Libertarian For A Day

There has been a lot of talk about Libertarianism lately, and it's so catchy: Liberty! Freedom! So, I decided that I would be Libertarian for a day.

Now, the first thing one learns about Libertarianism is that its definition is negative: Freedom from government interference. Liberty is gained when the government is not interfering with your life.

So, I thought about how the government interferes with my life, my freedom, my liberty. Of course! The biggest government wrought interference with my life is that government bolstered, government sanctioned antithesis of Democracy: the Corporation! With its embedded hierarchy, its entrenched forms of domination, its ability to act without concern for those around it, its ability to silence my voice and my desires through campaign funding, its concentration of power in the hands of a few (what we previously called oligarchy), there is nothing that so daily interferes and deprives us of our good liberty as that enormous government created entity known as a corporation.

Working in concert with our government through the auspices of eminent domain do those corporations deprive us of property that was previously ours. Whispering promises in officials ears do corporations gain unfair tax advantages, and shift the social burden onto our backs while they extract resources and leave behind messes we must provide the means and the money to clean, restricting our freedom to pursue our own happiness with the money lost. Undemocratic, we are many employed there but at the whim of those above is in the corporate hierarchy – anger a superior and you may find yourself begging other corporations for a livelihood without due process (or any processes at all!).

In what has to be the defining coup d'etat: Corporations, through their machinations within our government, have usurped what has to be the sine qua non of existence and have themselves been declared as persons, equally under the law with actual persons. There can be no equality under the law when a single individual faces a 'person' in the form of a corporation, thousands strong, in court. Only the stroke of a recorders pen and the invidious interference of government into our daily lives allows this farce to continue. Up with Libertarianism! To the End of Government Interference through the Corporate Lie!

Hold on. My phone is ringing....

“Hello?”

“This is the H. Foundation (A Libertarian Think-Tank) calling. It came to our attention that you were incorrectly understanding libertarianism...”

“I am? But I thought that libertarianism was best defined as freedom from government intervention: in the marketplace, in our society, in our daily lives?”

“It is. But you do not understand interference. Interference is when the government imposes regulations on the market, reducing the ability of economic actors to act.”

“I'm trying to understand this. We have had to place a myriad of regulations on corporations through the years to avoid their undesirable behavior, and it occurred to me that perhaps we should strike the root and eliminate the corporations, freeing the market of both the regulations and the bad actors.”

“No, no. It is the regulations that cause the bad actions: Free to act towards their own ends brings true liberty to all. Without corporations, the market would be much poorer, as strong economic actors would not be able to combine to bring you the goods, er freedoms, you desire.”

“So combining for a common goal is a libertarian principle?”

“Certainly!”

“So, if my neighbors and I combine and place our money together to fund a public school system with the common goal of educating all of our children on the principles of liberty and teach them the skills they need to think and act in our society, that's an example of realizing a libertarian principle?”

“Oh, no, no, no! That is just socialism, the antithesis of liberty and freedom. You become enslaved to the government provider...”

“But: doesn't removing ignorance and transferring skills to our progeny equip them to think critically, to avoid enslavement by the more powerful, and give them the very skills they need to seek, grasp, and hold liberty? Doesn't doing it in combination not only make us more likely to succeed, but also remove that bane of liberty, unfair advantage?”

“Advantage is the natural selection process at work! We cannot deny it, for then we deny the liberty of those selected by nature, nurture, and drive. It is natural that weaker individuals are dominated by stronger, and only through a free, libertarian society can the strong avoid interference by the weak. The strong should be free to gain all remunerations and accoutrements their skill and ability can, without interference! The weak exist to be exploited!”

“How do you know they are weak? If people begin their journey unequally, some without benefit of money or class or heredity (or education) to guide them, wouldn't that by definition decrease their liberty if they are prey to the strong? Shouldn't libertarianism apply equally to all?”

“You are nearly hopeless. Libertarianism is freedom from government interference, it doesn't posit that you'll be free from any interference. You have to make your way in the world, and if you are not strong enough to do that, then liberty is not yours to have.”

“So, libertarianism is a philosophy of the strong: You can have as much liberty as you can carve out of the societal wilderness, is that it? You are free so long as no-one stronger than you comes along, and building institutions and governments to ameliorate that is not only useless, but anti liberty?”

“Well, yes. Equality is a fool's errand. The real purpose of libertarianism is to promote the gain of wealth by those strong enough to grasp it, and to prevent you peons from using your 'democracy' to claw it back through higher taxes on the rich or successful. Public school has no place in a libertarian society because it not only prevents the extraction of wealth from the parents who want their children educated, but reduces the chances that the wealthy can continue their invisible aristocracy. Liberty is defined by the property you control, by the people you control. The bigger your corporation, the greater your liberty! You too can become powerful and infused with liberty if only you will try hard enough!”

“H., those aren't exactly the tenets of Nozick...The mistreatment of women, the oppression of many, the actual enslavement of some are direct outgrowths of societies that have employed the strategies you are endorsing. I believe your Koch is showing...”

Click.

Guess I'm not cut out to be a libertarian. I will have to return to my previous, liberal world-view where domination and suppression by any entity, whether governmental or private, is cause for concern.

Oh, darn. Massive corporations corrupting my democracy with their unlimited campaign contributions; their employees moving in and out of my government passing laws favorable to themselves (and hurtful to the rest); their money backed (and board-room vetted) candidates free to spout messages of spite, bigotry and misogyny, are still an issue.

Rats!

Is there a political or philosophical ideology I could join where those wouldn't be issues so that I would be free to pursue my happiness without concern or care for the rest of society? 

Oh! That's what the libertarian was trying to say (no, I'm not going back!)

A Century Ago...

On September 22, 1906 a mob of white people (thousands strong) stormed Atlanta, beating, and sometimes killing, every black person they came across. In his account of the Atlanta riot, David Levering Lewis writes*:

The immediate cause of the terrible Atlanta riot of 1906 had been the newspaper drumfire of alleged assaults upon white women by black men. The underlying cause was to be found in the politics of class conflict among the white people. As cities of the New South like Atlanta filled with poor whites and blacks, the planters and politicians in rural counties mobilized...to brake the power of the urban colossi. Bloodsucking railroads, flint-hearted banks, merciless factories, the loss of white men's jobs to black men, sin corruption, and race mixing -- the rural diatribe ... was shrill and long. ... As [W.E.B.] DuBois wrote in a moving essay in The World Today, the explosion had occurred inevitably after "two years of vituperation and traduction of the Negro race by the most prominent candidates for governorship, together with a bad police system"

 Brought on, one might add, by the strong xenophobia the country had towards the ex-slaves, the Negros in their midst.

Thank goodness that is all behind us: Today we don't exhibit xenophobia towards people who are racially, culturally different; We have no difficulty advancing the cause of liberty to anyone regardless of their views on life; our leaders and newscasters don't spread vituperation via senseless name calling or degrading of those whose views differ from their own; The divisive fire of class warfare is not stoked by the elite nor politicians intent on gaining office. In short, the century that separates us from the riot of 1906 has brought us tolerance and the ability to discuss our different opinions about the country in a 'cool marketplace of ideas'. We should rejoice that we have ascended so far from those events...

What? What was that you said?

Oh.

Nevermind.


* Lewis, David Levering. "W.E.B. DuBois - Biography of a Race 1868-1919" Henry Holt, New York, 1993. p334.

Fall Of Angels - L. E. Modesitt, Jr.

Not too often does a book have my heart pounding, my eyes racing across the text, concerned for the fate of the protagonists, eager yet fearful to find out how the story will unfold. Fall of Angels is one of those books – a gripping story about the fate of a ship-wrecked crew on an unknown planet.

Unlike so many in the genre, however, the crew encounters not some alien race, but a human civilization that was the result of some previous colonization – a civilization cut off from the colonizers for generations that has evolved back into a relatively low-tech society.

The story becomes one of survival. The crew must use what they have to construct a sustainable outpost, learn the local customs, trade with the people to gain the supplies they need, using their technology at first to create the things they will need when their technology (and battery-stored power) wears out.

Modesitt doesn't wave his hands and expect us to just accept that the crew will survive. He outlines the struggles as they plant crops, learn to harvest the variety of local food, build their shelter, determine where to obtain their heat, encounter problems with sanitation, and even struggle with their sometimes strained relationships as they adapt to a lifestyle none knew before. Through the efforts of Nylan, the ship's engineer, Modesitt takes us on a tour of the sorts if problems that plagued human civilization for generations, nay, thousands of years prior to our own period.

Although the survival efforts wind throughout the story, this story is not about survival or aliens or even magic: It is a classic tale of Good versus Evil, but told in a new and compelling manner.

For the Evil that the crew (Angels to the locals) encounter is not that of some malevolent individual bent on world destruction or domination. Instead, the evil arises as a result of fear, tradition, and subjugation.

The local civilization resembles many in our past: Tradition-bound, xenophobic, and built upon male dominance and female subjugation. Women are property, to be used, abused, and cast off when no longer needed. The ship-wrecked crew represents an affront to all three elements: They lack the traditions, they are new, and most profoundly, they are egalitarian (both the ship's captain and the head of the marine contingent are women.) When the first marauding group of locals stops by to raid their women and is wiped out, word spreads of the 'evil' Angels amongst the locals, and the seeds for a show-down confrontation are sown.

As the story unfolds, we get insights into both groups. The antagonist is revealed to be thoughtful, against the wars he feels compelled to wage, a family man: I started wishing a different fate for him than what I expected might be. He ends up being driven, again, not by evil desires, but by the evil that exists in the society he is in.

Fall Of Angels is a tragedy – a tragedy born of the fears of individuals. Modesitt shines a light on the evil that arises when society values conformity over progress, devalues some individuals (or entire classes of individuals), and wages war to 'hold' something they have no use for.

This becomes the real value of the story. Through elegant story-telling that sweeps us along, Modesitt encourages us to think about our position in society and our society's traditions and values: He clearly drives us to consider that a society that values all individuals will be stronger than one that discounts or abuses significant portions; and that those abuses and lines of thinking will drive us to acts that are both detrimental and evil.

The Deficit, Part Two...

One of the things that drives me nuts about politicians and politics is that they rarely are required to keep even a superficially consistent story. It would make so much more sense if we had on the one side those who believe that less should be privately controlled and more publicly controlled, offset by those who wish for stronger protections for private property, both balanced by the conservatives who just want to slow the pace of change and keep the status quo (and let's face it, changing for change's sake is not usually a good policy!). But instead, we get this:


In August we were treated to the spectacle of the deficit ceiling colliding with the rising deficit, and the hand-wringing of that singular (okay, so it turns out it wasn't that singular!) event: We were going to drive the country into ruin! We must cut the deficit! We must, must, must! One party in particular was driving the debate as the #1 issue facing the nation, now and into the future. We may disagree about the seriousness of the event, but they certainly can take a stand on it...

So, I would expect (especially after the collapse of the Deficit Reduction Commission - DRC) that any Republican candidate for the Presidency would continue to campaign on that idea - that the current policies followed by the current administration continue to increase the deficit and take us towards ruin. But, I am wrong.

Turns out that now candidates feel the best way to win the White House is to campaign on a promise to increase the deficit - on average by the amount the DRC was targeted to reduce: $1 trillion dollars. Say it with me: ONE TRILLION DOLLARS!

I am speechless. I'll let James Kwak tell the story:

The Times has a story out today: Surprise, all the Republican candidates’ tax plans increase the national deficit! The numbers (reduction in 2015 tax revenues, from the Tax Policy Center):

• Romney: $600 billion
• Gingrich: $1.3 trillion
• (Late lamented) Perry: $1.0 trillion
• Santorum: $1.3 trillion

*Paul is excluded, see fn1.

If I were an Independent or Democrat candidate for the Presidency, I would jump all over this (heck, if I were just an average journalist, I'd be all over this!) "Mr Candidate: Why isn't the deficit an issue any more and you feel that you are free to accelerate it's growth over the four years of your presidency if you were to be elected?" 

I have an idea why, though: Tax cuts are always popular - cutting programs is not. Sadly, though, all four candidates plans cut taxes for the rich and then wait for the resulting deficit to materialize so that they are 'forced' to cut government programss: Which usually are programs that aid the middle and lower class. You don't still doubt that we are governed by an oligarchy of the rich now, do you?

fn1: Mr Paul doesn't have a specific plan - other than to eliminate the IRS and wave his hands and hope that the reduction will be offset somehow - which leaves his plan well north of $1 trillion in deficit increase. But, he hasn't published specifics, so the Tax Policy Center can't run specifics...

Ridiculous Statements

As I'm listening to the evening news, a story came on about the Keystone XL Pipeline project, and the fact that the President had denied the application for permit. Angry Republicans retorted that the President was choosing the environment over the economy.

In what alternate universe would that be an epithet? The President chose long term over short term, the health of our aquifers and rivers and lands over a few jobs. I've got to side with our President on this one: Killing a project of dubious benefit due to real environmental concerns is a good choice.

Making the claim even more preposterous is the relatively few number of jobs the pipeline would create: 6-10,000. Let's put that into perspective: It takes the creation of 200,000 new jobs each month to keep up with our growth (that's 2,400,000 new jobs per year) - and that's just to stay even! We need more if we are to bring down our current unemployment. So, the killing of one 6,000 job project does not deter the economy (it's a literal drop in the bucket!) Sure, if our government was killing the equivalent every week, that would have a real impact, but once? That reduces the President's decision to choosing the Environment (something we all own and share) over the benefit of a few at a particular corporation.

My Nebraska friends have fought long and hard to prevent the construction of this pipeline across the fragile sandhills region and above/through the valuable Ogallala Aquifer (an enormous sandstone underground water storage formation that provides the drinking and irrigation water for a substantial number of people, ranches, and farms from S. Dakota to Nebraska to Kansas).

Perhaps someone can explain to me why building the pipeline is a good idea, because it sure doesn't appear so from the surface. It's objective is to move oil from the tar sands of Canada to Oil Refineries on the Gulf Coast.

It is projected that the cost of the pipeline is over $6 billion dollars. According to what I can find, it would only cost $2-$4 billion dollars to build a refinery - Why not build a refinery next to the tar sands, and transport the finished product (gasoline, kerosene, diesel) - which is worth approximately 50% more per gallon?

Since it is reported that our current refineries are running at near capacity, a new refinery would be a benefit to both the Canadian and US populations. Besides -since the refined products would be solely for domestic use (we wouldn't be shipping the oil from Canada for processing in the Gulf Coast to be loaded onto tankers to export, would we? Not since dependence on foreign oil is a major concern of our population and elected officials (not to mention the military which sees a potential threat to their abilities if an oil producer decides to shut off our supply at a critical time)).

Let's face it: Technology breaks. No matter how well the pipeline is designed and built, it will break and spill thousands (if not millions) of gallons of oil during its lifetime. Transporting oil and gas via rail and tanker through well known and hardened corridors is already a risk, but one we at least have a handle on. Adding new risk to the system doesn't seem beneficial - especially in this case.

Kudos to the President for once standing firm and choosing the public over the few!

Lawrence Lessig's Plan to Reduce Congressional Corruption

I've been very impressed with Lawrence Lessig's thinking ever since reading Free Culture, his book on the dangers and distortions of current copyright law.  He's back with a new book to fight Congressional Corruption: 'Republic Lost'. I'm thinking this is a must read!

Here's the extended interview on The Daily Show to whet your appetite...

The Pledge Has Been Broken

Remember the Republican Pledge To America? The 'We will stop packing unpopular legislation with must pass bills' - The 'We won't force votes on large legislation until sufficient time for everyone to read it'?

According to Bloomberg News - pledge broken. The Republican sponsered spending bill now hitting the house (all 1200 pages of it) breaks both of those pledges...

Who would'a thunk? Politicians lying for their own gain...

Just drop the integrity crap during the election cycle - those running for office don't have it, won't have it, and never had it. It's not about integrity - although maybe it should be.