Perhaps in moments of severe departure, I imagine opening PARADE Magazine to find the latest issue filled with soul-stirring defenses of freedom by such giants as Gary North, Walter Block, William Anderson, Tom DiLorenzo, and Gene Callahan. Picture LRC’s and The Freeman’s big, bad, angry cousin.
Back in this reality, where a better name for the publication would be STATISM ON PARADE Magazine, I picked up the current edition for lazy dinnertime reading to receive an uncle’s concerned, almost heartbroken, look from General Peter Pace, his countenance next to a quote: "Our Fellow Citizens Are Right To Expect Our Military Will Act During A Disaster." As I began to let out a sigh, I quickly caught and reprimanded myself for being doctrinaire. ‘An enlightened, evolved new man must be pragmatic! If we have a standing army, we may as well use it! Would you have Americans to suffer?’
What torment to hear this tripe even in one’s own inner dialogue! Yes, it’s been a while since Bastiat penned the words, but watching the same unimaginative gambit over and over is so tiresome:
Socialism, like the ancient ideas from which it springs, confuses the distinction between government and society. As a result of this, every time we object to a thing being done by government, the socialists conclude that we object to its being done at all.
We disapprove of state education. Then the socialists say that we are opposed to any education. We object to a state religion. Then the socialists say that we want no religion at all. We object to a state-enforced equality. Then they say that we are against equality. And so on, and so on. It is as if the socialists were to accuse us of not wanting persons to eat because we do not want the state to raise grain.
The response to Katrina is a perfect-fit example of the dufus-with-knives bungling – which has been well documented – Robert Novak described: "While the federal government is frustrating when it treats economic problems with nonchalance, it is terrifying when it gets involved." The childish fingerpointing, committee grandstanding, and goofy show-investigations are all wasteful diversions of resources that could have been put to productive use, but such considerations are peanuts in comparison to this surreal debate over whether to allow a particularly aggressive camel to stick its nose in the tent!
The scary part is that Pace might be able to pull it off. He’s certainly no beady-eyed, grandma-slapping Democrat-concocted caricature: he’s downright Jimmy Stewart with a dash of John Wayne. James Brady’s account of their meeting begins with, "’Call me Pete,’ were the first words out of Pace’s mouth as we began to talk." His appearance is so disarming that you want to carry it a step further and call him Uncle Pete, and Uncle Pete only wants what’s best!
Pace qualifies his call for an army-qua-almsgiver with, "but to respect their civil rights at the same time. We must now absorb those lessons from Katrina." It’s hard to doubt his sincerity, but statists in general can’t seem to grasp the lesson that good intentions aren’t the end of the matter. As Mises wrote, "We may admit that the director or the board of directors are people of superior ability, wise and full of good intentions. But it would be nothing short of idiocy to assume that they are omniscient and infallible." Readers here certainly don’t need to be told what happens without the safety valve of rational economic calculation.
I began with fancy, but there’s hope. Only one page prior, John Stratton of Baltimore asked Marilyn vos Savant, "Many companies give away products, such as food or medicine, to the needy. Are these costs passed on to consumers in the form of higher prices?" She replied, "Not if the company wants to stay in business. In a free-market economy, cost doesn’t determine price. Prices are established by market forces – such as the competition and how much consumers are willing to pay."
Even better, maybe we’ll see Marilyn joining the good guys and writing for LRC!
October 6, 2005
