Republicans, Democrats, Independents

Republicans tend to view the economy and society in Social Darwinist terms – survival of the fittest producers and sellers who satisfy the consumer’s and society’s wants. The fittest producers are those who: (a) make the products that consumers wish produced—those who produce unwanted goods and services go out of business, and (b) those who produce wanted products at the lowest price – if your competitors produce the same product cheaper, then again you go out of business. Thus consumers and society are provided with their needs at the lowest price. Prices and money and individuals pursuing their own self interest act as an “invisible hand” directing the whole market process without any need for government involvement. Big government is seen as a superfluous and even parasitic extra layer of society. The market has a much more rapid response to ever changing consumer needs than bulky, grid-locked bureaucracies.

Problem is, does the market respond to changing human needs or does it manipulate human desires and create artificial demand by a constant barrage of wasteful advertisement? Problem is, there are externalities – costs (and sometimes benefits) external to and therefore not born by either the buyer or producer, which are pushed onto the rest of society. If a business avoids clean-up costs by polluting, (just throw it in the river, Bob), then they can appear to produce more efficiently in Social Darwinist terms because they sell at a lower price. Externality costs are about impossible to calculate. For example, what are the real dollar costs of green house gasses and global warming? Nobody really knows. Producers tend to use common-owned resources such as the oceans, rivers and the atmosphere as free inputs into the productive process in order to appear efficient with low priced products as they actually rob society. Finally, the self-interests of CEOs and the various levels of management are not the same as the business’ best interest. Management has been milking corporations since the days of the robber barons to the present. “If I make several million this year, then the shareholders, labor and consumers be damned.” Take the money and run. So from the Democrat point of view, the cost of big government is worth it just to keep the market honest.

Problem is that government is not always efficient, honest or nimble. Re-election contributions and negative campaign ads seem more important than correcting market failings and social inequalities. I think everyone knows the problems of big government without any more listing here.

What I espouse is a subculture of independents, who are not at the mercy of the market (especially bankers and financial institutions) or the whims of self-serving politicians. These independents are not living in precarious houses-of-cards because of mountains of debt. Most of their borrowing is from their own accumulated savings. They live modestly and frugally. Their basic needs are met, but they don’t buy into the consumerism hype. They view their modest homes as their castles and their land and property as their separate, sovereign nations. They grow in their gardens what is overpriced in the market. They are not totally self-sufficient, but feel they have the know-how to be, should the need arise to go to a plan B due to either a market meltdown or failure of grid-locked governance. They feel independent of both market and government.

Subcultures can exist and even flourish within the larger consumerist society. The Amish are an example of this. Sub-cultures can even be somewhat parasitic upon greater society. What I suggest is a subculture of frugality, independent of, but thriving within the greater American society. And in my sovereign kingdom, in front of my castle, I want one really big soapbox.