While watching Alan Greenspan's Sunday interview, I had a mild epiphany.
It seems possible to me that Ayn Rand's totally free markets, Karl Marx's socially shared resources and modern-day progressive views of regulated markets -- all may be mutually compatible.
Yes, I know, integrating those views seems like a tall order. Let's see if it's possible. Below the fold, I'll hypothesize ... don't jump on me until you've actually read it, and understand this is merely an attempt at explaining some current political behavior.
I first read Ayn Rand while majoring in economics at Stanford (eons ago). At the time, her concept of "enlightened self-interest" was a revelation to me. For a time, I was a believer. Of course, that was while I was still an "Idealist".
During that time, I also read Karl Marx's "The Communist Manifesto". That also seemed like a worthy, though lofty, goal. I mean, "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need" -- it's a pretty decent idea, right?
The recent spate of Republican ideological cant has polarized our politics. You are either for "Free Markets" or you are a "Socialist". Well, as is usually the case, neither is necessarily true. Rand and Marx, had one thing in common. They both attributed to people and organizations a level of moral commitment that simple doesn't exist in the real world.
Both of them, were hypothesizing a Utopian world -- the problem is, we don't live in a world like that. We live in a world where, given enough reinforcement about their importance, even people with the best intentions may, without even their own awareness, subtly begin to feel "entitled". If you begin to buy into your own importance, as defined by media, money and other factors -- it becomes easier to justify the private jet (at $2000-$5000+/hour), because you can save "save time to do more good".
Alternatively, those who fall short of their aspirations, may feel that "The Power Structure" prevents genuine social advancement in order to protect it's own power. Depending on the person, that view may result in a Timothy McVeigh, a tree-spiker activist, a Tea-Bagger, or an Idaho militia-man.
I am proposing a view that Free Markets, Socialism, Big/Small government are not really the ideological issues we should be discussing. Those options seem to cover the gamut of our choices -- and ALL of them are flawed. They are flawed because we don't live in an ideal world. Some people are greedy and some are altruistic.
Free Markets need regulation to dampen greed. Socialism cannot efficiently determine prices for goods and services as effectively as can Free Markets. Therefore, government -- law and regulation are a necessary mediator.
The trick we need to perfect is getting our people, politicians and government to accept that viewpoint. BALANCE is the trick. All three are needed. Free Markets, Socialism (altruistic sharing), and Government Regulation (rule of 'intelligent' law).
Does this little dissertation change anything? Hell, I don't know. I'm just offering my thoughts.
A simple request: Please don't start on a particular subject you disagree with as if I'm a rabid something or other. I'm not. Don't attack me personally, I bite back. All I'd like to do here is discuss an idea that struck me as diary-worthy. I have no hard bias one way or the other.