Richard Karlgaard’s column Digital Rules in the February 12 (Man, these magazines publish early, eh?) issue of Forbes is entitled, How Moral Is Capitalism?

… I do not consider moneygrubbing the purpose of life. Never have. The use of God’s gifts comes closer for me.

Still, moneygrubbing– a.k.a. the search for profit– has its purpose. Money (profit) is a tool. It is capital. Without capital there is no capitalism. Innovation starves. Prosperity weakens. Societies stagnate. God-given gifts wither. This is especially true for humanity’s wonderfully zany outliers: artists, inventors, entrepreneurs. They need capitalism more than anyone.

Money is good, therefore, because capitalism is good. It delivers the goods, literally, and better– broadly and individually– than does any other system. Hugo Chavez would argue that point, but he’s nuts.

Not much to say here other than I agree totally. Karlgaard continues in the same vein and also talks about the woes of redistribution of wealth, which makes for some interesting reading. I highly recommend picking up a copy of the February 12 issue.

For the past five years or so I’ve been aware of Noam Chomsky’s political activism, and I’ve always enjoyed reading (if not entirely agreeing with) his essays. He’s a self-described “libertarian socialist", which is a philosophy that basically proposes a free society in which ownership of the means of production is entirely in the hands of labor unions. He’s more or less obsessed by the idea that private ownership of business necessarily puts power over laborers in the hands of an elite group and that said power is always used oppressively. (I’m generalizing here, though not, I think, unfairly. Nevertheless, I welcome the input of any libertarian socialists or Chomsky scholars who feel so inclined.)

My most prominent objections to that are these: America has a dominant middle class (that Marx never considered when he started all the hooplah about class) which, as a group, more or less rules the country– the members being both workers and property owners. And, presumably the nature of the oppression which private business exerts is that it keeps laborers from ever getting ahead, which would seem to have to be measured by material prosperity and which would not be possible if private business was outlawed anyway. For, how would they ever have the means to rise above their station?

Ownership seems to me to be a somewhat fundamental aspect of humanity. For the purpose of this blog, I define ownership as rightful possession of property. Removing that seems to me to be quite in contrast to Freedom as an individualist value. What is Chomsky’s version of liberty to someone who wants to make a better mousetrap than the one the mousetrap union is producing? Too, what motivation is there in such a society for change, innovation, or diversity?

I’m currently reading an old book by Lynne Cheney, wife of US Vice President Dick Cheney and former head of the National Endowment for the Humanities, called Telling the Truth: Why our culture and our country have stopped making sense– and what we can do about it. So far, it’s a pretty strong critique of the (then) emerging trend of relativism in academia brought on by post modernism.

Cheney’s book is divided into seven chapters, each addressing a different aspect of the damage done by post modern theory. To make her point, she uses documented examples and presents them in a way that is itself neutral, yet makes obvious the lunacy of the application of relativism to the situation:

Thus, One Nation, Many Peoples recommends that we not burden students with too many names and dates and places: “The information-dominant approach to the social studies curriculum fails as a vehicle for multicultural education.” Instead, we should emphasize that history is “socially constructed,” that it reflects the circumstances in which it is written rather than the reality of the past. We should teach students to appreciate different interpretations and work to open their minds to “multiple perspectives.” We should give credit to to “noncanonical knowledge and techniques"– including, presumably, the kind offered by Leonard Jeffries.

I’m no friend of post modernism, and I’m a strong proponent of schools teaching people how to think and pursue knowledge and truth, as opposed to teaching students what to think and to believe that truth is relative. And this blog would be a great place to expand on that, but I want to finish this book first. I’ll let you know how it turns out.

I just recently purchased a DVD of America: Freedom to Fascism, a documentary claiming that no law requires the average American to pay personal income tax.

Aaron Russo, the film’s creator and ‘08 presidential hopeful, borrows somewhat unskillfully from the docutainment toolbox of Michael Moore to highlight the cause of several groups that claim there is no law requiring us to pay our income taxes. Despite Russo lending his own gutteral, Brooklyn brogue to many of the voice-overs and the cheap title work and graphics, the documentary does manage to get you wondering.

After all, the Internal Revenue Code, at 16,000+ pages, is a hallmark product of bloated government bureaucracy, and who knows what’s really in there? Now, I recognize that government ought to cost something, but I’m a strong proponent of abolishing the IRS in favor of a low flat tax. That being said, it would be nice if these guys were right, wouldn’t it?

Some of the arguments the documentary presents seem more sound than others, which range from claims that the 16th Amendment was never ratified, to interpretations of Supreme Court rulings, and even that income tax is merely voluntary to pay.

It would be great if these arguments were true, but the film stops short of presenting any actual research. Interviews? Oh yes, those galore, but mostly with the people who say the tax is illegal and none with unbiased experts. The fact that no government official would speak on camera is provocative, but government officials are bureaucrats who wouldn’t know the answers to tough questions even if there were answers to give. And, in fact, to many of the questions the documentary asks, there are answers right on the IRS website.

Just because the IRS has answers doesn’t necessarily mean they’re right, but in America: Freedom To Fascism, Russo chose not to analytically examine the arguments. Instead, he simply suggests that there is no side whatsoever, which, to my mind, weakens the legitimacy of the case the documentary is intended to make.