One of the elements of typical libertarian ideology that now strikes me as a fantasy is the idea that one can truly separate economy and state and that wealth and political power (a.k.a. force) are not the same thing.
In abstract theory wealth is not force and is not political power. It's easy to write that statement down and believe it. But firewalling these two in the real world is something that I regard as politically impossible. The only scenario I can imagine is one where we have some kind of AI programmed to maintain a democratic libertarian state and that is above economics, invulnerable to persuasion, and lacks any human needs or wants that can be influenced through money.
Given that wealth can easily buy power (a.k.a. ability to wield force), then a sufficiently large concentration of wealth in the hands of a few easily leads to that few having the power to arbitrarily wield force. Even if the plutocrats are initially idealistic, over time this will erode... especially if social change or market forces threaten their wealth. At that point the choice is between adapting (hard) or using force (easy). People usually take the easy path.
Jeb Bush has raised far more MO ey than the other republican presidential candidates and got the nod from the party of elites and yet he's in near last place with the party's second pick in distant third and two outsiders, which the party can't decide which it hates more, vying for first and second.
That's because of Bernie and to some extent Trump -- There's a good Article by Benjamin Studebaker(I think) that basically states that Neolibs have taken over both parties, as long as corporate interests are taken care of--which both do, then they're given everything they need to stay in power. But Tea Party and Bernie democrats are throwing a wrench in their plans -- People are now waking up and they are MAD - some just don't know where to direct that anger, but the NeoLibs are out and it's either going to be the Tea Party or Progressive Wing of the Democrats that win -- and no Hillary is not, nor has she ever been Progressive, she is too much part of the corporate power machine to be part of the progressives. This election scares the shit out of the corporations, and honestly, I'd rather see Trump than Hillary win, if just to send a message to Wallstreet that the establishment isn't welcome any longer.
I'm completely with you. It makes me grin every morning to realize I live in a world where hundreds of millions have been spent to elect corporate shills, and they're either barely hanging on, or out of the race.
But populism has historically been a negative thing. When people get angry they're willing to do some bad stuff.
Great article. I am forwarding a link to that to a few friends and family who have open minds about such things.
It annoys me when people rail against the incompetence of the ruling elite. They seem all too competent to me, and processes like manufacturing consent, etc. are too obvious to ignore for people paying attention. The middle and lower classes have lost the game.
> The smart way to keep people passive and obedient is to strictly limit the spectrum of acceptable opinion, but allow very lively debate within that spectrum. gg
No thanks. The reason we're in this mess is because of the progressive movement. Before income tax, before regulation, before welfare, the country experienced unparalleled growth decade after decade.
9 comments
[ 0.24 ms ] story [ 31.1 ms ] threadIn abstract theory wealth is not force and is not political power. It's easy to write that statement down and believe it. But firewalling these two in the real world is something that I regard as politically impossible. The only scenario I can imagine is one where we have some kind of AI programmed to maintain a democratic libertarian state and that is above economics, invulnerable to persuasion, and lacks any human needs or wants that can be influenced through money.
Given that wealth can easily buy power (a.k.a. ability to wield force), then a sufficiently large concentration of wealth in the hands of a few easily leads to that few having the power to arbitrarily wield force. Even if the plutocrats are initially idealistic, over time this will erode... especially if social change or market forces threaten their wealth. At that point the choice is between adapting (hard) or using force (easy). People usually take the easy path.
Money is even barely buying Hillary first place.
But populism has historically been a negative thing. When people get angry they're willing to do some bad stuff.
It annoys me when people rail against the incompetence of the ruling elite. They seem all too competent to me, and processes like manufacturing consent, etc. are too obvious to ignore for people paying attention. The middle and lower classes have lost the game.