Regarding the question posed by Stephen, one reason statists get so angry when subjected to thoughts about the free society is that statism is their religion. It’s not a real religion, of course, but a bundle of myths and fairy tales that many people simply prefer to believe in: There is a free lunch; politicians are motivated by the “public interest”; the “will of the majority” is always present and always correct if not sacrosanct; etc., etc. Socialism took the place of genuine religion for millions, and welfare statism serves the same purpose. If it’s not a substitute it’s what the Straussian neocons call “our civil religion,” to go along with your real religion. And no one likes to have his “religious” faith challenged.
I once had an MBA class of people in their late 20s/early 30s that became very angry — and I mean angry — at the discussion of supply and demand and opportunity cost in Paul Heyne’s introductory textbook. In a class or two, the discussion had completely shattered some of their most cherished “religious” beliefs. They were not happy to hear that price controls were not a magic potent, that government cannot “create jobs” out of thin air, that protectionism is good for society, etc. One sympathetic student even remarked to me that he thought a few of his classmates wanted to punch me! (These were all people whe were born and raised in the D.C. area and were employed by government or government contractors. This is what the Washington culture does to people: it makes them stupid).
If you really want to stir up anger among the superstitious, pagan statists among us, call into question the ideological cornerstone of American statism: the Lincoln Myth.
7:37 am on February 18, 2004
