LAST TIME I POINTED OUT THAT we have been presented with a false dilemma: capitalism vs. socialism.
Not only are these not the only two choices in the world—they are, at their worst, practically equivalent: in each case a small group of powerful people gain all the power and the average citizen loses.
So the question that needs to be asked, at each election and constantly in between, is not whether we are moving toward capitalism or toward socialism, but whether the government is using its power to increase or decrease the rights, the choices, and the security of the average citizen.
Once we realize this, the whole nonsense about capitalism vs. socialism falls apart.
A capitalistic system is simply a system controlled by capital, which is to say by wealth, which is to say by power.
On the other hand, a socialistic system could be bad or good, depending on what we mean by the term.
If Medicare, and fire departments, and good roads are "socialism", then socialism is good.
If, on the other hand, socialism means the kind of government Russia had during the sixties and seventies, when the powerful members of a single party ran the country badly—many of them becoming wealthy in the process—it's just another name for dysfunctional capitalism.
The real question isn't about capitalism vs. socialism, but the power of the average citizen.
So I'm introducing the Liberty Scale—a way to rate any law or policy on which way it moves power.
Does it make the wealthy and powerful in this country more wealthy and powerful at the expense of the average citizen?
Or does it work to redress the balance, and restore liberty, security, and choice to the average citizen?
It looks like this:
You'll notice that I've designed it to be non-partisan.
I used the red, white, and blue of our flag, and I put "Wealth" on the left wing, which is red, the color associated with the right.
Likewise, "The Citizen" is on the right wing, which is blue, the color of the left.
So this is not a Republican/Democrat scale, or a Liberal/Conservative scale.
It's intended, merely, to indicate how far—and in which direction—a particular measure, policy, or law shifts the balance of power between the average citizen and wealth.
In practice, this question boils down to how much a measure:
-
increases or decreases the wealth and power of the already wealthy and powerful, helping them to impose their will on the rest of us, and
-
increases or decreases the choices, security, and rights of the average citizen, thus giving him or her more or less power over his or her own life decisions.
Because, in practice, there's a fundamental difference between the power of wealth and the power of the ordinary citizen.
The power of wealth is the power to coerce—to make others do things your way, or to limit their choices.
The ordinary citizen, however, only wants the power of freedom—to have enough security and enough choice to live as he or she pleases, without infringing on the ability of others to do the same.
So, how does this work in practice?
I'll give two examples, one from recent history, and one from the upcoming election here in California.
Next: The example from recent history...
