Certain questions repeatedly come up from intellectual compatriots and detractors alike: What are your base premises? Where do you get your data? Why do you use those sources? How can you justify dismissing data from one source as inferior to the sources you choose? Generally, I try to address these questions in the context of other issues under discussion, partly because I think it’s more interesting and partly because these concepts are pretty basic. On the other hand, if there were universal agreement about these concepts, adherents to liberalism, socialism and Marxism would have gone the way of the dodo long ago, so perhaps there is some value in spelling them out on occasion and highlighting the ways in which such concepts are ignored – particularly by the Left.

This progression of basic concepts is how I came to my take on pretty much everything. While not taught to me in this fashion, it is also the progression that embodies the basics of economics as I see them:

Reality exists. This would appear to be the ultimate “D’oh!” statement but there’s a whole branch of philosophy – postmodernism – that seeks to deny this. The pretense is that because reality is perceived by human beings that perception is reality and thus no one’s perceptions are any more valid than anyone else’s. This philosophy is especially resonant for the Left as it allows them to simply reject the overwhelming evidence of socialism’s failure. To the contrary, reality is discernable – even by fallible human beings – in ways that are measurable and consistent with collected experience. Postmodernism is simply a lie.

Resources are limited; human wants are unlimited. Or, you cannot repeal the law of scarcity. This is lesson one of basic economics and yet it is still frequently forgotten by liberals. One even, in all seriousness, asked me, “Don’t you think the Star Trek universe is possible? Isn’t a basic human desire for it behind the popularity of the concept?” Others have argued that people can learn to limit their desires, so the latter half of the equation is untrue. Nonsense.

Sure, we’d all love to live in a world where all needs are met and anything you desire can be obtained from the nearest replicator. But the concept is less science fiction than science fantasy. And individuals can learn to be content with what they have, but these are societal concepts. There will always be individuals who want something more than they have even if that desires is for something nebulous – more free time, more financial security – just as there will always be individuals who will desire and pursue private property … which is why socialism can never work.

Human beings invariably act in what they perceive to be their own self-interests. I apologize for repeating this one with such frequency, but it is the concept most frequently forgotten by the Left. So many arguments in favor of liberal “solutions” to societal problems run full steam into the brick wall of this reality. The argument goes that the minimum wage is needed to protect the working man from the evil businessman who will simply shaft the worker if given the chance. Of course, this assumes that the businessman will sacrifice his own interests – to find and retain the best workers and, thereby, enhance his bottom line – in order to “shaft the worker”. Selfish individuals must be forced by government to give to charity because they cannot be trusted to help those in need otherwise. Of course, this ignores the fact that we live in the most generous society in all of human history and pretends that government bureaucrats – whose primary interests revolve around career preservation – can be better relied upon to identify and address societal need. The blindness necessary to embrace the liberal positions in these matters is astounding.

Aggregation is meaningful. Or, put another way, statistics trump anecdotes. We’ve all encountered the argument before and those, like me, who do a great deal of research, tend to run into it more frequently. It goes like this: Your data can’t be valid because it doesn’t match my personal experiences and “most people” have experiences like mine – just take my word for it. Of course, if “most people” had the same experiences, then the statistics would reflect that. Everyone’s individual experiences are, by definition, unique. Some are similar to those experienced by others and others simply are not. How does one tell the difference? Valid statistics (and we’ll come back to what makes them valid) reflect an aggregation of the experiences of several individuals. One might argue that the economy is “bad” because of high unemployment in Flint, Michigan (7.1% in 2006) and if all we’re talking about is Flint’s economy, then that’s a valid point, but when we’re discussing the overall economy, Flint’s experiences do not trump the national unemployment rate (currently at 4.5%) which includes not only Flint and other depressed areas, but a whole host of areas where conditions are still better. You cannot use the job situation in Flint or the number of smog days in Tulare County or the number of homicides in New Orleans as the basis for discussing and addressing national concerns.

Data is only as good as the understanding of it. Liberals love data; they are forever bombarding us with it. We’re told that real wages have been falling for decades – it was a big issue in 2005 in particular. We’re told that according to one study, one in five union supporters are illegally fired for union activity during an organizing campaign. And we’re told that more people were unemployed during this past recession than during the Great Depression. All of these statements are true; none of the implications are.

Comprehension of the data yields the knowledge that that real wages have fallen because and more compensation has been paid in the form of benefits. Total compensation (including benefits) growth has consistently outpaced inflation excepting a few bumps like 2005 when the Katrina-related impact on energy prices caused inflation to spike. In reality, real wages have climbed over the past six years even taking 2005 into account. The “study” referenced by organized labor did not examine National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) proceedings – where the illegality of firings would be determined. Instead, it was an unscientific survey of the estimates of union organizers – who had every incentive to inflate the numbers. But one must look behind the data to know that. And sure, more people were unemployed at the peak of this last recession than during the Great Depression, but the US workforce is more than four times as large as it was then, which is why the unemployment rate peaked at 6.3% rather than more than 25% as it did during the Depression.

And finally…

Everyone has an agenda. We’re all human. We all see things through the prism of our own experiences. Some are forthright about their biases. I am a radical libertarian fighting against the seemingly inexorable advance of socialism. Others keep theirs hidden. No one should be more closely scrutinized than the individual who claims objectivity (as does the major media). Inevitably, you will find that such is not the case.

To be continued…