The election of 1994 was an unprecedented and smashing electoral expression of the popular revolution that had been building up for many months: a massive repudiation of President Clinton, the Clintonian Democratic Party, their persons and all of their works. It was a fitting follow up to the string of revolutions against government and socialism in the former states and satellites of the Soviet Union. The anti-government revolution has come home at last.
The need for privatization is urgent, but unless ex-communists disabuse themselves of the notion that government should administer the transfer of state properties to private hands, privatization will remain an empty promise, and enervated state systems will lumber on indefinitely.
Last March, I laid out my "Thirty Day Plan" for de-socializing America. But I didn't scrap all of big government; now it's time for more:
Labor unions are flexing their muscles again. Last year, a strike against the New York Daily News succeeded in inflicting such losses upon the company that it was forced to sell cheap to British tycoon Robert Maxwell, who was willing to accept union terms. Earlier, the bus drivers' union struck Greyhound and managed to win a long and bloody strike. How were the unions able to win these strikes, even though unions have been declining in numbers and popularity since the end of World War II?
Governments have always intervened in the economy, but today's State—armed with modern data collection as well as an interventionist ideology—has taken us to a new level of regulation and taxation.
As I see it now, there are really two economies—two distinct systems of producing and exchanging wealth. Or rather, two systems that purport to do these things, though only one of them really produces anything, and the other is organized by a peculiar form of exchange.
The first is what is called the trade economy—the one summed up in the phrase "the free market." The other might be called "the tax economy."
