The stuff that dreams are made on

While commenting on congressional partisanship, one pundit or another noted that the Dems and Reps don't seem to speak the same language anymore. After listening to all the relentless debate about the AIG bonuses, I understand what he means. It's a kind of "doublespeak," a term coined by George Orwell in the novel 1984.

For example, "socialism" has different interpretations for conservatives and liberals. Conservatives view socialism as government interfence and "coerced guidance" you might say, of business, commerce, and the economy.

On the other hand, liberals view socialism, often slavering uncontrollably, as a kind of "single ownership" structure -- totally nationalized -- where the government clearly owns everything, with all policies set and controlled by the government.

This second definition is really probably just far too totalitarian even for most US liberals to stomach. England tried it and it was a catastrophe. It also lacks the hypocritical sheen of the particular spin liberals put on the term "individual rights." That is, anything the government is compelled to spend money on, i.e. the "right" to health care, never-mind that it involves the virtual enslavement of health care providers, since doctors and hospitals don't fall from heaven.

So, no, most liberals don't want "socialism," they just want to control privately-owned assets. And this is the real issue.

In most Euro socialist countries, the assets are owned privately but are heavily controlled by government regulation. For instance, in some countries, the unions get a say on whether or not a company can close a plant. Managing a business is no longer viewed as a black-and-white economic decision based on inescapable realities, but a political decision based upon the same stuff that dreams are made on.

So what is "ownership" anymore? Used to mean that you were the decision-maker about what to do with specific assets. Now apparently it means you do what the government says and take the blame for the outcomes. Or you invest your private dollars in "Public-Private Partnerships" and take the blame for the outcomes. Semantic sleight-of-hand or load of crap? (And some might say these two terms mean exactly the same thing....)

Some US industries already are heavily government-regulated. The financial industry is one and always has been, starting with Alexander Hamilton, who was Secretary of the Treasury under George Washington. Currently, apart from the guidance set by the Federal Reserve and government control of the money supply, the financial industry functions under scrutiny of one major federal agency -- the Securities Exchange Commission (SEC) -- as well as heaven only knows how many other subcommittees and busybodies devoted to oversight on specialized industry segments.

Energy is already highly regulated federally and locally, and environmentalism is likely to only increase the regulation. Environmentalism also is the driving force behind much of the regulation in all types of manufacturing with haz-mat (hazardous material) dicta, zoning laws, emissions regulations, waste and dumping regulations, etc. The National Labor Board and other workforce-related agencies dictate in many cases who can/should be hired, why, why/why not employees can be fired. We have a minimum wage, and on and on.

Anyone remember George McGovern? He was a Democrat US senator from North Dakota and ran for president against Nixon in 1972. One plank in the Democrat platform that year was "guaranteed income," which meant that every US citizen would qualify somehow for a certain income, whether they worked productively for pay or just sat around writing blogs, for instance.

After McGovern retired from politics, he tried to open a restaurant. He stated he had no idea until then how many hoops an entrepreneur has to jump through to start a business. He finally understood the conservative argument that regulation defeats free enterprise.

Many regulations are designed to protect the public. And maybe some of them do. However, if a chemical company poisons the water supply, that should be a criminal offense, shouldn't it, like "reckless homicide" or "conspiracy to defraud"? I mean, do we need another layer of regulation to cover that?

I don't understand stalker laws, either. These laws define a certain crime for when someone you don't know or don't like follows you around. However, long before the stalker laws, people could get restraining and protective orders against potentially threatening people. I don't know how the stalker laws vary from this. You still have to wait until a stalker actually makes a definite threat, breaks into your house, assaults you, etc., before you can prove the stalker's intent. So how useful is this? We already had laws against extortion, assault, breaking-and-entering and all that.

Once again, it's all about power. Every law gives the government at some level -- local, state, federal -- another reason and another way to control citizens. They take over the duty and responsibility for making your decisions. You can't disagree with them anymore; you'd be breaking the law or violating the regulations.

So I'm not so sure anymore that the difference between free enterprise and socialism is just a matter of degree. Where, precisely, do you draw the line between freedom and government interference? Thomas Jefferson once said that if an individual's behavior "neither picks my pocket or breaks my leg" he should be able to practice that behavior. Otherwise, for violating the rights of another, he might face prosecution.

Judging by the current mess that Washington has made of the financial industry, I think we'd all be better off without them. Like, if you or me or the guy next door makes a bad investment, he loses -- but his loss neither picks my pocket or breaks my leg. However, if the government makes a bad investment, all citizens have to pay for it for maybe the next three or four generations, definitely robbing and crippling the population.