about it, the purpose of central planning — and certainly world planning — is to eliminate the plans of individuals, especially individual entrepreneurs. All obstacles must be removed in order for the true believer to carry out his divine plans. From whence comes the age-old Marxist belief that the end justifies the means.
Unfortunately, the “It takes a village” view of life has an appeal to many people, especially those who welcome having the responsibility of raising their own children lifted from their shoulders. This leads to the brown-shirt syndrome in which all children belong to the state, an idea recently underscored by MSNBC commentator Melissa Harris-Perry when she said, “We have to break through our kind of private idea that kids belong to their parents, or kids belong to their families, and recognize that kids belong to whole communities.”
In truth, central planning is not a panacea that leads to peaceful cooperation, but a perversity that goes against human nature and always leads to a lack of cooperation and an abundance of violence. Which brings up the question: Is there a politician out there who actually believes this? And, if so, is he or she willing to make it the centerpiece of his or her next election campaign?
If someone ever stepped up to the plate with this message — boldly and without equivocation — the mushy compromisers in the Republican Party would be amazed at the millions of nonvoters who would actually take the trouble to go to the polls.
Afterthought: I’m glad that cute little Priebus character doesn’t read my articles. I’d feel terrible if I were the cause of him wetting his pants.
You have permission to reprint this article so long as you place the following wording at the end of the article:
Copyright © 2018 Robert Ringer
ROBERT RINGER is a New York Times #1 bestselling author and host of the highly acclaimed Liberty Education Interview Series, which features interviews with top political, economic, and social leaders. He has appeared on Fox News, Fox Business, The Tonight Show, Today, The Dennis Miller Show, Good Morning America, The Lars Larson Show, ABC Nightline, and The Charlie Rose Show, and has been the subject of feature articles in such major publications as Time, People, The Wall Street Journal, Fortune, Barron's, and The New York Times.