As a Reactionary, I am staunchly on the traditionalist, Rightwing end of the political spectrum, but not bound by the selfishness, materialism, or short-sighted ignorance of "conservatives."
Note the following tripe from 2005 by Walter E. Williams, a favorite token Negro conservative on matters economic, and note the reality which I point out in my brilliant comment on the excerpted portion:
The role of prices
Suppose a hotel room rented for $79 a night prior to Hurricane Katrina's devastation. Based on that price, an evacuating family of four might rent two adjoining rooms. When they arrive at the hotel, they find the rooms rent for $200; they decide to make do with one room. In my book, that's wonderful. The family voluntarily opted to make a room available for another family who had to evacuate or whose home was destroyed. Demagogues will call this price-gouging, but I ask you, which is preferable: a room available at $200 or a room unavailable at $79? Rising prices get people to voluntarily economize on goods and services rendered scarcer by the disaster.
COMMENT: Mr. Williams has argued elsewhere that this is a sufficient form of "rationing" to meet needs in an emergency situation. He is wrong. Whereas Mr. Williams chooses to contrive a situation to demonstrate his conservative view, allow me to use his own situation to present a scenario demonstrating how wrong he is:
Suppose a hotel room rented for $79 a night prior to Hurricane Katrina's devastation. Based on that price, an evacuating family of four with low income and very little cash on hand--or credit, presuming the communications grid is even still working--might opt to expend their limited fuel to travel to this establishment in order to provide shelter for themselves, including their young, sick baby in desperate need of air conditioning, in a single room. When they arrive at the hotel, they find the rooms rent for $200; they are screwed, as they cannot afford a room there, have no viable means to find different accomodations, and are faced spending a night in their vehicle with a sick child, heat and humidity in the air, and less-than-savory types running around looting and raping and generally oppressing those without the relative safety of accomodations at the hotel.
In my book, that's horrible. The family acted in the most rational manner, desired nothing more than basic safety, and failed because though there was "room at the inn," the innkeeper was more devoted to milking profit than offering reasonable (remember, he can still get $79 per room) help to his fellow Americans. Conservatives, Tea Partiers, and rich Negroes will call this "voluntary economization," but I ask you, which is more conducive to our countrymen and our society surviving: a room open but unavailable at $200 or a room open and available at $79? Rising prices "economize" only in favor of more well-to-do people, in a situation that ought not be governed by economics so much as responsibility and duty.
Here is how I as Fuehr..., ur, Leader, of the country, state or whatever would handle the precise situation regarding hotel rooms: All hotel or similar accommodations would be put under an immediate price freeze. This means that nicer, more expensive places would remain nicer and more expensive, and anyone with the means to acquire them would be welcome to do so. The object here is neither equality of outcome nor "fairness"--nor, for that matter, "liberty"--but rather survival. Facilities would be rationed, meaning that a couple with two children would not be allowed to rent more than a single room--they can do without gettin' some that night. Ideally, at least four people would be in each room, which would involve requiring families traveling together to room together--again, they can do without that night. Travel groups attempting to perpetuate a fraud that they are not "together" would be subject to prosecution. Innkeepers would be, uh, "encouraged" to lower prices, at least on rooms not rented before midnight, a step which would 1. open shelter to more people; 2. retain some recognition of social-class differences (the poor family may need some help, but they are still poor and need to understand that); and 3. keep the actions in the emergency situation as much within the general parameters of free/private enterprise as possible.
(Oh, I would also encourage something akin to "shoot-on-sight" ROE for looters, etc., telling local law enforcement, prosecutors, etc., to "take in perspective" what happened that night back behind the hotel. After all, [REDACTED TO AVOID, UH, "MISUNDERSTANDING"--BUT IT'S A DARN GOOD IDEA!])
Free enterprise economics works wonderfully... within the sphere of economics. When a situation is far more identifiable with a non-economic sphere--such as issues of security, physical survival, or reasonable treatment of our furry friends (and I don't mean hippies)--free enterprise economics must give way to other means and principles. Emergency situations, particularly in cases of urgency (when time is of the essence), sometimes call for the suspension of market forces in some areas, though not necessarily in others. Consider these examples and counter-examples in the context of an emergency situation:
- Rationing candy by market forces is fine; thusly rationing nutritious foodstuffs is not.
- Rationing fancy gun accessories by market forces is fine; thusly rationing militarily-suitable weapons is not.
- Rationing spots at the gun range by market forces is fine; thusly rationing ammunition is not.
- Rationing comfortable seats on a bus by market forces is fine; thusly rationing all mass transportation is not.
- Rationing prophylactics by market forces is fine; thusly rationing actual needed medication is not.
- Rationing booze by market forces is fine; thusly rationing potable water is not.
- Rationing control over what channel is on a giant screen TV in a shelter by market forces is fine; thusly rationing space in that shelter is not.
- Rationing "nice" clothes by market forces is fine; thusly rationing basic clothing and blankets (especially in a cold situation) is not.
- Rationing doggy and kitty treats by market forces is fine; thusly rationing basic pet food is not. (Gotta remember our furry friends in this!)
And the list could go on.
Some will call this "socialism". I actually have no objection to that, provided they add the term, "national" in front of it. (HEE HEE!) As a Reactionary, I am not bound by conservative sensitivities. That said, note that my plan not only does not abolish free enterprise on the everyday scene, but in fact goes above and beyond to maintain much of it as possible while accomplishing the necessary objective--namely, housing and protecting the population in a natural disaster.
And that goes to the difference between the far Left and the far Right--they may often, as per JFK, look alike, but they on a macro scale, have vastly different agendas. Ron Paul and the far Left look alike on matters of foreign policy and defense inasfar as how both wish to cause the decline of America, but they have vastly different agendas--Leftists want to destroy traditional American/Western civilization; Ron Paul wants to destroy ZOG. One side is ideological; the other side is delusional.
Likewise, and for a more positive example, I myself and many on the Left want to improve the conditions of our furry friends, but we have vastly different agendas--Leftists want to destroy traditional and natural distinctions in the interest of an uber-socialist aim toward the "stateless utopia"; I want to act with righteousness and sensitivity toward other examples of God's creatures with nervous systems and some thinking ability, as well as stay in accord with my, "Don't screw over your allies" principle, including by setting for special protection for those animal types particularly "allied" with humanity--canines, felines, marine mammals (check out "Pelorus Jack," and think about how some dumbfuck tried to shoot him), certain birds, equines, primates (generally), and possibly hamsters and guinea pigs (but not gerbils--I'm told they stink). One side is counter to nature; the other side is in accord with reality, morality, nature, and the divine order, as well as human societal well-being ("Pelorus Jack" facilitated commerce).
I hope this has provided you, my loyal readers, some insight into how to balance legitimate private material concerns with the higher values of upholding our great nation and civilization. Also, I hope it has set out a guidepost to aid ideologues on the Right to recognize when one of their own is being short-sighted and ignorant.
Thank you for reading, and y'all have a real nice day!
