I suppose that any refutation of Monday's editorial would only be redundant. The piece, in its own illogic, invalidates itself. Nevertheless, I found it so hypocritical that it screamed for a riposte.
In a breathtakingly irresponsible flourish, its authors proudly proclaimed that they decided to skip the Republican debate on Sunday night in favor of watching the Suns/Sonics game. Fine. If you aren't interested, don't watch. But, with this said, please don't lecture me about politics. How can we take a criticism of an idea seriously when the critic doesn't even take the time to hear someone articulate the idea?
Having broadcast their ignorance of the issues, the authors then, in a twist of irony, eviscerate the Republicans for "debating...issues they know only as much about as their educating teams have schooled them."
Furthermore, I find it laughable that the authors of the piece actually used the word "evil" to describe conservative discourse. I am certainly no fan of Marxism. I would never have the audacity, however, to claim that Marx's ill-conceived ideology was born of an evil mind! He simply had a different vision of the way to make a better world.
Finally, the authors argue that the discourse "will eventually disintegrate into the same old yada, yada, yada about lowering taxes to generate more wealth for the hard working men and women of this country, while the meaning behind the chants translate into nothing more than screwing the working guy once again." I fear that the space allotted me is not sufficient to confute such a poor representation of conservative thought. Nevertheless, I will try. As the freedom-minded conservative sees it, we do not lower taxes to "generate" wealth. People generate wealth on their own. When we lower taxes, we simply allow them to keep more of it. In doing so, we ensure the integrity of the capitalist relationship between hard work and reward. People do not work as hard-do not produce as much good for the community-if the guerdon of their labor, money, is taken by an over-active state. As for the idea that allowing people to keep their own money screws "the working guy once again," we may call upon history to set the record straight. The tax-cut-inspired growth of the 1980s yielded a sharp decrease in unemployment, from a high in 1982 of 9.7 percent to 5.3 in 1989 (source: Economic Report of the President, 1999). Furthermore, the "low rates of the 1980s are correlated with rising incomes for all quintiles," as Daniel Mitchell of the Thomas A Roe Institute notes in a July 1997 article. I would call upon the authors to ask one of those working guys who benefited from the creation of 20 million jobs during the 1980s if they would be better off if the government hadn't decided to let them keep more of their earnings.
If the editors of the State Press had watched the debate on Sunday, they would have heard Ambassador Keyes chastise Gov. Bush for not taking part in the public airing of views. Perhaps if the authors had heard this, they would realize Keyes' point: an intelligent person must be willing to listen to the ideas of those he disagrees with if he wants to effectively defend or even understand his own position.
Matthew Mitchell
Sophomore
Political Science, Economics
Over the last few days, we've been having an interesting debate on the merits of capitalism vs. communism, a debate our whole society should have. But one thing that has so far been mentioned but not explored is that our system is neither of these and never has been.
Bill Brown argues our system of government is built on "the unfettered rights of life, liberty and property." Unfortunately, sir, you're wrong. The Constitution was specifically phrased "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness," NOT Burke's "property," because the Founders knew from experience that vast concentrations of wealth and property are lethal to democracy. They may even be lethal to life in general, given how we've treated our environment to get them.
We are beginning to see their wisdom today. Over the years, our system has gradually given corporations -- which are purely fictitious entities given existence by the people, and can therefore be dissolved by us -- more and more power and rights and less oversight. You seem to consider this a good thing, but it's not. Without oversight, corporations are not accountable to anyone except their own boards, so in effect we're giving them sovereignty without responsibilities. That's exactly what the Founders tried to avoid.
This is what happens in a "laissez-faire" system, only worse. You argue that had we maintained the early Industrial Era's attitude toward business, it would benefit everyone. Unfortunately, history doesn't agree: Had industry continued along the path it was then on, our system would likely have become a sweatshop oligarchy, with the owners getting rich off near-slave labor and doing whatever they could get away with in the name of profits. "Toiling in a factory" has very rarely led to any kind of wealth; in fact, Emile Durkheim found that as the French GNP rose during that era, so did the suicide rate, because economic forces were dividing families and communities. They still are, bringing with them mental and physical illnesses that were often unheard of. Unfortunately, this is spreading to the world.
Preventing such concentrations of power requires constant alertness. Capitalism, in theory, favors small businesses and encourages the use of individual talents, both very positive things. But without oversight it grows like a cancer and cancels both of those. That's our current problem: Our system favors huge corporations and does not respect many critical talents. We are corporatist, not capitalist.
Why should stock traders make millions while everyday teachers, who are far more important to our civilization's survival, get shafted? Why should a corporation get huge wealth and privileges by being legally selfish but organizations that help the needy have to fight for survival? Why is volunteerism all but unrecognized but obsessive workaholism greatly rewarded?
And, to go deeper, why should ANYONE have to pay for food, clothing, shelter and other necessities? They are our right as living beings, yet we're the only species on earth that has to buy them.
The key problem is indeed money. It is a pure fiction, nothing more than a piece of paper that we've imbued with a meaning. Yes, at one point it served a useful purpose; it's a lot easier to carry coins around than a bushel of corn. But today's economy is based on money being traded almost exclusively for more money. Often, all of the money involved is little more than a computerized number, with no physical reality at all. Fiction for fiction rather than for something tangible. And this is a wise thing to base our entire civilization on? Sounds like building on quicksand to me.
Gus Steeves
Non-degree Grad Student
