This article is in reference to Uncle Sam’s Plantation by Star Parker
Although not all would agree, many scientists describe a solution to a problem as elegant or beautiful if it is far-reaching, uses minimal technology to accomplish its task, serves more than one purpose, is consistent, has symmetry, simplicity, and that is unique; metaphorically, one that is not of Rube Goldberg design.
In physics, there is a search for The Theory of Everything that in every way would meet those standards of elegance, and when physicist do they claim they will know the mind of God.
What we have in America is a system of government and economics that is of Rube Goldberg design. What we have is a hodgepodge of various systems that, in-and-of themselves, and in there essence and authenticity may be elegant, but not in there current quasi-representative form of democracy, freedom, socialism, capitalism and free market.
In America, capitalism is not in its essence capitalism; free market in its essence is not free market; socialism in its essence is not socialism. Instead, we have this American-style conglomeration and mishmash of it all. It’s quasi-capitalism and quasi-free market sprinkled with quasi-socialism or vice-versa, and the system is far from elegant.
Experience has dictated that American-style capitalism, American-style free market, or American-style socialism has never been effective or efficient. Star Parker in her article does not seem to realize that we have never had true capitalism and free market, and that its American-style components are all broken. Additionally, when she invokes freedom in her writing, it, too, leaves me with the impression that she is ignorant of the fact that freedom in America is American-style freedom, a quasi-representation of freedom, or some say in the same breath, liberty.
I absolutely agree with Star Parker when she says, there are two Americas -- a poor America on socialism and a wealthy America on capitalism. She just doesn’t seem to realize that it is exactly how Wall Street with the influence of wealthy oligarchs, and people with her mindset, molded it. If it were anything else, it would be a very severe threat to their wealth and power. Money acts as a means of coercion, and those in government and those with power and wealth use it to control America, and to keep it at a certain status or initiate steps that evolves into one that more greatly enriches themselves. She also seems to be ignorant of the fact that not all people can be wealthy. A simple game of Monopoly is a great example of that: in the end, the one person who has most enriched himself or herself with the most money (other game players’ money) and property wins the game.
Therefore, when she says, I thought we were on the road to moving socialism out of our poor black communities and replacing it with wealth-producing American capitalism, she makes the same mistake that all conservatives make: all people do not have the where-with-all to conduct their lives in the way conservatives envision or perceive they should; not all people are capable of being personally responsible; not everyone can be wealthy even in a just society that gives them that opportunity. Not everyone can be a winner in the game of Monopoly.
Her assertion that The trouble with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money. Well Star Parker, as in Monopoly, the trouble with capitalism is that the capitalist end up wealthy with everyone else’s money. There is not something special about a person or some marvelous phenomenon that took place -- other than through inheritance, and even there the inheritance was gained with someone else’s money -- to enrich one person over another. It always makes someone else poorer. A capitalist would not be wealthy if it was not for everyone else’s money. In reality, what’s the difference? In each case it’s always using someone else’s money.
Star Parker’s direct criticisms of Obama can all be answered by him. All one needs to do is to listen to what he is saying or read what he has said. Specifically, listening to his speech marking the anniversary of the Lehman Brothers collapse. No better explanation can be given or more succinctly than from Barack Obama himself. The trouble is some people read into his speeches that which were not explicitly said or do not believe him when they ostensibly have no reason not to. As with the use of accusations such as fascist, Nazi, racist, and other accusations, unless there is clear and compelling evidence of those things they should not be utilized in any way. This not to say that what he says or does should not undergo critical analysis.
We have societal bearing choices that fall between two extremes, which represent the essence of the liberal-conservative divide in ideology: on the left there is complete government takeover, everyone will want for nothing, and whatever it cost it will be government paid; on the right everyone is on their own and only if you can pay for it can one receive healthcare or some other benefit. That is, on the left everyone has a shot at being and staying healthy but there is extraordinary cost of governance eventually paid through taxation; on the right there are people who are sick who never have a chance of being well, and some even dying on the street, as what happens in some third world countries, and cost are not managed, there, too, are excessive cost, but limited to those who can afford it. The left embraces a compassionate concern for the welfare of people, and on the right a mindset that dictates: I will take care of myself, you should be able to do that as well, but everyone else can go to hell.
It would be horrendous, and certainly would not be responsible or pragmatic, for America to attempt to turn on a dime to some complete other system of governance or economics. What ever we do it is incumbent on us to work within our current American capitalism-socialism paradigm, from the place where we are in our evolution, and step-by-step evolve to something that is more efficient and effective, far-reaching, uses minimal technology to accomplish, serves more than one purpose, is consistent, and has symmetry, simplicity, and that it is unique. In order to do that we must gain greater knowledge, only with evolved knowledge and experience over time can we gain the sophistication necessary to solve these problems. We never must be satisfied with the status quo and always be avant-garde in problem solving, exploring new ways of thinking.
There is a Theory of Everything for society that will work. It is elegant and certainly far- reaching, uses minimal technology to accomplish, serves more than one purpose, is consistent, and has symmetry, simplicity, and uniqueness. It will solve every problem and dilemma presented in Star Parker’s column and her book, Uncle Sam's Plantation. It will solve 99.9% of society’s ills. It is beautiful and elegant in every way. That theory is the theory of a Global Resource-based Economy through the abolition of money, over time. It is this kind of evolution we must seek. It’s desperately needed. A step-by-step process of decision making that considers and initiates non- monetary solutions over time that will dismantle our Rube Goldberg machine of government and economics.
We can and we must, to be successful in making this a much more elegant America and world, make money, religion, and politics, an artifact of our past.
In essence and authentically the result will be a truly libertarian society