The way forward

It is difficult to tell how it is possible to change the world. I think that we should make our country more capitalistic, or more specifically libertarian. My views on this are quite radical, but I am moderate by temperament. I recognize that many other people have different ideas about how the world should be.

Success in this regard usually entails aligning individual, private interests with those of the larger society. I have tried to show that political support for capitalism is part of a system of moral and ethical values that individuals can use in order to improve their own lives and the lives of those that they care about. I also believe that these policies are those that are best calculated to improve the world as well. However, I realize that many disagree with this opinion.

One interesting point occurred to me as I was watching Barney Frank talk about the banking crisis last year. At that point he had supported a massive bailout plan for the banks which was in no way compatible with free market economics. The individual who interviewed him pointed out that there was some opposition to this plan on the right. Barney Frank said that this didn't bother him, as these were people who had repudiated George W. Bush.

The idea is basically this: it is better for those on the right to systematically support a purer form of capitalism. No matter how large an increase in the social welfare state you support, the left will never be satisfied. In fact, they will deny that any such increase has ever taken place. If your policies lead to economic failure, they will use the opportunity to increase the size of the social welfare state even further. Your former supporters on the right will feel, quite rightly, that they have been betrayed.

The economy naturally has its ups and downs. There is no permanent majority. The real political tragedy is not that you lose a single election and your opponents implement policies that you feel are harmful. It is that you don't use the limited time that you have when you hold political power in order to implement your vision. If you don't, then you have no right to expect that your opponents will do it for you. They have different ideas about the direction that we should take. That is why they are your opponents.

Even though it may be the case that people are not naturally inclined to support free market economic policies, this does not necessarily mean that support of these policies will lead to failure. These policies will only lose ground under two circumstances. One is that they systematically lead to economic failure. The other is that the party that is more closely associated with them refuses to implement them. I see no evidence of the former, but only of the latter condition. If I thought that these policies would lead to economic failure I wouldn't support them. In that case they would deserve to lose.

As a practical matter, I am reluctant to support a third party. However, this reluctance can be overcome. Voting for a Libertarian Party candidate clearly expresses my political opinion. The more votes that party gets, the more likely that people will see them as having a realistic chance in some future election. However, I suspect that this policy is likely to backfire in the short term. Candidates of the two major parties might actually support policies that are less libertarian with the knowledge that much of the libertarian vote that they might otherwise go after will support the Libertarian Party candidate instead of the opponent who has the greatest chance of defeating them. They would be more inclined to go after swing voters.

If any party wants my support, they should tell me how they intend to spend our money. I consider this to be the most important issue. I am in favor of modest spending. Any challenger should submit an alternative budget proposal. Naturally I would tend to favor the candidate who I believe would be likely to spend the least money.