We need health care cost reform
that is so clear, that no honest man can misunderstand it, and no dishonest one,
successfully misrepresent it.
The story of the United States is the story of an
economic miracle and a political miracle that was made possible by the
translation into practice of two sets of ideas— both, by a curious
coincidence, formulated in documents published in the same year, 1776.
One set of ideas was embodied in The Wealth of
Nations, the masterpiece that established the Scotsman Adam Smith as the
father of modern economics.
set of ideas was embodied in the Declaration of Independence, drafted by
Thomas Jefferson to express the general sense of his fellow countrymen.
Economic freedom is an
essential requisite for political freedom. By enabling people to
cooperate with one another without coercion or central direction, it
reduces the area over which political power is exercised. In addition,
by dispersing power, the free market provides an offset to whatever
concentration of political power may arise. The combination of economic
and political power in the same hands is a sure recipe for tyranny.
Smith and Jefferson alike
had seen concentrated government power as a great danger to the ordinary
man; they saw the protection of the citizen against the tyranny of
government as the perpetual need. That was the aim of the Virginia
Declaration of Rights (1776) and the United States Bill of Rights
(1791); the purpose of the separation of powers in the U.S.
Constitution; the moving force behind the changes in the British legal
structure from the issuance of the Magna Carta in the thirteenth century
to the end of the nineteenth century. To Smith and Jefferson,
government's role was as an umpire, not a participant. Jefferson's
ideal, as he expressed it in his first inaugural address (1801), was "a
wise and frugal government, which shall restrain men from injuring one
another, which shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own
pursuits of industry and improvement."
Free To Choose
By Milton Friedman
SOME writers have so confounded society with
government, as to leave little or no distinction between them; whereas
they are not only different, but have different origins. Society is
produced by our wants, and government by our wickedness; the former
promotes our happiness positively by uniting our affections, the latter
negatively by restraining our vices. The one encourages intercourse, the
other creates distinctions. The first is a patron, the last a punisher.
Society in every state is a
blessing, but government even in its best state is but a necessary evil
in its worst state an intolerable one; for when we suffer, or are
exposed to the same miseries by a government, which we might expect in a
country without government, our calamities is heightened by reflecting
that we furnish the means by which we suffer!
By Thomas Paine
You and I are told
increasingly that we have to choose between a left or right, but I would
like to suggest that there is no such thing as a left or right. There is
only an up or down--up to a man's age-old dream, the ultimate in
individual freedom consistent with law and order--or down to the ant
heap totalitarianism, and regardless of their sincerity, their
humanitarian motives, those who would trade our freedom for security
have embarked on this downward course.
A Time For Choosing
By Ronald Reagan
America's great economic miracle? The economic
system of natural liberty which allows the voluntary
cooperation of individuals currently known as
As with all systems, an economic
system may be either natural or artificial, the
former being defined by freedom and the latter
defined by coercion. The natural system, capitalism,
I will refer to as an informal system; the
artificial systems, I will call formal systems.
Why is capitalism an informal
system? A crucial part of the definition of
capitalism is the idea of laissez-faire, a French
term which roughly translates into "allow to do" or
"leave alone." Capitalism is an informal system in
the sense that it does not seek to impose answers
upon society to the three fundamental questions
facing all economies: What should we produce? How
should we produce? And, for whom should we produce?
Capitalism suggests that rather
than these questions being answered by kings,
governments, or even well-intentioned central
planners on society's behalf, these questions should
be answered by you and I and every other individual
in a free market. In other words, capitalism is
simply what occurs when we are all left to our own
economic devices; as a system, capitalism is
characterized by the absence of formal systems. As
Adam Smith explained, "All systems either of
preference or of restraint, therefore, being thus
completely taken away, the obvious and simple system
of natural liberty establishes itself of its own
Milton Friedman put it another
way: "Fundamentally, there are only two ways of co-ordinating
the economic activities of millions. One is central
direction involving the use of coercion ... The
other is voluntary co-operation of individuals."
Formal economic systems (communism, feudalism, etc.)
are defined by some form of coercion in order to
direct production and to impose answers upon
society; the definition of capitalism, the informal
system, is the absence of coercion.
Definition of Capitalism
What Is the Political Spectrum?
The idea of a political spectrum, is one of the
first concepts taught and analyzed in poly-sci and
economics courses in college. It is a listing of the
world's various political-economic systems on a
chart, placing each system on the chart toward the
left, middle or right, according to the basic type
of government that system upholds. It is a natural
way to provide the over-all perspective needed in
judging the different political and economic forms
that exist, and thus a very important tool in
teaching what the political world is all about.
according to Aristotle's doctrine of the mean would
be as follows
The Political Spectrum
by Nelson Hultberg
What is the
species of domestic industry which his capital can
employ, and of which the produce is likely to be of
the greatest value, every individual, it is evident,
can, in his local situation, judge much better than
any statesman or lawgiver can do for him.
The statesman who should attempt to direct private
people in what manner they ought to employ their
capitals, would not only load himself with a most
unnecessary attention, but assume an authority which
could safely be trusted, not only to no single
person, but to no council or senate whatever, and
which would nowhere be so dangerous as in the hands
of a man who had folly and presumption enough to
fancy himself fit to exercise it.
I don‘t know about you, but I am impatient with
those Republicans who after the last election rushed
into print saying, “We must broaden the base of our
party”—when what they meant was to fuzz up and blur
even more the differences between ourselves and our
It was a feeling that there was not a sufficient
difference now between the parties that kept a
majority of the voters away from the polls. When
have we ever advocated a closed-door policy? Who has
ever been barred from participating?
Our people look for a cause to believe in. Is it a
third party we need, or is it a new and revitalized
raising a banner of no pale pastels,
but bold colors which make it unmistakably clear
where we stand on all of the issues troubling the
Let Them Go Their Way
March 1, 1975