Is the United States Worth Defending?

The question of where anyone's priorities are begs the question of "Where do your loyalties lie?"



I am loyal first to the long term good of humanity. I want as many people as possible to live the best lives possible. I realize that this makes me sound like some sort of socialist or communist. Nothing could be further from the facts. As I've said before:

Except for killing tens of millions of people, sending large portions of the world economy backwards, causing billions to live in crushing poverty, setting the cause of personal liberty and human rights back decades, enriching and rewarding tyrants who oppress the people worse than any capitalist ever thought about doing, causing multi-decade famines in areas that once were breadbaskets, failing to feed its people for decades at a time, expanding the system of gulags worldwide, causing deadly and widespread environmental damage, literally destroying the means of production it inherited from its capitalist predecessors so nobody (except the rulers) got anything, stymieing the contributions billions of people could have made to the world,and doing its best to cover all of this up, including habitual executions of innocent people who simply stumbled on the wrong piece of evidence, I guess communism wasn't so bad.



At least the nobles in feudalistic societies A) didn't know any better, and B) Come the war, had an obligation/reason to stand in the front lines...



Each and every time it's been tried, communism has ended up in the exact same place. It's time to stop pretending this is a freak occurrence.



What's the definition of insanity again?

and socialism is like communism lite. Oh it's got high ideals and everything, but the facts are that it invariably ends up in stagnation and stratification of society, slow economic growth (if any), and little opportunity for people to advance themselves, leading to all sorts of problems. There is a thing called the socio-economic pyramid. It's triangular in shape, with the point at the top. There are a few people at the very top, more a little lower down, more still the farther down you go, until at the bottom you get the largest number of people living in crushing poverty with no power to improve their position. Historically, this triangle has been the shape of every human society until the last couple of hundred years, and the majority of human societies even today.



Today in the United States and similar places with a market economy and a more or less free society, we can see indications that the triangle has become shaped more like a pear, or even a diamond if you're an optimist. It is very plausible that within our lifetimes it may become apple-shaped. We still have a few people at the very top, then progressively more people until you get to a certain point, then you start seeing fewer again, and fewer still as you lower into the lower economic strata. What this means is a lower proportion of people who are poor by current standards.



This is a very good thing. It means we are making more effective use of our human capital than any society ever before in the annals of history. It means there are fewer members of the lowest economic strata (poverty level and below) than there are middle class people. It means more opportunity for those at the lower levels to climb into higher economic strata. As a percentage of the population, participation in the investment markets is higher than any other society any time in the history of the world. This means that we have spare wealth to invest in our own economic betterment. This means there is more wealth for investment to grow the economy, and more sources of more wealth if you have an idea that you can persuade people might Make Them Money. Furthermore, this means further developments that benefit us all, of whatever nature, are going to continue to come more and more quickly. I want my children to be able to explore the solar system, and their children to be able to explore the galaxy, and deal with whatever they meet on the best terms possible. It's a matter of belief with me that other sentient species are out there, and that we are going to meet them eventually. It would be much better for our children's children to meet them ten thousand light years away in ships that can do everything you hear talked about in science fiction, than in low earth orbit with present capabilities. Such is the case even if they're so advanced that they are like magnanimous gods in their conduct towards us. If they are something less advanced and more predatory and our descendants are scrabbling over who has more subsistence level manual labor farms because we've exhausted earth's resources, that could be deadly embarrassing. Not to mention that we're all living better lives in the meantime.



I'm open to other systems of course. But those that have been tried repeatedly with the result of retaining, or returning to the old pyramid model, I'm not going to consider. It's all very well and good to hold yourself out, as most socialists and communists do, as noble and promulgating the common good, but if the predictable effects of trying your socio-economic model are a return to the pyramid with yourself as one of the nobles, then we all know what is paved with good intentions and I hope you travel it soon.



One lesson that is consistent across history is that government is a horrible allocator of resources. Sometimes it may be the necessary allocator of resources, but that does not mean we shouldn't look for alternatives. Government can be, and usually is, unduly influenced by those with current political power to keep them in their current position or improve it. Lest anyone think I'm talking purely about the wealthy, I'm not. Agricultural subsidies were not begun in the era of corporate farms, and they have created quite a few wealthy farmers. Indeed, the largest pieces of our government budgets are allocated for those who are powerful because of their large aggregate number of votes. Politicians aren't afraid of offending the wealthy, they preach class warfare to the detriment of all of us quite often. They are afraid of offending large groups of voters, particularly organized voters. NAACP. NOW. AARP. Those are the names that cause politicans hearts to tremble in fear, not Rockefeller, Kennedy, and Ford, or even Gates or Buffett.



Nor is government efficient. Indeed, the primary goal of government officers seems, predictably, to be improving their own position. More money, larger budgets, supervise more employees, more highly paid - it's time you got a raise! and a promotion! Never mind that the job could be done by a fraction of the personnel and at a fraction of the cost. Government is not set up to reward this. Until it's spending its own money instead of taking it from the people, this will continue. Since government's only source of significant revenue is taxation, that will be roughly never. Until government officers are spending their own money, they will endeavor to increase their budgets regardless of need. There are things government must do, but they should be as few as practical.



If it sounds like I'm talking economics rather than politics, the reason is that economics, usually bad economics, with bad history, is behind a large part of politics. A lot of people who do not understand it well denigrate capitalism because a few get very wealthy while many do not. Well, until recently, being wealthy was a very human capital intensive thing. This has changed, and is changing further, and capitalism and the free market economy have brought about the conditions for change. Everybody knows and has heard that democracy is the worst form of government except for everything else that's been tried. Similarly, free market capitalism is the worst system - except for everything else that has ever been tried. Yes, it allows people to fail, sometimes spectacularly, but it is this freedom to fail together with rewarding those who succeed that causes the system to succeed. People respond to a system of rewards and punishments, particularly when they are incremental and fairly immediate. When they can succeed greatly, and be rewarded commensurately, they are more likely to take the kind of risks that benefit us all. The difference between 2 percent growth - like Europe is seeing - and 3.5 to 4 percent growth like the United States is not 1.5 to 2 percent. It is 75 percent plus. It's the difference between 50 percent growth in a generation and hundred percent growth. Over a working lifetime of forty years, it's the difference between doubling the economy and quadrupling it.



This has implications in the lowest economic strata as well as the highest. Poverty level in the United States is extremely well off in most of the rest of the world. It may take some time, but a rising economic tide really does lift all boats. Not only do people make more money here, but the necessities of life are cheaper. This further raises the effective standard of living. Poverty stricken people in the United States live as well as the middle class in most of europe. Why? Because our model is more free market than theirs. Because we try more things than they do. Because we are free to fail. A certain number of ideas are always going to be failures, but we try them because we have reason to believe that they will succeed. We aren't required to prove to professional skeptics that it will succeed. And more of them do succeed than most people realize. Everybody quotes the old saw about only one business in five making it. But it isn't true. Indeed, the fastest growing segment of our economy is those individuals who make a living selling their own expertise, and the reason they eventually go out of business is that someone in corporate america makes them a job offer too good to refuse.



I am also loyal to the United States. Yes, I want to improve it. But I also think the place where all of these reforms first came to be practiced, and where they are most assiduously practiced today, is worth defending. Especially as our main rivals practice governmental or economic systems that have been shown to be less advantageous or even a step back into the dark ages. Those we are at war with would take us back to a tribal society of city-states, where the priesthood has the real final say in all matters of justice, or societal norm, of what is and is not to be tolerated. Those at the top of their hierarchy may be civilized cosmopolitan men of the world, but those at the base are little different from medieval peasantry in ther attitudes. We are forward looking, always trying to find a better way to do something. They would force us - all of us - into a cultural straightjacket that hardened in the eighth century. Those few at the top that we see, by virtue of their power and wealth, can get away with challenging their culture. For the vast majority of their culture, those in the lower economic strata of their pyramid, it is a straightjacket of thought, of behavior, and of any chance of advancement. This includes not only women, but all minorities, and all members of any other religions, or those who have none. They may grudgingly tolerate the presence of Christians because Mohammed told them to, but you are also distinctly second class citizens who had better keep to your place. Atheists and agnostics are not "peoples of the book" and their place in Islamic society is dependent upon being perceived to be members of the christian community.



So what we have achieved here in the United States is worth defending. The more so because cultures are subject not only to something akin to entropy, but also because despite the fact that the United States is the most powerful nation in the globe, we are not nearly as powerful as the rest of the world together. The high point of American power was right after World War II - had we wished to, we could have made a much stronger attempt at militarily conquering the world than Germany and Japan did. We would have failed, but that we didn't try, and instead came home and had it handed to us because most of the rest of the world wants to be Americans. If they didn't find our culture attractive, all of the Madison Avenue Marketing Gurus and all of the television shows and all of the movies in creation could not make them want it. Every salesman knows that you can't sell people something that they don't want. People want better stuff, and they want more individual, as opposed to governmental, control over their own lives. That they do want it is illustrated by how much American culture they have bought. I'm not certain there is any place in the world where you can't find something American. Certainly nowhere I've ever been, or any of the people I've talked to about their travels. From Coca Cola to Hollywood to McDonalds, American stuff is everywhere, and american ideals with them. Indeed, it's so ubiquitous worldwide that most places are now making American style stuff of their own, and living increasingly American lifestyles. There are even signs that a certain number of less developed countries are imitating the United States so far as to changing the economic pyramid into something pear-shaped.



That they have copied our model is one reason why they have kept up with us, indeed, nearly caught up with us in the case of several Asian countries. They did this - their entrenched powers allowed it or encouraged it - because they could see that they would be overwhelmed if they did not. They saw a more successful, more competitive model, and imitated as much of it as they could make themselves comfortable with. But certain of our ideals, specifically contempt or questioning of authority, the idea that everyone should have the same opportunities, the idea that anyone can come up with worthy ideas, and especialy the idea that no one is below being rewarded or above being punished, are very dangerous to those elites, whether wealthy, educated, or religious. They know that these ideas spell doom for their class, and have insulated their societies from them to the extent practical. The more socialist model prevailing in most of europe holds itself out to be superior, but clearly is not competing as well, and their elites can only retaliate by despising us.



One important feature of competitive evolutionary models is that the introduction of one example that competes better forces all of the other members of the system to become more effective, more competitive - or face evolutionary disadvantage. And evolutionary disadvantage, in the long term, is a fancy way of saying extinction. Societies must adapt to changing conditions or they die. The elites ruling in Asia made the choice that they were going to compete on the same level. The elites of Europe, perhaps because they are our parental society, are in denial that their current rules have a lot in common with those made by feudal lords protecting their peasants.



But if we remove the United States, the motivation to compete with us vanishes, along with the american style reforms. In only a few places is it rooted deeply enough that it would survive without us competing with them. Japan, Taiwan, and South Korea. Australia. Eastern Europe and India if they get another generation. Maybe one or two other places. Except for maybe India, all of these are more subject to being overwhelmed from without than we are. The older systems are still strong, and they are practiced in a much larger number of places.



So is the United States worth defending? Yes. Is it worth defending the cause of global freedoms, and global innovation? Absolutely. Is our society worth defending? You bet. Is defending the United States in the War on Terror a good thing for all of the above? There can be no other answer but yes.