A month or so ago I received a call to action email warning against the governments ever- increasing interference with the “American ideal” of the free market economy. The author warned that the United States government is ever approaching an “anti-thesis to freedom” in the form of communist socialism. The email was specifically criticizing the government’s recent rescue of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, a subject appropriate for the author–an ambitious capitalist who operates a Down Payment Assistant program. He drew an illusion to each act of government interference to the loss of a star on the flag. I made the following reply:

Photo by fauxto_digit

The fist of power so-commonly represented on the hands of monuments to our forefathers.

Dear Sir,

Perhaps, you’ve yet to realize that government does not exist separate from economic systems. It is in the state’s best interest to maximize, or at least stabilize, the economy, in order to secure a position as a world power. The government must interfere with laissez-faire capitalism (as you can see by the recent failure of several high-profile financial institutions) otherwise it collapses in upon itself in due time. A free market economy is volatile on a large scale and can only survive with a government entity to manipulate and regulate it. As markets grow, the government will have to interfere more often, and there is a necessary decrease in freedoms.

But what would you prefer? Would you prefer to live in a powerful nation or a free nation? Do you see what happens to free nations, which are not powerful? Take Tibet for an example, a country whose government is in exile and has been occupied by a powerful country, China. Now, I imagine you would rather lose all of the stars on the American flag, than loose the benefits of being an American and live in Tibet. I on the other hand, would prefer to live in a free nation because this is the only right way to live.

The pursuit of power requires the sacrifice or freedoms. Often, it is justified with the intent to garner more freedoms over the long-term,but over the long-term it is obvious that this pursuit of power among nations becomes a perpetual course with no end in sight. You see, when one nation has claimed superiority over others, other nations strive to meet or surpass that superiority. The superior state must then protect and improve its economic status, lest it loose power. And even those countries that have relatively little power, are forced to pursue power in order to protect themselves to some degree. The struggle for power is an unending process, and the freedoms sacrificed along the way are not likely to be returned to the people.

And the whole bit about communism is so out-dated. I certainly am no communist sympathizer, but if you think that the United States government is going to think twice about a decision to abridge freedoms in the name of ensuring economic power, you’re wrong. The state only exists to perpetuate itself. Concerns for rights and freedoms of the people are always secondary. It’s just that the Communists were more upfront about it.

Sincerely,

Preston Benson