The top 5 vote getters are:

5. Free to Choose - Friedman

4. The Federalist Papers - Hamilton, Madison, Jay

3. Democracy in America - de Tocqueville

2. Witness - Chambers

1. The Road to Serfdom - Hayek

"Friedrich Hayek did the heavy lifting on this point over half a century ago in his essay “The Use of Knowledge in Society.” The efficient pricing of markets allows millions of independent actors to decide for themselves how to allocate resources. According to Hayek, no central planner or bureaucrat could ever have enough knowledge to consistently and successfully guide all of those economic actions in a more efficient manner.

The latest proof of Hayek’s insight can be found not only in the economic winter that goes by the label “recovery summer,” but in the crown jewel of the stimulus known as “cash for clunkers,” which subsidized car purchases that would have happened anyway. That’s a major reason the auto industry just had its worst August in 27 years. Meanwhile, lower-income buyers are seeing used-car prices soar thanks to the artificial scarcity created by destroying perfectly good “clunkers.”

But that’s a small point in the grand scheme of things. According to progressives, the financial crisis discredited “market fundamentalism” and created a burning need for a more cooperative society where “we’re all in it together.” It’s an ancient argument, with many noble intentions behind it. But it rests on a misunderstanding of one simple, astounding, irrefutable fact. The market economy is cooperative, and more successfully so than any alternative system ever conceived of, never mind put into practice."

Goldberg is exactly right. And he barely scratches the surface of how Hayek deals with the subject. In The Road to Serfdom, Hayek spends time talking about how central planners operate under a false premise-- they seek to control that which they did not create, the market economy. Ultimately, according to Hayek, the inevitable result is failure.

On the surface, the liberal theory seems to work.  Not a week goes by without Obama visiting a clean energy company made possible by government largesse.  At each stop, Obama stands in the factory in front of the cameras repeating the mantra: government expenditures are pulling the economy out of the ditch. 

To answer Obama's liberal vision, we turn to the late French politician and free market economist M. Frederic Bastiat (1801-1850) and his classic Essays on Political Economy.  Admittedly, Bastiat lived during a time when political messaging wasn't as sophisticated--before big government types learned to call taxing and spending 'investment'--but the argument put forth below is strikingly relevant today.

"Have you never chanced to hear it said: 'There is no better investment than taxes.  Only see what a number of families it maintains, and consider how it reacts upon industry:  it is an inexhaustible stream, it is life itself...'

In order to combat this doctrine, I must refer to my preceding refutation.  Political economy knew well enough that its arguments were not so amusing that it could be said of them, repetitions please.  It has, therefore, turned to the proverb to it own use, well convinced that, in its mouth, repetitions teach.

The advantages which officials advocate are those which are seen.  The benefit which accrues to the providers is still that which is seen.  This blinds all eyes.

But the disadvantages which the tax-payers have to get rid of are those which are not seen.  And the injury which results from it to the providers is still that which is not seen, although this ought to be self-evident.

When an official spends for his own profit an extra hundred sous, it implies that a tax-payer spends for his profit a hundred sous less.  But the expense of the official is seen, because the act is performed, while that of the tax-payer is not seen, because, alas! he is prevented from performing it.

You compare the nation, perhaps to a parched tract of land, and the tax to a fertilising rain.  Be it so.  But you ought also to ask yourself where are the sources of this rain, and whether it is not the tax itself which draws away the moisture from the ground and dries it up?

Again, you ought to ask yourself whether it is possible that the soil can receive as much of this precious water by rain as it loses by evaporation."1

1. M. Frederic Bastiat, Essays on Political Economy, (New York: Putnam and Sons, 1874), 58-59.

In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem. From time to time we’ve been tempted to believe that society has become too complex to be managed by self-rule, that government by an elite group is superior to government for, by, and of the people. But if no one among us is capable of governing himself, then who among us has the capacity to govern someone else?

All of us together -- in and out of government -- must bear the burden. The solutions we seek must be equitable with no one group singled out to pay a higher price. We hear much of special interest groups. Well our concern must be for a special interest group that has been too long neglected. It knows no sectional boundaries, or ethnic and racial divisions, and it crosses political party lines. It is made up of men and women who raise our food, patrol our streets, man our mines and factories, teach our children, keep our homes, and heal us when we’re sick -- professionals, industrialists, shopkeepers, clerks, cabbies, and truck drivers. They are, in short, “We the People.” This breed called Americans.

The rest here.

And this idea that government is beholden to the people, that it has no other source of power except the sovereign people, is still the newest and the most unique idea in all the long history of man's relation to man.

This is the issue of this election: whether we believe in our capacity for self-government or whether we abandon the American revolution and confess that a little intellectual elite in a far-distant capitol can plan our lives for us better than we can plan them ourselves.

You and I are told increasingly we have to choose between a left or right. Well I'd like to suggest there is no such thing as a left or right. There's only an up or down: [up] man's old -- old-aged dream, the ultimate in individual freedom consistent with law and order, or down to the ant heap of totalitarianism. And regardless of their sincerity, their humanitarian motives, those who would trade our freedom for security have embarked on this downward course.

The rest here.

....Now those who seek absolute power, even though they seek it to do what they regard as good, are simply demanding the right to enforce their own version of heaven on earth. They -- and let me remind you, they are the very ones who always create the most hellish tyrannies. Absolute power does corrupt, and those who seek it must be suspect and must be opposed. Their mistaken course stems from false notions, ladies and gentlemen, of equality. Equality, rightly understood, as our founding fathers understood it, leads to liberty and to the emancipation of creative differences. Wrongly understood, as it has been so tragically in our time, it leads first to conformity and then to despotism."

Rest the rest (and listen to it) here.

It is well-worth the time to read, as it is full of what I might call contemporary, easily digestible political theory. A sample:

In many respects, Barack Obama’s neo-socialism is neoconservatism’s mirror image. Openly committed to ending the Reagan era, Obama is a firm believer in the power of government to extend its scope and grasp far deeper into society. In much the same way that neoconservatives accepted a realistic and limited role for the government, Obama tolerates a limited and realistic role for the market: its wealth is necessary for the continuation and expansion of the welfare state and social justice. While neoconservatism erred on the side of trusting the nongovernmental sphere—mediating institutions like markets, civil society, and the family—neosocialism gives the benefit of the doubt to government. Whereas neoconservatism was inherently skeptical of the ability of social planners to repeal the law of unintended consequences, Obama’s ideal is to leave social policy in their hands and to bemoan the interference of the merely political.

Washington said, "Government is not reason, it is not eloquence, it is force; like fire, a troublesome servant and a fearful master. Never for a moment should it be left to irresponsible action."

Could this not be a retort to President Obama in a speech given today?

Washington's underlying point is critical. Government is a giant, intrusive, and often counter-productive entity. It cannot be managed like a corporation or directed by eloquent rhetoric. The process of enacting law is extremely messy-- the bigger the legislation, the bigger the mess. For this reason, government ought to be confined and limited to certain select functions and not venture into being a market-managing, social engineering, everything-to-everyone force. Many have claimed to be able to be the ones who can finally run government efficiently because of their compromise ability or management skills or eloquence. We see this very prevalent today with our current president. If I can only give that 67th speech on healthcare, things will begin falling into place. But in fairness to President Obama, he is not nearly the first to attempt such a leadership tactic.

If one truly wanted to run a more manageable government, the only way to do so would be to significantly limited its scope, cut its size, and focus on reforming and improving a handful of its essential functions. Until then, President Washington is brilliant to compare government to fire. It sure can be useful, but don't complain when you frequently get burned.

Gore wrote, "From the standpoint of governance, what is at stake is our ability to use the rule of law as an instrument of human redemption."

Ok. Deep breath. Read again.

"From the standpoint of governance, what is at stake is our ability to use the rule of law as an instrument of human redemption."

Ok. To be fair, let's see it in context.

"Over the years, as the science has become clearer and clearer, some industries and companies whose business plans are dependent on unrestrained pollution of the atmospheric commons have become ever more entrenched. They are ferociously fighting against the mildest regulation — just as tobacco companies blocked constraints on the marketing of cigarettes for four decades after science confirmed the link of cigarettes to diseases of the lung and the heart.

Simultaneously, changes in America’s political system — including the replacement of newspapers and magazines by television as the dominant medium of communication — conferred powerful advantages on wealthy advocates of unrestrained markets and weakened advocates of legal and regulatory reforms. Some news media organizations now present showmen masquerading as political thinkers who package hatred and divisiveness as entertainment. And as in times past, that has proved to be a potent drug in the veins of the body politic. Their most consistent theme is to label as “socialist” any proposal to reform exploitive behavior in the marketplace.

From the standpoint of governance, what is at stake is our ability to use the rule of law as an instrument of human redemption. After all has been said and so little done, the truth about the climate crisis — inconvenient as ever — must still be faced.

The pathway to success is still open, though it tracks the outer boundary of what we are capable of doing. It begins with a choice by the United States to pass a law establishing a cost for global warming pollution."

Ok. Not much better.

There is so much wrong with this it is hard to know where to begin. So rather than drag out the hundreds of quotes and political philosophers and other source material to combat the notion that the government is an instrument of human redemption, I'm simply going to let the absurdity of Gore's prose stand alone. 

So much of leftism is often cloaked in legitimate good intentions and moralistic language, that it is difficult to make the case that the very philosophies and policies that leftists espouse would lead to the opposite of their desired goals. But occasionally there are moments of clarity. When John Kerry said there should be a "global test" to determine when the U.S. should go into armed conflict, this was a rare moment of clarity. When Barack Obama said we need to "spread the wealth around," another rare moment of clarity. As was Walter Mondale's promise to raise everyone's taxes when running against Reagan in 1984. Al Gore gave us another one this weekend.

Thank you Mr. Gore, in your effort to rally folks to your cause, you have given us a rare, unadulterated glimpse into the leftist soul. A soul that, apparently, can only be redeemed by good government and the correct leftist laws and policies.

 (i) Jude Wanniski, The Way the World Works, (Washington D.C.: Regnery Publishing, 1998) 13.