I have a confession to make: I hate politics. I can’t stand it. It’s almost never anything but people who were elected to do one thing that go off and do something else, almost always against the interests of the people. Republicans and Democrats alike do it, even this election season. What’s a freedom-loving American to do?!
Last week, Markos Moulitsas tried to pull one over on us by saying that the Democrats are going to be our new party of smaller, less intrusive government, while the Republicans would continue their warmongering and their construction of the American police state. (Nevermind that Bill Clinton was all for a police state.)
Needless to say, I called him out on some of the more egregious garbage he spewed forth under the auspices of the usually freedom-loving Cato Institute.
And he responded.
My piece wasn’t a play for the libertarian vote. Rather, it was a formulation for a new breed of Democrat that is finding success in the Mountain West and other parts of the country and an attempt to figure out why I — a former Republican — find the Democratic Party a comfortable place despite the fact that on an issue-by-issue analysis, I haven’t changed much politically since I was 18.
The fact is, there is a new breed of libertarian-flavored Democrats that is emerging on the scene. They are no more traditionally libertarian than I am. We don’t advocate the elimination of safety-net programs or the abolition of publicly funded education or any of the more extreme manifestations of libertarianism. We don’t think that “corporations derive their power from government,” hence less regulation will magically make corporations respect my individual liberties (a notion I find patently ridiculous). We are Democrats, after all. Yet we Democrats are also struggling to find a coherent philosophy in a world where globalization has made many of its core precepts increasingly archaic. — Markos Moulitsas
Okay, so he admits to being an idiot, or at least not understanding basic economics, which in politics is about the same thing. Quite common among Democrats, unfortunately.
Two quick points before I move on: First, civil liberties are a construct which defines the people’s relationship to government. There is no such thing when dealing with corporations. The reason is simple: Everyone must deal with the government, whether they want to or not, on pain of imprisonment or death, while no one is compelled to deal with any particular corporation (unless, of course, the government compels the people to do so).
Second, you don’t need “civil liberties” to deal with a corporation anyway, since in that relationship (without government interference) you have as much power as you need: You have the dollar bills the company wants. Unlike government, a corporation can’t force you to give up your money. If you don’t like what the company is doing, you don’t give them your money. Certainly you can cite exceptions, but every one of them is an exception because of government interfering in your business.
The political reality, and another reason I hate politics so much, is that both the Republicans and Democrats want to screw you.
The Republicans are like the guy in the dark alley who accosts you as you walk by and then violently has his way with you. When you see him there, you pretty much know what to expect. You know you got screwed and nobody’s going to do a thing about it.
The Democrats are like the guy at the party who spikes your drink with rohypnol and then violently has his way with you. Afterward, you don’t remember a thing, and you have no idea how you got screwed, but you’re pretty sure you got screwed.
In both cases, the politician thinks there’s absolutely nothing wrong with his behavior, and can marshal up as many people as he needs to defend his actions. But you’ve still been screwed out of your freedom either way.
So when you head to the polling places in a few weeks, remember that the Republicans and Democrats both are going to take away your freedom; their only difference is which freedom they will take away first. Then screw both of them and vote Libertarian.
(No Ratings Yet)
Loading ...
Tropical WeatherLast week, in the wake of another uptick in the official unemployment rate, the administration continued to claim that their economic policies were working, just not fast enough. Not only does the administration have a funny way of ending a war, but now they claim their economic policies are successful. For whom, I wonder?
Gardner Goldsmith teams up with Brett Veinotte, of the excellent School Sucks Project and the School Sucks podcast. Gard and Brett discuss the impetus of the series and project, and why public education must be stopped.
Except where otherwise noted, content on this site is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works license.
Video published by this site is licensed under a Creative Commons Sampling+ license.
Facebook
Digg
del.icio.us
reddit.com
Newsvine
Q
Oct 16, 2006
I said it before, and I’ll write it again. what we need to do is stop voting. change the channel ignore the debates, and the elections, it’s all meaningless.
Or, we could have progress quotas or something. these idiots don’t preform, out the door; send in the replacement. ever notice that these people seem to keep making up laws that nobody likes? isn’t that like a dictatorship? Don’t we get a say? Isn’t it our choice? For the people, by the people– am I missing something?
These people swore to UPHOLD the Constitution and the LAW, not change it to satisfy their own sick agendas; that alone is grounds for impeachment. — the thing that really bugs me is, they know their time in office is limited, so they are going to only enjoy that new power for a few years, then they are subject to the same crap as anyone else–what’s the real motivation then? are they doing it for someone else? someone unseen? someone that doesn’t have any term limits to contend with? I suppose that’s what lobbying is all about. “Public Servant” means one who serves the public, not corporations, and certainly doesn’t spy on them, or strip away their freedom one day at a time.. i guess to really make my point. i’ll say it this way. I love the place I live, but I hate the people in charge.
Matt
Oct 16, 2006
There are a few problems with your view of economics. The first is that we have many instances in history where corporations were allowed to exist without legislation and we were violently screwed by them. Ex. The industrial revolution both here and in Britain. 20 years after the industrial revolution in Britain and the average life expectancy of working men was 20 years. The robber barons during our own industrial revolution also managed to screw thousands of people. It may be that in a world filled with people that are as smart and as interested as you and I, that corporations would not be able to screw people. However, it’s the government that keeps drug companies honest about their claims, and keeps (more) doctors from giving you inferior medication because they are paid to. Other people are not going to stop screwing you just because the government isn’t.
Rob Miller
Oct 16, 2006
Matt, I don’t think we’d ever see industrial-era working conditions in the developed world even if corporations had twice the power they do now. You have to remember that in the 19th century—in Britain at least—things like child labour, working ~18 hour days, etc. were commonplace; societal attitudes have changed tremendously since then (and I have to add that it was societal attitudes that changed the law, not vice versa—see the Chartist movement, for example).
I think people get screwed now and will always get screwed, by corporations, by the government and by countless other people. All government regulation does is shift the ways in which people get screwed. In fact, it probably makes it worse, since corporations have to find new and inventive ways to defeat the legislative restrictions placed upon them by the government—making it ridiculously hard for most people, never mind stupid people, to work out just what kind of deal they’re getting when they buy a service or product.
If government regulation does nothing to stop people getting screwed, surely one has to ask exactly what the point of it is? Tangling things up in bureaucracy and red tape for no gain whatsoever is not my idea of fun—I don’t know about you!
J. Bruno
Oct 16, 2006
Matt, I want you to think carefully about this for just a minute: why is it that millions of boys and men flocked to these factories to perform hard labor for a pittance? Did something change to force them? No. What they do not teach in the socialist automaton factories, we call “public schools,” is that the mortality rate for children under the age of ten was something like %70 before the industrial revolution. The population exploded during this period. Individuals who would otherwise have died of starvation were given a chance to live by these “robber barons.”
(Incidentally, compare those young workers of the industrial revolution with the emo-idiot-MySpace youth of today. Which had a greater claim to life and desire for it?)
Jason
Oct 16, 2006
Corporations are derivations of the state – that’s what a corporate charter is. But the answer is not to regulate them, because then the government is wasting time regulating itself! The answer is to return them to what they were pre-1880’s – limited capital organizations whose purpose was to conduct a specific public works project, make a profit, and then be dissolved after dividing the profit among their shareholders.
But either way, gov’t needs to get out of the way and let us run the country, like we have been for quite a while now.
Anonymous
Oct 17, 2006
GET A LIFE!