“They’re wimps, those Republicans,” begins Mr. Truculence’s
tirade. “Little pussy cats, pawing at balls of string. Sure, they talk a good
game, but where’s the follow-through? They make pretty speeches about how government
interferes with them all the time and how they want to get rid of it, but they keep
participating in the elections. They vote for Washington insiders who just mess
around with bureaucratic procedures to gum up the system.
“But when was the last time one of these small-government
Republicans got their hands dirty and actually rigged a truck full of dynamite at
a federal building, sat back, and watched it explode? That was way back in
1995, with Timothy McVeigh. Each and every day, though, there should be another
federal building going up in smoke, if you take the Republicans at their word.
“They’re traitors to the cause, the Republicans. They’re not
real sadists. They just make a show
of it with their rhetoric. They talk about self-reliance and may even carry
guns around with them wherever they go like they’re in the Wild West, like
they’re real tough guys who don’t need the nanny state to solve their problems.
But guess what? There was practically no law in the Wild West, so you could get
away with murder. When was the last time these girly-men libertarians went ahead
and pulled the trigger on someone for annoying them?
“No, the GOP’s not full of individualists. They rely on the
government and the law to protect them. They only pretend to care about just
themselves. They only impersonate ice-cold sociopaths who have no conscience. They
only talk about wanting to let the
poor fend for themselves while the strongest and most ruthless get rich and do
whatever they like. Don’t believe me? Well, have you ever seen Rand Paul tear a
homeless guy’s guts out with his bare hands? Of course not. That Paul guy’s a
socialist. He feels everyone has equal value, because of some liberal UN
hogwash about human rights. What a Nancy Boy!
“Me on the other hand: I kill as I please, because I really don’t
care about anyone else. That’s selfishness,
you flaming Randian loudmouths. You blather on as if you’re good old
Satanists—what with your evil-sounding, social Darwinian talking points—but
it’s all just talk. You say you hate the Democrats, but have you killed any of
them for holding back our military? No? Then why don’t you hold the Dems’ hands
and sing Kumbaya with them, you wusses!
“Every time I heard a Democrat on the TV, I expressed my
disgust by killing a liberal. That’s why I based my operations in New York and LA.
Can the Republicans say the same? Anyone can sound like a nasty, hateful wannabe tyrant. Anyone can stand at a
political rally and call their enemies bad names, draw rude cartoons mocking
liberals, or spout regressive arguments as a conservative pundit. But where’s
the proof that you worship demons like I do, that you want to roll back
centuries of progress and end Western civilization so you can make a go of it
as top predator in the jungle? Where’s the mayhem and mass destruction from
these phony anarchists?
“Again, the feminized weaklings claim they want women to be second-class citizens, to keep them at
home raising children where they belong. But when have they proved their
contempt for a woman by raping one? What’s that, you say? Never? Yeah, that’s
because the Republicans are pantywaists.
“Sure, the US is more savage than Canada or Europe, but it’s
no Columbia, Somalia, or Congo. You can really get some work done applying conservative
principles in a lawless country like one of those. Give me Afghanistan any day
over this socialist dystopia, the United States.”
I know this is satire but it's important to note the difference between real libertarians (libertarian socialists) and anarchists, and anarcho-capitalists and American libertarians. Most anarchists do not promote a society without social order but one without social hierarchy. A real anarchist would promote a cooperative socialist economy and a direct democracy.
ReplyDeleteI'm sure you're right that there are these technical distinctions between various sorts of libertarian or anarchistic views. I'm talking about anarchism in the basic sense, meaning the view that government should be abolished and replaced by the free cooperation of individuals. Anarchists would have to get around the practical Law of Oligarchy or else a government, that is, a centralization of power, would form organically, to manage the group for the more efficient fulfillment of their interests. This is what happened in the Soviet Union and it would have happened to the Occupy Wall St movement, if only that movement would have become effective.
DeleteLibertarians say they want government only for military defense and protection of private property. So they're not intentionally anarchists. However, their small-government view amounts to anarchism, because such a country would descend into anarchy and rebellion, as in the case of certain African dictatorship. With no effective social safety net, the predators would drain the masses of their wealth and thus of their control over their lives, and a social dominance hierarchy would indeed be consolidated for biological reasons, because we're still animals. So government would serve the alphas (oligarchs) and the betas and omegas would be living in individualistic, anarchistic chaos. They would eventually revolt, take down the "government," and you'd have a more completely failed state rather than just the partially failed one that libertarians have in mind.
Right, American libertarians do not actually want to abolish the state. They want a minarchist nightwatchmen state with just enough overreach to fund police and military. A left-libertarian would criticize an American "libertarian" by saying that he wants a military and a police force only to protect the ruling class against a worker's revolt. Here's an article describing how classical liberals high-jacked the term "libertarian":
Deletehttp://libertyandsocialism.org/2012/05/11/a-libertarian-socialist-critique-of-the-libertarian-party-and-ron-paul/#comment-36785
"However, their small-government view amounts to anarchism, because such a country would descend into anarchy and rebellion, as in the case of certain African dictatorship"
ReplyDeleteThat's an extrapolation verging on hyperbola. The less government is correlated with anarchy model is based more on fear than verifiable data. Strictly opinion, not logic. African nations were never libertarians before their descent into anarchy. The anarchy came from the pure power vacuum during governmental change because unlike theory, reality doesn't change on a dime. An apples and oranges argument.
I think you mean hyperbole.
DeleteWell, as I understand it, there are no data here because the theory of libertarianism has never been tried by any country. This is because the theory of libertarianism has counterfactual economic assumptions which amount to theological dogmas, and so libertarianism is strictly a utopian fairy tale. The con, then, is to say that a country is on the right track to libertarianism, while the ideal is never reachable, so that in the interim insiders can make up as they go along the needed changes to bring about the equivalent of the Kingdom of God in which everyone gets what they deserve, thanks to the self-adjusting market that operates with no human management.
What libertarians don't acknowledge but surely appreciate is that nature steps up to the plate when humans sit on the bench. Some of the natural processes that would take over in a minimally regulated state would be the Law of Oligarchy, which is the centralization of power to allow the leaders to effectively manage the country as a whole and to prevent the country's fragmentation and an outbreak of anarchy; the sociobiological formation of dominance hierarchies; and the corruption of the leaders by their concentrated power. Those aren't just matters of opinion, since they're the naturally default social dynamics. So the less artificial and intelligently-designed the system, due for example to the shrinking of government and a religious faith in the godlike attributes of a free marketplace, the more such natural dynamics will determine the outcome.
This is already happening in the US, since parts of the US economy are effectively unregulated (e.g. the tax code is enormous but that's by design, since it benefits those who are rich enough to exploit its loopholes). As a result, the US is looking a lot like a Third World country, with the main difference being that the US is a plutocracy rather than a dictatorship. Whether Americans will rebel and descend into anarchy remains to be seen, but the poorest parts of the US are already effectively anarchical. For example, the US prison system is corrupt so that poor people don’t have anything like equal protection under the law.
Hyperbole it is. You've said a lot there, I still haven't found the direct correlation between smaller government and anarchy in them. just a few comments.
Delete"This is because the theory of libertarianism has counterfactual economic assumptions which amount to theological dogmas, and so libertarianism is strictly a utopian fairy tale.."
Simply a well crafted opinion, because if you look at it
factually, EVERY system of government is a fairy tale. On paper, they're all "perfect" aren't they? But as imperfect as they all are, you still can't say democracies fall into anarchy at any greater/lesser rate than dictatorships or socialist, communist countries. So to define any one as imperfect, therefore inclined to decline is not objective. There are other dynamics, like "what you have to sell the world" that factor in there ore heavily than political system.
"What libertarians don't acknowledge but surely appreciate is that nature steps up to the plate when humans sit on the bench. Some of the natural processes that would take over in a minimally regulated state would be the Law of Oligarchy, which is the centralization of power to allow the leaders to effectively manage the country as a whole and to prevent the country's fragmentation and an outbreak of anarchy;"
There's anarchy again. What's nature got to do with it, got to do with it? This is a human process, more social than natural. Nature couldn't care less how you rule yourselves. Furthermore, some argue that this country has NEVER been more than an Oligarchy. So to introduce it as some kind of "new condition' that would come into play is kind of circular reasoning. Introducing a Condition that currently exists to calculate the future value of something that is predicated on it yet also uses that calculated value to define the Condition itself.
"For example, the US prison system is corrupt so that poor people don’t have anything like equal protection under the law. '
Seems kind of peripheral to the discussion but as you well know the prison system has always been corrupt. Justice is now as it has always been since...forever, biased towards the elite as defined by the time. That's not new...anywhere in the world, so who's getting utopian now? (harkening back to your earlier description of libertarians). However, prosperity seems unaffected over the past century even factoring in the corruption of the prison system. We are currently a nation who incarcerates the largest percent of our citizens and relative to the world, we are considered prosperous. Prosperity is relative and having been to the 3rd World I can assure you that the U.S. is nothing like that. Even Appalachia.
Poverty is a problem in this country, sure. But comparing our poverty to that of the third world is like anyone who compares his political opponent to Hitler. Also, to assume that revolt equals anarchy is kind of a harsh vision of reality in the 21st century U.S. An archaic view, limited in scope when you consider the education level of even our poor people as opposed to the third world.
I could comment about your assumption that "we" view the free market with godlike powers and other unsubstantiated comments because I realize you are writing for effect. Pretty words they are, but seriously anyone over the age of 30 ceased holding anything man made as godlike in their teens. We learned early...there ARE no absolutes in this world. Sorry.
. I think you are mixing poverty models in an effort to make a point that appears logically following. But, that's just MY opinion.
Other political theories have been applied in various countries, so we know how reality differs from the idealizations in the non-libertarian theories. But libertarianism hasn't been applied, as this article points out:
Deletehttp://www.salon.com/2013/06/04/the_question_libertarians_just_cant_answer/
The libertarian idealizations I'm talking about are those in the economic theory of the free market, about rationality and how the market is self-regulating so that it reaches a happy equilibrium. That mathematical part of libertarianism is theological.
I've written elsewhere about how dominance hierarchies, the law of oligarchy, and corruption by power are default social dynamics. For example, dominance hierarchies are natural because they're found in almost all social species. It's these sorts of harsh natural truths that the theological part of libertarianism doesn't come to grips with.
I'm not the only one to start comparing the US to a Third World country. Check out the articles below. Even Joe Biden said a NY airport is like a Third World country.
http://www.salon.com/2013/12/10/look_at_the_stats_america_resembles_a_poor_country_partner/
http://www.activistpost.com/2010/08/10-signs-us-is-becoming-third-world.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/steven-strauss/america-third-world_b_1531492.html
http://www.governing.com/columns/eco-engines/gov-why-does-our-infrastructure-resemble-third-world.html
http://www.thenation.com/article/174453/how-america-became-third-world-country