Tom Kawczynski - Off the Record

Happy New Year to everyone!

As the last few hours tick away here in 2009, I find myself thinking about the year that was and the year that will be.  After an extremely active 2008, it almost feels like 2007 was a respite.  Looking back, however, I can see that wasn't true.

In terms of what I was able to accomplish, I have to say that I'm most proud of Freedom Conference 2009.  We had three excellent speakers come and speak about the dangers of a steadily growing government, and used the event to generate both national and international news stories that talked about the importance of liberty.  While it wasn't perfect, it showed the power of possibilities.

I continue to learn how to reach people, how to talk to people, and to develop my own beliefs.  One thing I am very proud of myself about is that I am always willing to re-examine what I think in terms of logical arguments, and to talk to others with respect and thoughtfulness.  In the coming years, this will be even more important as my independent path leads me to new places.

In 2010, the efforts to reach people will become a priority.  Between the efforts to establish the forthcoming newsletter, to be called "The Point", and my other endeavors, I will be coming soon to a neighborhood near you.  I want to learn what is happening, what people are doing, what is working and what does not, and move beyond rhetoric to begin to apply my principles to make a difference in the lives of the people in this place I now call home.

2010 should be a fun year.  I hope that it is for all my friends also, and that you enjoy yourselves on this night and every night.

I spent the better part of the last few weeks doing intensive research on political trends.  While it certainly was not fun, the information will surely prove valuable for the future, and I am glad of that.  Having finished, however, I'm now taking a brief vacation from thinking of this world and immersing myself in fantasy.

I often tell myself that if a day comes when I no longer find myself willing to fight the political battles that I do, that I will gladly retire and write so I can dream of worlds that make better sense than this one sometimes does.  In that spirit, I wanted to write a little different blog today.

In fantasy, we find images of the world that we hope to create for ourselves.  It is a sad truth that our existence today, with its many material demands, does not allow those of us who were not fortunate enough to find ourselves living in splendor to be as we might choose.  But we find an escape, and a place to where our minds can wander and where there is understanding in fiction.

Truthfully, for as much as I am personally better at writing non-fiction, I think that people gain more through stories with people and action.  I think we look to put a narrative to our lives to make it make sense.  It is a very hard thing to accept that all is either chance or luck, and so we add context.  We make beginnings and endings, even as the only ones we truly know are those when this world appears and disappears in ending.

Fantasy is an escape from that, and fiction allows us to explore our dreams and their consequences.  We call to a higher part of ourselves, and find ways to envision dreams before they are realized.  It is why I always enjoy reading good fiction, and the more fantastic, the more appealing it seems to me.  The world has much wonder in it, but so much of that comes from the things we think not yet possible, but still they can be.  We might not sprout wings, but we can find something better in ourselves, and through our heroes, hardships, and even villains, there is always something more to be seen.

Go enjoy something fanciful yourself if you haven't.  You might find yourself quite happy when you don't expect it.

The bills that are floating in the House and Senate for health care reform are absolutely terrible.  More terrible still is that I can say this without even saying the first thing about health care.

Whether you believe health care is a right or not, whether you believe government should or should not provide a solution, the process alone should be abhorrent to anyone who believes in financially sound, well rooted reform for the future.  The passage of this bill has absolutely nothing to do with the quality of the ideas (which we know must be true because no time has been given for reading of any section of the legislation), but it is a desperate attempt to simply pass something.

That bribes are casually being bandied about to ensure passage is nothing but the most disgusting of legislative politics as usual.  I hope the good people of Nebraska, Louisiana, Connecticut, and those other states where Senators basically have managed to include several hundred millions of kickback dollars will be remembered for such when their respective terms end.  Health reform is too serious an issue to be bought in this way, to be bungled with a bad bill, and to be nothing to everyone.

Were I a liberal, I would ask how this bill provides for public health care for everyone: it doesn't.  I would ask how it protects a woman's right of choice: it doesn't.  I would ask this and more, but people on the left already are and we see unions and other prominent left sympathetic constituencies lining against final passage.

Were I a conservative, I would ask how this bill will be paid for: no one know.  I would ask how it will save costs: that doesn't matter.  I would ask this and more but expect nothing but attacks and threats.  I already know how many have lined up on the right to defeat this, but they are silenced by the majority.

But my question is this:  if there is a bill that so many people oppose on so many reasons, and that seems to be capable of passage only with such blatant bribery, why should it be passed it all?  A good bill, which addresses the serious issues of health care reform, should have been written deliberately with concerns for both the costs of the program, the needs of those not served, and mindful of the fact that millions of Americans who do have health care do not want and cannot afford to see their services lessened or made more expensive by government intervention.

I think there was a majority, on both sides, who could have come together on that basis, to build something better and lasting.  But that is not this bill, and the legacy of this Congress will be that it chose to go it alone, ignoring the will of the people, and butchering the chance for better health care reform.

2010 is coming.  Remember.

I've been working on stuff of political interest to me for the last few hours.  Between the newspaper project that is taking an increasing chunk of my time, and the other initiatives I've been following, it really is a full-time effort to make a difference.

I think it is worth it though.  The more I research, the more I learn, the more I believe that it is worth the price of the effort.  It's amazing what you can learn about the process if you try, and I'll be sharing some things in future articles.  But let's focus on the big picture:  We find ourselves moving toward a time where the question will become how shall we live?  Shall we have decisions made for us or shall we make them for ourselves?

I think whomever wins will be not who has the best logic, though I wish that were the case.  Instead, I think it will be a question of effort and commitment.  It is why I find myself working three hours on a Sunday night on statistical analysis that might make other people cry.  It isn't because there aren't things that I enjoy more; there definitely are.  But to make a difference, you sometimes have to pay the price.

One thing I do believe with absolute certainty:  Each and every one of us has the ability to shape the future if we only apply ourselves.  I know sometimes that people get frustrated about how things have gone, but I find my hope and commitment are stronger than ever.  An idea such as liberty can never be extinguished, and when we embrace a message that carries that potency without losing it in the political, then success will become obtainable.

I earned my sleep tonight.  Win or lose, I can rest with a smile knowing that.

Have you noticed that whenever you have some global summit, that there are certain nations that just use this as an opportunity to bash the evil capitalist powers that be?  Case in point:  Look at the comments by Venezuela's Chavez this week.  It's even more interesting in light of the fact that he is trying (and is likely to succeed) to become a dictator over the wishes of his own people.  Let's leave the news aside for a moment though, and talk about what capitalism is.

There is a common misconception that capitalism is corporatism.  This is categorically incorrect.  Capitalism is a system where markets allow people to voluntarily determine the value of goods and services and free trade and exchange create growth and mutual prosperity.  Corporatism, by contrast, is where corporations use their size advantage and connections within government to exert monopolistic tendencies, ruining competition and innovation, and exploiting a population.

The bailout, for instance, was corporatism.  A series of businesses that were over-capitalized (read:  too big to fail) were given subsidies by the government (read: the taxpayers) which enabled them to continue their practices which were unsuccessful for good reasons.  Not only were they inefficient, they were corrupt, and served no greater financial benefit than the pockets who were being lined on Wall Street.  But they had clout, they had Congress, and they used their position to have government support them.

Most capitalists I know would recognize that risk is part of the process of making wealth.  Risk and reward come from making assessments about what people want, with the opportunity (but never the guarantee) of becoming successful.  When a business chooses well, it justly earns its profits.  When a business chooses poorly, it fails, and is replaced with something that makes better decisions about the needs and desires of the consumer.  Capitalism, like markets, is smart.  It is based on voluntary exchange, and the simple idea that whoever best gives you what you want will be able to generate economic growth and wealth because that is worth something to you.

In this, corporatism is fundamentally different from capitalism but remarkably similar to socialism.  Whereas capitalism puts the emphasis on the desires and actions of individuals, corporatism and socialism both require the intervention and presence of a strong state to redistribute wealth.  Whether that goes up, or down, what it does mean is that money is removed from productive enterprise, and instead of wealth being created, it is being distributed.  The genius of capitalism is that it actually focuses on creating wealth, and as much as other nations and systems complain, history proves the point.

Capitalism does not create equality, nor does it intend to do so.  But it does create material wealth, it seeks to understand the wants of the people through the market, and all it asks is effort and thought.  By contrast, socialism explicitly asks for nothing from the individual, simply asserting that the designated needs must be provided for a just society to exist, with limited regard for how they are obtained. It is just one reason why I am proud to be called a capitalist, and why I think the system itself, just like liberty, is a positive to ask people to utilize their natural skills and abilities.

Finally, my assertion is that a true capitalist cares about people more than socialists do.  A capitalist must care about what a person thinks, believes, and does with their life.  A socialist, by contrast, cares only that the system provides that they have basic needs met.  The dignity of being considered as an individual is a precious thing and one that I hope everyone keeps close to their thoughts.  Otherwise, we would all just be another number.

I know many will agree with what I write, but for those who might think I am being too harsh, here is what I would say.  Help people, care about them, but not at the price of making them into less than human beings, in their full and wondrous complexity.  It is something we must do as who we are and not because someone or some entity tells us, either for the good of the poor or the greed of the rich.

I just want to thank the people who have been visiting this blog and those who have just begun reading what I have to share.  I've noticed that we have more visitors in the last few weeks, and I hope you'll consider the ideas you read here and talk about them with others.  To get people to understand a certain way of thinking, we need to be willing to have tough conversations.  It's how we learn.

To that end, many of you are aware that I have been working on a writing project.  We're working to create a news source that covers the Pittsburgh region from an anti-statist perspective, and we are going to be looking for writers in the new year.  Yours truly will be the editor of this effort, so if there is anyone who would like to write (and you can live elsewhere, potentially), please contact me.

Otherwise, thank you for your continuing support and know that I continue to welcome your feedback!

If there was a handbook for issues that you don't want to address, the questions involving the role between marriage and the state would definitely be near the front, maybe a page behind abortion.  Fully aware of how murky the politics can be in this area, I have spent much time thinking about this and offer my own analysis.

How you define marriage means absolutely everything in this context.  Is it simply the partnership between two individuals, recognized by the state, as the legal guardians of a family and in contractual union with one another?  If you believe marriage is simply an act of the state, and you believe in liberty, it seems you would have to define it as gender neutral.  That would be the basis for a civil union, but perhaps marriage is more.

I note that many people do not see it that way.  They see marriage as not only an act between a man and a woman, but also a commitment before God and according to some divine law.  In this definition, the mandate for marriage is not rooted in the state or in benefits conferred therein, but instead in the vows made between the parties and before God.  To those who believe marriage is sacred in that way, this strikes me as something different, and that is where I begin.

I don't think the state has any business being involved in marriage and in what that means.  Moral questions are difficult and contentious, and for us to make a judgment that limits the choices of others because of prejudices, even if they are rooted in tradition and have a logical basis for society and biology, seems beyond the scope of what government should be able to demand for any two people.  Thus, in liberty, I believe that supporting civil unions as a corporate arrangement should be beyond dispute.

That the state is not involved does not make marriage insignificant..  Maybe my residual Catholic roots are showing, but perhaps we would do best to consider marriage as a sacrament.  Just as the state would have no business in regulating baptisms, communions, or any other practices of faith, I think we would do well to leave marriage to the individual churches and other houses of worship, letting those who have strong beliefs decide within their own communities what they will recognize according to their own mandates.  If that is strictly between a man and a woman before God, clergy can make that decision and define their members thusly.

Ultimately, the vast majority of those who argue against allowing same sex relationships to have the same recognition do so on this basis; that it runs contrary to most of the Christian traditions.  I agree with that assessment (if not the justice of the opinion), and I would say if there is a divine law, then surely that it would be more important what is recognized before God than whatever a state decides.

But as people, living together, we cannot build our state upon the dictates of religion if we are to embrace liberty, no matter how moral it may be.  We can build ourselves, our beliefs, and our hopes upon those precepts.  We can apply them in our lives.  But how moral can any of us be if our society requires us to force what we think upon others?

That is why I support legal unions for everyone, believe that marriage is not a matter of the state, and find myself feeling that this is a view that is both fair and logical.  Reasonable people, of course, may disagree.

I think people focus their efforts wrongly.  People spend so much time fixating on big problems they cannot solve instead of finding smaller ones that can be managed.  Even if you have the grandest of ambitions, you can only begin to reach those through a series of smaller steps.

I think of my own politics in this way.  In the largest scope, I think we've lost ourselves as people and as a nation.  America was built upon the idea that individuals could live freely, make good decisions for themselves, and come together as a community to accomplish something greater.  I can understand the myriad reasons people have to be cynical, but I think when we lost that idealism, we lost something special.

Maybe this is what the later days of an empire feel like.  We find ourselves with all the wealth, but none of the meaning.  We drape ourselves in the flag, in the memories of our ancestors, and their battles, and look at our future.  A super state, a military empire, a bunch of cheap goods, and prosperity.  Maybe.

We need a dream again.  I am not one who believes anything will change at the federal level, at any time soon, because there's a reason things are as they are.  There is much wealth, time, and talent invested in the status quo.  And yet, we know people want something different.

In what I will try, I will be different.  I don't really care about the traditional lines, and I don't plan on using the traditional words.  We haven't the time for that.  People just need to realize that the fundamental choice is becoming more polar each day:  Will we make decisions for ourselves or have them made for us?

The mindset that people cannot because they are too apathetic, too stupid, too lazy, or too ignorant must change.  We must change it, because if it is true, then I think there is no point and we might as well just select someone, on some goodly criteria, and let them decide our future.  I know many who believe we should do just that.  I hope they are wrong, and that somewhere in this town where I've chosen to live, I can kindle a spirit that will see just that.

Hope, when all else fails.

Although I've been writing a ton, you haven't had the opportunity to read much lately because I've been very busy.  Working in conjunction with a few friends and partners, we're trying to build a news source for people here in my region that will offer quality political commentary, policy research, and a chance to reach into neighborhood issues.  As always, I'm amazed by both what is possible and also with the challenges to be overcome.  Fortunately, we're working the schedule at a natural pace, and I am confident that when we go live, that many of you will really appreciate what this will be.

That said, I continue to read the news and it is disheartening.  I understand that there are long-term issues and short-term issues, and that just because one seems pressing, that you can't neglect the other.  That said, I cannot remember an administration that seemed to spend so much time focusing on issues that have marginal relevance to people's lives today at the cost of not just neglecting, but actually harming the economic status of so many people today.  It is baffling to me, frankly.

There are days that I wish I was running now.  There are so many things I want to say, because people need to hear them.  This morning, I am thinking that people need to know the purpose of government is not to guarantee economic success or regulate every aspect of our lives where some selected few think we are incapable of making smart policy decisions; but rather to serve to protect the interests of each individual from the impositions of others.  Liberty, as always.

It makes more clear for me the fundamental difference between what I think and what those who are going to be my future opponents believe:  I think we should make the decisions; they think they should.  It is not a malicious thing, but rather a misguided paternalism that people don't quite understand as such.  We can change that, and through media, politics, and just hard effort, I am sure we shall.