We the Sheeple

Michael Kinsley asks how deep is our love of freedom, and concludes with a brilliant example:

Americans are not so innately freedom-loving that we would never let it dribble away without noticing. I can prove this because it actually happened, within the adult lifetimes of anyone over about 50. On August 15, 1971, more or less out of the blue, President Nixon declared a freeze on wages and prices. Legislation authorizing this had passed Congress the year before, with little controversy. The freeze evolved into a system of formulas about who could get paid what, requirements about filing forms with the government and keeping records and posting notices, all enforced by a growing bureaucracy of wage and price cops. The controls lasted a couple of years at full strength and then faded away over the next couple.

The notion that the government could tell everyone from General Motors to a baby-sitting teenager what they could charge—and did so—seems shocking in retrospect, at least to me. There was no real national emergency. It was part of a cynical re-election strategy to gun the economy while holding inflation temporarily in check. But at the time, controls were not just accepted but popular. When they disappeared, even those (like me) who had opposed them found it strange and, at first, unnatural. You mean, anyone can just charge whatever they want? How does that work? The analogy isn't perfect. The right to set your own price isn't as profound as the right to express your own political opinion. But it is, if anything, even more a part of every citizen's daily life. And yet when they took it away, we freedom-loving Americans didn't even miss it.

Comments

[Anonymous]

but I thought all oppression started with chimpy and wolfie and ashcroft?

[Junis]

Exactly why freedom and individualism must be vigorously and indefatigably defended - especially from those who claim to be protecting it by taking "only small pieces" of it away.

[Anonymous]

Americans are not so innately semen-loving that we would never let it dribble away without noticing. I can prove this because it actually happened, within the adult lifetimes of anyone over about 50. On August 15, 1971, more or less out of the blue, President Nixon declared a freeze on blow jobs and masturbation. Legislation authorizing this had passed Congress the year before, with little controversy. The freeze evolved into a system of formulas about who could give what, requirements about filing forms with the government and keeping records and posting notices, all enforced by a growing bureaucracy of BJ and 'bater cops. The controls lasted a couple of years at full strength and then faded away over the next couple.

The notion that the government could tell everyone from General Motions to a baby-sitting teenager what they could give?and receive?seems shocking in retrospect, at least to me. There was no real national emergency. It was part of a cynical re-election strategy to gun the cock while holding ejaculation temporarily in check. But at the time, controls were not just accepted but popular. When they disappeared, even those (like me) who had opposed them found it strange and, at first, unnatural. You mean, anyone can just cum whenever they want? How does that work? The analogy isn't perfect. The right to jack your own johnson isn't as profound as the right to express your own haploid genetic disposition. But it is, if anything, even more a part of every citizen's daily life. And yet when they took it away, we semen-loving Americans didn't even miss it.

[Tommy_Grand]

that is so odd... but I am laughing

[Gil]

Jacob Levy at the Volokh conspiracy notes that this wage/price freeze was the catalyst for the founding of the Libertarian Party.

So, some people noticed and cared.

http://volokh.com/2003_06_08_volokh_archive.html#200421704

[Gene Berkman]

It is true that the imposition of wage/price controls by Richard Nixon caused a group of free market libertarians to secede from the Republican Party and form the Libertarian Party.
The relative lack of success of the Libertarian Party has caused some people to look to the Republicans again. But a federal deficit of $400 billion combined with an ill considered pre-emptive war should send a clear signal that Republicans still don't care about liberty.

[Jough]

I stopped reading the piece after, "It's clear that our government has disgracefully betrayed American values in its treatment of many non-citizens in this country, almost all of them innocent of anything but routine immigration violation". The rest might have been pretty enlightening, but I wouldn't know.

Usually when a sentence starts with "its clear that...", the issue is anything but clear. We have a system of federal laws governing immigration. Someone guilty of nothing but a "routine immigration violation" is not a US citizen and is a REAL criminal and has no United States Constitutional protection. Maybe they have rights as a citizen of Mexico or Sudan or Saudi Arabia, but not as Americans because...wait for it...THEY ARE NOT AMERICANS. This is not a matter of opinion! Murder is a fairly routine violation in a country of 300 million people as well. That's hardly a defence. I know a LOT of immigrants who came here as a result of communism spreading throughout asia. (the stories are unbelievable - swimming rivers, ship breakdowns, piracy, rape) To become lawful citizens, they had to go to camps where they learned about our government and how to speak English (even though we have no "official language"). What a bunch of dopes. They could have just came here illegaly and skipped all that English language and constitution nonsense. Anyway, who needs to learn about rule of law when you have the Koran?

You wanna talk about what happens to citizens and naturalized citizens, then as Ross Perot would say, "I'm all ears". And yes I do know someone who has got caught up in some post-911 immigration red tape. But guess what, it was all her fault for not taking care of a matter she should have taken care of a long time ago. (no real consequence came to her anyway, but there was an uncertain period that had her worried)

[scott h.]

Yeah, the Libertarians and the readers of Reason were up in arms. There's a mass movement for you. (No offense to the fine people at Reason) The point of his piece is that the vast majority of Americans accepted it.

[Kevin Carson]

Jough:

The Bill of Rights protects *persons* under the jurisdiction of the U.S. government. It does not limit its protections to citizens. Just about every country in the world recognizes some basic human rights of denizens or residents. What's the alternative? Anything goes, including boiling in oil?

[JDM]

There was popular support for price controls under Carter too, and he refused to do it because it hadn't worked under Nixon. People aren't really interested in freedom, they are interested in living their lives. It would be hard to institute price controls now, because the effectiveness of the free(er) market at generating wealth is pretty accepted by most Americans. At the time they were instituted, and when the were called for again under Carter, it wasn't so obvious to the general population.

The analogy to expressing political opinion falls apart, because it is generally accepted that freedom of speech is important to making the country work.

[Steve in CO]

>>The analogy to expressing political opinion falls apart, because it is generally accepted that freedom of speech is important to making the country work.

[Steve in CO]

Oh, and another thing 🙂

I remember a recent poll showing that a significant percentage of Americans think the 1st Amendment goes to far, and the government should have more power over what people can say, print, and read.

[quaker120]

This whole episode is brilliantly recounted in the book and accompanying TV documentary, "Commanding Heights: The Battle for the World Economy." Then-Treasury Secretary George Shultz and none other than Milton Friedman himself told Nixon the move was idiotic and would only make inflation worse. Nixon replied by "delcaring" himself a Keynesian.

He wasn't, of course--he was just the same pandering chickenshit politician he'd always been.

[Plutarck]

"Nixon replied by "declaring" himself a Keynesian.

He wasn't, of course--he was just the same pandering chickenshit politician he'd always been."

You know, that sounds alot like the approach various Roman emporers, among others, took in the past - the claiming of some mantle, philosophy, or religion that happend to, at the time, support their interests.

History is almost always "more of the same", isn't it?

[Anonymous]

^well, maybe, but Keynesianism was crap in the first place. even Galbraith admitted it at that point.

[g.bananas]

Wish someone would've told FDR and LBJ that, too; before they screwed us up for 50 years and $30 trillion dollars hence.

[g.bananas]

FDR did the 50.
LBJ did the $30-T, of course

[jacob]

well, keynesian policy was hip in the thirties and forties and LBJ was its last stand as serious policy, in ways (though even LBJ wasn't really Keyensian, properly speaking) but by 1972 most reasonmable people thought that Keynesian policy was bad economics, and had moved on to Galbraith's economic model (or agt least, those who used to be Keyneisans did.)

[SM]

"well, maybe, but Keynesianism was crap in the first place. even Galbraith admitted it at that point."

Where did he do that ? Does anyone know if he actually wrote something like that ?

[jacob]

in his famous book, "The Affluent Society," he criticised Keynesianism as insufficiently liberla in nature. He said that since Keynesianism could be govt sspending of any kind, the 60's govt's spend huge amounts on defense, which he thoguht was unacceptable. He made huge revisions to Keynesianism by specifically proclaiming that in the affluent society, the state mst ask not as an economic entity as such, since society is already affluent, but rather to enrich all memebrs of society, beautify the environment, spend on foriegn aid, etc. because he felt that such conditions would cause more propserous conditions, i.e. egalistarianism would make the lower class a middle class, which in turn would mean more consumers. He also criticised the issue in question (price controls) saying that the state should fit the bill, in addition to criticising Keynesian deficit theory.

[JDM]

Steve,

There are also "innumerable" members of PETA, but I'm not going to hold my breath until meat is outlawed. There is a long way to go from a few percentage points in a poll to political action.

[Hobosexual]

"Tell that to the inumerable knuckleheads wanting anyone criticizing anything Mr. Bush and Co. jailed."

Depends what the question is and if you know what the f*ck you are talking about.

[jarod]

"Tell that to the inumerable knuckleheads wanting anyone criticizing anything Mr. Bush and Co. jailed."

Also depends on whether or not you can put together a coherent sentence. Do you mean "anyone criticizing anything that was jailed by Mr. Bush and his administration?" They may have jailed people, some of whom I would probably criticize, but I am unaware of any things they have jailed.

No, you probably mean "anyone criticizing Mr. Bush and company or anything they say", in which case I would ask if you have any specific references of anyone credible and in a position of power claiming that they want the administration's critics sent to jail.

[Evilcor]

Price controls, schmice controls. . . You want American Dictatorship at its finest? Run a search on these:
Eugene Debs
Margaret Sanger
Carlo Tresca
Il Martello
Espionage act of 1918
Alien act of 1918
Sedition act of 1918
Victor Berger
A. Mitchell Palmer
Buck v. Bell
I have refrained from noting the obvious names like J. Edgar Hoover, Jose Padilla, and Joseph McCarthy. But you get the point. Price controls are paradise compared to what we Americans do to ourselves every other generation or so.
Come to think of it, we're about due for another wave.

[mojo jojo]

That's why Jefferson thought that there should be a revolution every generation.

[Douglas Fletcher]

I wouldn't trust any of you guys with subpoena power.

[Kevin Carson]

Evilcor:

Try a search on "Garden Plot," or cross-reference "Oliver North" and "Louis Giuffrida."

[David2]

It's easy to justify the taking of freedom when it's measured in small quantities.

And liberals are just as guilty of incrementally taking those freedoms away as conservatives. That's something that Mr. Kinsley seems to forget.

After McVeigh bombed the federal building in Oklahoma City, it wasn't a conservative who said that Americans have too much freedom. It was the liberal icon, the narcisist-in-chief, who was in the Oval Office saying those things.

In the 1998 Erie decision, the US Supreme Court actually said that it was OKAY to whittle away the First Amendment as long as the damage was "minimal". Most people didn't pay any heed to it because the subject was about strip clubs, but the judicial precedence was established. Yesterday's strip clubs could very well be tomorrow's Blockbuster store. All it takes is some moralist and a biased "study" for justification.

[David Constans]

Kinsley is painting the Republicans as evil by pointing out that Nixon did this. But what would Bill and Hills healthcare system have done to doctors and nurses? Kinsley is being partisan. It is typical I believe that liberals are this way. If they were complete and truthful no one would follow them.

[Anonymous]

Dear Jarod,

My, my aren't we a bit testy. And I will be sure to keep up the poor grammar for your entertainment.

You knew what I meant, even though it wasn't clearly written.

Ari Fleicher said, "people should watch what they say."

Very popular talk show host Mike Savage (a nut job if there ever was one) has repeatedly called for and encouraged his listeners to contact their legislators to bring back the Sedition Act.

Oh, and there was the attempt to pass a law jailing war protests (in Oregon I believe) for up to 20 years. Granted anyone who destroys public/private property should be punished, but it was a clear attempt to scare people away from their 1st Amendment right (duty).

[joe]

Wage and price controls suck, but come on; there is no comparison between the government adopting such a stupid policty and having your door kicked in or your mail read. You people really do idolize "stuff" sometimes.

[Graziano Laura]

EMAIL: [e-mail]
IP: 62.213.67.122
URL: http://www.TRY-PENIS-PILLS.NET

DATE: 12/10/2003 11:57:35
It's a sign of mediocrity when you demonstrate gratitude with moderation.

[Weinberg Gregg]

EMAIL: [e-mail]
IP: 62.213.67.122
URL: http://uncircumcised-penis.nonstopsex.org
DATE: 12/21/2003 02:07:50
Interesting site, is all true ?