This is in addition to an article titled “How the left was won”

We are presented with visions of big government beating down big business and helping the small businessman and laborer.  Government tells us that it will protect us by putting reins on Wall Street, requiring expensive drug testing, and regulating hedge funds.  Why then did Barack Obama and the Democratic Party reel in $89 million from Wall Street, over $14 million from big pharma companies, and the support of legendary hedge fund manager, George Soros, during the Presidential campaign in 2008?

What most of us misunderstand is that the regulation that is imposed by big government typically helps big business and hurts small business.  It does so by eliminating the possibility of competition for big companies.  For example, on the surface it would seem that Pfizer, a large pharmaceutical company, would be opposed to the uber-expensive drug testing that is required of the FDA.  After all, this will cost them a great deal when developing new drugs and will harm their bottom line.  However, that is only partially correct.  By having extremely expensive and time-consuming testing measures be required by the government, Pfizer is able to escape any pesky competition that may come from startup drug companies.  That is, a small drug company will not have the capital available to invest millions of dollars and years of time testing a new drug it hopes to sell.  However, Pfizer will have such resources, so it can eliminate the threat of competition and its drugs (along with those of a handful of other large pharmas) will be the only new drugs to hit the market in the future.  Likewise, big Wall Street firms and George Soros benefit from financial regulation because such regulation makes it very difficult for new, innovative firms to afford the costs of such regulation.  As such, the established Wall Street firms and hedge funds do not need to be worried about future competition from new market entrants.  An additional (and more apparent) bonus for Wall Street and Mr. Soros has been the amount of government (read: taxpayer) money that is used to buy worthless assets and prop up failed financial institutions.  Such government investments directly improve the investments of Wall Street firms and Mr. Soros.

By big government I do not necessarily mean democrats – I am referring to all big government.  It is simply the case that democrats promote even bigger government than republicans (remarkably).  The only way to truly keep big business honest and force them to compete fairly with the rest of the market is to sustain a truly free market.  Regulation, taxation, and subsidization will only serve to grow big business and make growth more difficult for small businesses that will innovate and provide more competition.

I, like many of you, have always wondered why it is that liberal economics dominate the ranks of well-educated, intelligent, financially well-off people.  Why people that would benefit from welfare and other transfers of wealth would vote democrat is self-explanatory.  However, the reasoning behind a wealthy businessman, an educated and well paid college professor, or a young person in college or recently removed from college to vote democrat can be perplexing.  These people would generally benefit from free markets and are likely to be well educated enough to understand the negative consequences of government control.  So why do they consistently vote for the left?

In 2005 the Washington Post reported a story entitled, “College Faculties A Most Liberal Lot, Study Finds.” The study points out that 72% of all college professors polled identified themselves as liberal.  Not shockingly, of those professors teaching at “elite” schools, 87% identified themselves as liberal.  If you follow politics and the world of economics you will be well accustomed to hearing of liberal policy and politicians coming out of Yale, Harvard, etc.  Most of the professors at these elite institutions are incredibly accomplished academics and have few real monetary concerns.  Most of them must be well informed on the benefits of free markets and the pitfalls of government, so why do they lean so far left?  This incongruity baffled me for some time, but I believe I have the answer: they are more intelligent than most other people, and they know it.  Because they are so smart, they feel that they are better equipped to make decisions than people with less intellectual ability.  To some degree, they are right; I would rather a Yale economics professor manage my investment portfolio than Jim-Bob from West Virginia (no offense, Jim-Bob).  Regardless, the problem arises when they believe that they can design macro decisions that replace the countless micro decisions that are made in a free market.  No one person, or group of people, is more intelligent or can dictate a more efficient system than the market.  Despite all the brain-power that is held by this select group of people at these elite education institutions, the market’s knowledge, intelligence, and efficiency dwarfs the intellect at Yale, Harvard, and the rest of the Ivy League combined.

Why are college students, typically from well-off families or at a very minimum intelligent enough to make their own way in the world without the help of the government, so rampantly left-leaning?  Here I think there are a few reasons.  The obvious reason stemming from the paragraph above: college campuses are typically more liberal because of the ideals that are taught by more liberal college professors.  But, it goes deeper than that.  Most college students have yet to see the real world.  They have yet to rely completely on their own paycheck and see a huge percentage of it taken away by Uncle Sam.  They have yet to see firsthand the demise of the entrepreneur at the hands of the government.  Perhaps most importantly, they are generally accustomed to having a safety net.  Most college students live in relative squalor, but they still know that if push came to shove they could depend on help from their parents or other family members.  This leads to a fear of not having a safety net and a belief that everyone should be entitled to a safety net of their own.  This is not to say that every college student has a safety net, but most do and I believe a lot of the liberal beliefs of college students stem from said safety net.  One last piece of influence on college students is social issues.  That is, college students generally have more liberal social ideals and believe that gay people should be able to be married and women should be able to have abortions should they choose to do so.  I was in a boat similar to this in my earlier college years.  Like many college students, I was not terribly concerned with the economy because the economy didn’t have any impact on my college student life, so I focused on the social issues.  One nice thing about college “lefties” is that many of them change their opinions.  In fact, as more and more of them learn about economics and the importance of the topic, they tend to shift more toward libertarianism, which satiates their desire for free societies while ensuring free markets.

Now for the real challenge: why does big business love democrats?  We are always told by the media that democrats are trying to reign in big business; the picture is painted of big business going head to head with liberals.  This is one of the greatest misrepresentations in our world today.  As a sort of cliff-hanger, I am going to address this issue in my next article, “Why big business loves big government,” so check back often!

My reasoning behind this article is indeed exploratory, but there is also an ulterior motive.  We should not base our political ideologies or votes on what is believed or said by people that seem more intelligent, knowledgeable, and successful than we are.  Develop your ideologies based on what you think is right and what you are able to reason.  With the rise of reason we will have an increasingly great society.

Rise of Reason has been a bit quiet lately as I have been fairly busy with business and applying to graduate schools.  However, I’m dedicating more time to spreading the value of freedom!

I am curious to know if there is anything any of you want to see an article about.  If there is anything in particular please comment on this article.  Thank you!

-JPA

When I debate my points regarding free markets and free societies I often find myself being criticized by my more left-leaning rival debater for being “heartless” and having no compassion for my fellow man.  If I may be so blunt, I find my positions to hold the highest possible moral ground.  Allow me to explain.

Many people associate morality and compassion with self-sacrifice.  I can completely understand the position; it is admirable when people help others even though it may seem that they are giving something up to do so.  All debates aside regarding whether by giving a bum $20 I am gaining at least $20 worth of satisfaction, thus eliminating any self-sacrifice, self-sacrifice itself is not an enemy of free markets and free societies.  However, because it is debatable whether there is such a thing as voluntary self-sacrifice, we will just call it charity for the remainder of this article.  Charity actually holds a very important role in free markets.  Charity is a great way for free markets to effectively alleviate the human/emotional side of us all within a free society.  An example would be the charities and religious organizations that, with the help of private donations, are able to assist the poor and homeless that may not have been assisted by a profit-seeking entity.

However great charity is, the morality gets perverted when we mistake government for charity.  If I decide it necessary to donate money to a food kitchen while my neighbor decides to donate his money to a university, we will be unlikely to quarrel over our donations and will certainly not demand that the other give to an unfavorable charity or face physical consequences; we both give to charity voluntarily and with zero coercion.  However, government does just the opposite.  A group of people – sometimes small, sometimes an overwhelming majority – decide for society as a whole which governmental policies and programs are good, and force everyone to pony up to support those policies and programs.  For example, I do not believe that giving farmers subsidies is a good policy, but I cannot decide not to give to those farmers, I am forced to by the threat of physical force.  The small group that does enjoy farm subsidies is effectively using the government to extort money from me to line their own pockets.  Farm subsidies may be enjoyed only by a small percentage of us, but the story is the same for policies and programs that most of us voted for or utilize.  Take roads and freeways, for example.  I utilize the roads and freeways and I thank all of those of you that do not drive as much as I do but still pay for me to use the roads.  Is it moral for a person that is “going green” and riding her bike to work every day to still have to pay for me to drive my huge, gas guzzling, carbon fuming truck to and from work and all around town all day?  Is it moral for an anti-war protester to pay for a brand new M4A1 assault rifle that will blow off the head of a man in Afghanistan?

Conversely, the free market ensures us that we will get what we pay for, pay for only what we want, and be left alone outside of that.  The morality of this is self-explanatory.  The trouble people have with the morality of free markets and free societies is on the fringe – when a man cannot go to college because he cannot afford it or get a surgery he needs but cannot afford or face death.  Thankfully, without big government, each of us would have a great deal more money to give to charity.  Granted, some people may abstain from giving and spend their tax money on a yacht, but most people find it in themselves to give to what they believe in; especially when they know Uncle Sam won’t pick up the slack.  Some of the most charitable people in history have been those that utilized the free markets to create gigantic levels of wealth.  What’s more, most large charities operate at efficiencies that are completely unheard of in government and even impressive when compared to companies with profit-motives.  The free market would divert more money to these charities and leave the government with money only to provide protection and justice.

The argument of compassion and morality ultimately comes down to a core set of beliefs all relating to theft.  If you are one that believes theft is a means that can be justified by an end that you find to be just and moral and you believe that the state has the right to utilize theft and the threat of physical force, then you will likely stand on the left side of the aisle.  If, however, you are a believer in the freedom of every man and woman to his or her life, body, and property then you will likely stand up for free markets and free societies.  Call this an oversimplification if you will, but the debate between the left and the right, between wrong and right, always comes down to how one values freedom versus theft and physical force.

Freedom is daunting and intimidating.  With freedom comes self-responsibility and self-responsibility is something we have all become less and less accustomed to.  However, by stripping someone of their self-responsibility and thus stripping them of their freedom, you are doing them no favors.  The worst of us are those that claim it is not only good to steal from most to give to some, but necessary and morally superior to freedom.  Do not fall into the trap of believing that there is a just reason to steal – there never is.  Just as an exercise, next time you speak to someone that is for public health care ask them what percentage of last year’s income they gave to health care organizations that benefited the poor.  Most will not have given anything, and those that gave probably gave far less than you will end up paying in additional taxes.  If it is indeed the case that they have not put their money where their mouth is, ask yourself, “Whose money will they put where their mouth is?”  Where is the morality in that?