Understanding Globalist Totalitarian Socialism

Paul Winfree, of the Heritage Foundation, responded to the Washington Post’s slur against President Trump, by offering the policy rebuttal that less of Trump’s economic nationalism, and more open borders, would be a better idea than Trump’s idea of “Make America Great Again.”

Winfree was reacting to Elizabeth Bruenig’s slur against Trump. In making her slur that Trump is an anti-social, racist bigot, Breunig channeled Hillary’s socialist campaign slogan, “Stronger Together.”

Breunig stated, “That we are alone before we are together. That we are more and not less ourselves in total isolation. From that view flow policies that disregard or deny that people are, in fact, embedded in families, communities and industries, and that their bonds and obligations are powerful and ought to be respected and protected by the state.”

Winfree responded by stating, “How do you persuade folks that more liberal immigration policies would benefit all those involved? The important question is how can we work together to improve each other’s lives through service, sympathy, and reciprocal trade? How can we increase the diffusion of our good and unique gifts? And when there’s something getting in the way of any of these paths, how can we remove it?”

The “something” getting in the way of more globalism, according to Winfree, is Trump.

Winfree characterized Trump’s economic nationalism as “Radical Individualism.”

Neither Winfree or Breunig share the allegiance of James Buchanan, of George Mason University, to individualistic constitutional values because both of them are global collectivists.

Both of them, for different reasons, share a common vision of the social welfare benefits of an open-border, one-world government.

Neither of them support their economic policy positions from the foundation of rational, individualistic, social welfare because both of them knowingly violate Kenneth Arrow’s principle of non-dictatorship in public policy decisions.

In other words, both of them live in the swamp, and both embrace elite tyranny as the best way to produce a better social welfare outcome than rational economic choice of rational individuals.

From the natural rights perspective of Buchanan, maximum economic liberty, based upon shared allegiance to the rule of law, leads to the maximum rates of domestic economic growth, and maximum prosperity for the citizens of America.

There is only one constitutional configuration of constitutional rules that produce maximum rates of economic growth, based upon maximum rates of technological innovation.

That constitutional configuration is the natural rights republic.

President Trump’s MAGA is best economic policy for the United States because it is based on the first economic assumption that it is the citizens of the U. S. whose welfare is to be maximized.

In Winfree’s open-border global corporatism, the welfare being maximized is the globalist corporate elite.

Graphic #1 describes the index of capital investment in the U. S. manufacturing sectors, since the passage of the free trade agreements, beginning in 1990.

The index of capital investment, since 1990 is negative. But, the most significant feature of the graphic is the 6-year period after 1992.

The graph shows that capital investments that had previously been made in the U. S. domestic economy were being made in India and China.

The U. S. rates of capital investment have never recovered to their pre-1992 levels, and are now lower than they were in 1992.

Graphic #2 describes capital investment in intellectual property, since 2012. The trend is a flat line.

The reason U. S. domestic capital investment in technology innovation is flat-lining is that when U. S. corporations shipped their intermediate supply chains to India and China, they outsourced the American capacity for technology innovation.

The capital investments in technology innovation that previously were made in the metro regional U. S. technology clusters are now being made in metro value chains in India and China.

The economic effect of the Heritage Foundation’s so-called free trade agreements was to outsource America’s initial competitive factor endowment of “Yankee ingenuity.”

Graphic #3 describes capital investment in manufacturing, since the election of Obama. The period of time after 2015 is particularly instructive for Winfree and his free trade colleagues at Heritage.

If the Heritage Foundation’s so-called “free trade” agreements were such a great idea, why has capital investment in manufacturing declined from $75 billion, in 2015, to $50 billion, in 2017, exactly the same level of capital investment as when Obama took office, in 2009?

To paraphrase Buchanan, the social welfare function that the globalists in the swamp maximized in the trade agreements were their own, not the majority of American citizens.

Under one set of constitutional rules, increasing incomes can be obtained if new markets emerge which have new products that consumers favor over the old products.

New products and new markets may emerge, given a specific configuration of constitutional values and laws that favor individual initiative and the appropriation of rewards based upon individual merit.

New markets and new products emerge as a result of capital investments, not as a result of open borders and unfair trade agreements.

The natural rights constitutional configuration creates the conditions of maximum rates of technological innovation, based upon maximum rates of knowledge creation and diffusion, which only occur in the natural rights republic.

Under another set of constitutional rules, favored by the Heritage Foundation, income distribution is static, and new markets, based upon the commercialization of new knowledge, do not emerge.

New markets in America have not emerged since 1990 because those new markets are now emerging in China, as a result of the trade agreements, promoted by the Heritage Foundation.

The global economy promoted by Heritage is characterized by non-territorial market networks of multinational corporate elites, who have no territorial allegiance to the United States.

Like the global socialists at the Post, Heritage economists do not value the sovereignty of the nation and the freedom of citizens to control their financial destiny.

In contrast to Trump’s America First doctrine, both the Post and Heritage put the initial assumption of whose welfare is to be maximized in foreign or global nations.

If the Heritage free trade end goals of national economic policy cannot be made subject to individual preference rankings, as Kenneth Arrow suggests, than the comparison of social welfare outcomes between Trump’s policy and the Heritage policy cannot be made.

The importance of Arrow’s insight for a moral natural rights constitutional democracy is that only rules and laws, which flow from the priority of values established in the constitution, can be ranked according to individual preferences.

The trade agreements were not based upon individual citizen preference rankings, they were based upon the preference rankings of the corporate elites who wrote and negotiated the trade agreements.

In The Reason of Rules, (1985) Brennan and Buchanan state that: “Our specific claim is that justice takes its meaning from the rules for the social order within which notions of justice are to be applied. To appeal to considerations of justice is to appeal to relevant rules. These rules provide the framework within which patterns of distributional end states emerge from the interaction of rational consumers.”

Buchanan argues that the issue of economic fairness must be determined through the process of making and enforcing fair constitutional rules, not on socialist or corporate elites manipulating welfare outcomes to their own benefit.

The Heritage Foundation’s attempt to palm off the social welfare function of the elites, and then offer the justification of free trade as if it was a national social welfare function, is a violation of Arrow’s condition of non-dictatorship.

In other words, the Heritage Foundation’s advocacy of free trade is not based upon free choice but upon their political advocacy of the elite tyranny of the swamp.

In Constitutional Economics, James Buchanan wrote that “Uncertainty about where one’s own interest will lie in a sequence of plays or rounds will lead a rational person, from his own self-interest, to prefer rules and arrangements, or constitutions, that will seem fair, no matter what final positions he might occupy.”

As noted by Brennan and Buchanan, “Individuals are recognized to possess their own privately determined objectives, their own life plans, and these need not be common to all persons. In this setting, rules have the function of facilitating interactions among persons who may desire quite different things.”

This would be an application of Winfree’s “radical individualism.”

The main point of the Buchanan and Brennan’s model is that the conflict between the welfare of global corporations and the sovereign rights of citizens must be resolved by reference to constitutional rules.

For Buchanan, the free market exchange system provides an instrumental value of freedom by creating the means of escape from coercion, exploitation, and subjugation.

Under the conditions of elite tyranny, American citizens have no pathway to escape from the subjugation of global trade or from the elite political tyranny of the swamp.

Once a centralized government bureaucracy is created that is removed from the consent of the governed, the bureaucracy develops its own interpretation of the social welfare function it presumes to maximize.

As Buchanan has pointed out, that surrogate national social welfare function of the elites contains variables that promote the welfare of the politicians and bureaucrats who created it.

Buchanan argues that the voluntary compliance with the rule of law, based upon moral reciprocity in the constitution, leads to rule obedience because all citizens are subject to the uncertainty that they may, one day, find themselves at the bottom of the economic totem pole.

In other words, economic rational choice leads to voluntary constitutional rule obedience, under Buchanan’s natural rights rules. Rule obedience, in the natural rights republic, leads to the fair economic outcomes for the maximum number of citizens.

The great virtue of Buchanan’s competitive free market system is that voluntary, cooperative social behavior coordination can be achieved without tyranny and without totalitarianism.

President Trump’s “Make America Great Again” economic nationalism achieves maximum prosperity for American citizens precisely because it is based upon “radical individualism.”

Unlike the economic policies of both the Heritage Foundation and the Washington Post, Trump’s economic policy does not require either the elite corporate tyranny of the Heritage Foundation or the socialist totalitarianism of the Washington Post.

I am Laurie Thomas Vass, and this is the Citizens Liberty Party News Network.

Jan 30 Segment 2

Our second segment is designed to connect the CLP analysis of what is wrong with the American government to solutions that citizens can implement to restore the rule of law and reclaim the spirit of individual liberty that motivated the signers of the American Declaration of Independence.

In Segment 1, I explained that the dysfunction in government is caused by a centralized tyranny of globalists, who believe that a one-world government would be better than the continued existence of America, as a sovereign nation state.

The tyranny in the swamp has two distinct parties who collaborate. One part of the swamp is represented by the Heritage Foundation, which promotes global corporatism.

The Heritage Foundation acts as the economic policy arm of the elites in the swamp, providing the intellectual framework to promote the elite vision of a one world government.

The other part of the swamp is represented by the Washington Post, which is a socialist media propaganda outlet for the Democrat Party.

The Democrats, like Elizabeth Breunig at the Post, despise America, and their job is to write slanderous stories about President Trump to prepare their followers for the planned coup to remove Trump from office.

I explained that the threat to liberty is not simply that the Democrats concoct their fantasies, through a mental process called the social construction of reality.

The danger to the 63 million Trump voters is that in order for Democrats to demonstrate allegiance to their socialist religion, they are compelled to act out their fantasies.

For example, U.S. Rep. James Clyburn compared President Trump to fascist dictator Hitler. Clyburn, and all Democrats, deeply believe in the credibility of this fantasy because it confirms their religious theology that America is a racist nation.

The danger is that Clyburn is prepared to act out his fantasy.

Just like Breunig’s slander of Trump, in the Washington Post, who is preparing her followers to act out her fantasy that Trump is an anti-social, racist bigot, who must be removed from office.

Just like Maxine Waters is prepared to act on her fantasy of assassinating President Trump.

Just like Mueller, McCabe, Comey, et. al, are currently acting out their fantasy to remove Trump from office.

The danger to liberty posed by the Democrats is that when the time comes for them to execute their marching orders from the elites in the swamp to initiate their violence, the 65 million Democrats who voted for Hillary will follow their orders.

The danger is that there are more of them than there are of us, and they are much better organized than the forces of the natural rights republic.

The issue that I raised in my column for the 63 million voters who voted for Trump is how they should respond to the new political reality of the collusion between the Heritage Foundation and the socialists in the Democrat Party.

In my analysis of the problem in the national government is that citizens are in the very early stages of a planned coup d’etat to overthrow the Trump government.

The 63 million Trump voters can clearly see that Mueller is laying the foundation of  starting this coup.

Trump voters do not have a political party to lead a national political movement to reclaim individual liberty and restore the rule of law.

Trump voters do not have an organizational framework to defend their natural rights and defeat the socialists, after Mueller launches his coup.

After the coup d’etat is launched by the elites in the swamp, there will likely be a period of chaos and violence in America.

That period of time can end with one of three different scenarios.

First, the socialists may win, and implement their global socialist tyranny.

Second, the natural rights conservatives may defeat the socialists and restore the rule of law.

Or, third, both sides may call a truce and agree to a civil dissolution of the current nation.

The two sides, the socialists and the natural rights conservatives,  can not live peacefully together.

A nation divided against itself can not endure.

The intractable problem of centralized tyranny in American government can only be solved by a civil dissolution, where the socialists create their own socialist utopia, and natural rights conservatives start over, by reclaiming the Spirit of citizen liberty, proclaimed by patriots, in 1776.

Natural Rights Conservatives must join a new political party in America, called the Citizens Liberty Party.

The mission of the party is to lead a national political movement that protects natural rights and restores the rule of law, after 8 years of Obama’s lawless regime.

The CLP is founded on the bedrock principle expressed by Jefferson in the Declaration that the purpose of government is to protect the natural rights of citizens and to defend the sovereignty of the nation from external and internal enemies, like the socialists.

When you join the CLP, you will be asked to volunteer to work on one of the local political committees in you home community.

You will also be asked to form a local citizens committee of correspondence to coordinate the external affairs of the Party with other local chapters in other metro regions.

After you join the CLP, you will be asked to upload news articles about events and issues that you think other members of the party would be interested in hearing.

The organizational website for the CLP is at www.citizenslibertyparty.com.

I am Laurie Thomas Vass, the leader of the Citizens Liberty Party, and I need volunteers to join me in the fight for American freedom.

 

Comments are closed, but trackbacks and pingbacks are open.