Saturday, October 12, 2013

How Elites View "The System" and How Libertarians Can Change It

By, Chris Rossini

Robert Reich recently typed up a puff piece on the American system of government. You see, to the the establishment elites, there is nothing more important than to "maintain the system" or to keep "the status quo".

While the average American is feeling the heat, the political elites have never had it better.

Reich displays the language that is required to keep the people positive about this:
While most Americans don’t like big government, Americans revere our system of government.
Ok, right off the bat, it must be stated for all the new people, that the U.S. government is the biggest government to ever occupy the Earth. It's not even close. So the "system" that Reich thinks Americans "revere," has produced that.

Do Americans really "revere" it? I'm not so sure about that claim either. I've never heard a regular person in my daily life sing hosannas about the government. They definitely love the results of the marketplace. They love the abundance of goods and services that are available. But that's not a result of the "system" of government by any stretch of the imagination. That's despite it!

The imagination cannot even ponder how much bigger the abundance of goods and services would be if we didn't have the government albatross on our backs.
Government itself has never been popular in America except during palpable crises such as war or deep depression.
That's a very telling statement, considering that just about my entire life, the U.S. government has been at war. And when I look back at the decades that preceded my birth, it was at war then as well! So, if that's when the government is "popular," it has obviously been the King of The Prom for a very very long time.
The nation was founded in a revolution against an abusive government...and that distrust is in our genes. The Constitution reflects it. Which is why it’s hard for government to do anything very easily.
The Secession (not Revolution...the American colonists were not trying to overthrow the British Crown) of 1776 was against a government that was a peanut compared to ours. King George III couldn't even fathom the level of taxation and intrusion into American daily lives that our current government exerts.

The Constitution, which was written up in secret in the Philadelphia coup, was not a representation of 1776 Secession. Some of the biggest patriots from 1776 were witnessing their revolution of Liberty turned into an instrument of Power. Needless to say, just a couple of hundred years later, they were right.

And who is Reich trying to kid when he says The Constitution makes it "hard for government to do anything very easily"? Does his audience consist of 2nd graders?

The government seems to do whatever it pleases, almost all of the time. Resistance may appear from time to time (as in the recently thwarted attack on Syria) but those instances are very rare.

And massive public resistance doesn't always work either. The opposition to TARP was just as strong. No one wanted it, and the phones were ringing off the hook in Congress. But guess what? The bankers got their bailout. The public be damned.
No one likes big government. If you’re on the left, you worry about the military-industrial-congressional complex that’s spending zillions of dollars creating new weapons of mass destruction, spying on Americans, and killing innocents abroad. And you don’t like government interfering in your sex life, telling you how and when you can have an abortion, whom you can marry. If you’re on the right, you worry about taxes and regulations stifling innovation, out-of-control bureaucrats infringing on your freedom, and government deficits as far as the eye can see.
For Robert Reich to say that "No one likes big government" is the pinnacle of irony. Read his column and you'll quickly see why. And the left/right facade that he constructed there is all smoke and mirrors, designed to make it look like there's a difference between the two.

The reason? People like to believe that they have a choice when they vote. It's human nature not to resist a single individual telling you what to do. But if the appearance of choice exists, it pacifies that resistance.

Contrary to Reich's claims, it is extremely obvious to many (though not enough) that both Republicans and Democrats expand all of Reich's listed abuses. They're a tag-team that switches up every few years.

Watch out when someone different comes along; and especially if they sound like someone from the secession of 1776....like Ron Paul?.....BLACKOUT...He doesn't exist.
While most of us distrust government, we’re indelibly proud of our system of government. We like to think it’s just about the best system in the world. We don’t much like politicians but we canonize the Founding Fathers, the Framers of the Constitution. And we revere the fading parchment on which the Constitution is written. When we pledge allegiance to the United States we bind ourselves to that system of government. Anyone who seeks to overthrow or undermine that system is deemed a traitor.
Lots of good stuff to finish this off.

First, when the government has the kids until they're 18 years old in their "schools," is it any wonder that people think that this is the "best system in the world". Then, when everyone comes home at night and turns on the FCC licensed media that spout the same line, should there be any surprise?

Here's a tip about "systems" by the way. If it works to increase and concentrate power, then the elites will latch onto it. And they can call the system whatever they want. History shows that every name and combination has been tried. Evidently, since the U.S. government is the biggest and most powerful ever, it must mean that "democracy" and "representative republic" are fantastic!!

Finally, there's a reason why Reich focuses on one "fading parchment" (the Constitution) and completely ignores the other (The Declaration of Independence). You see, in the Declaration, there are no signs of "pledging allegiance" to anything, and if you fail to do so, it means you're a "traitor".

In the Declaration it states:
That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it...
Reich is not into those "Founding Fathers". Those guys can go into the dustbin.

Fortunately, there is a silver lining. As long as libertarians keep spreading the message of liberty, those "Founding Founders" will not be relegated to the dustbin, and their libertarian secession will not be a flash in the pan in the long history of tyranny.

We have a tool that was not available to libertarians in the past, known as the Internet. This lifejacket does an end-around the government's "schools" and FCC licensed media. However, the powers-that-be are coming for it hard, so it should not be taken for granted.

If the U.S. government is ever to change in the direction of liberty, it surely will not be through the force of arms (nor should it be since libertarians believe in peace). The far more powerful and lasting way is to spread the ideas of liberty.

We have the tools to do just that....Seize them!


Follow @ChrisRossini on Twitter

23 comments:

  1. As is entirely appropriate and welcomed, Chris Rossini masterfully shreds the blowhard Reich. Angry birds never blasted a globalist piggy more effectively.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Why the rage against the elites? Who will own the private roads when Austrian policies are adapted? Why the love for the Constitution? When Austrian policies are adopted, power will rest in the hands of people who are not limited in any way by the Bill of Rights, or the 14th Amendment.

    Let's use some common sense here. The Koch Bros have done more than anyone to promote the Austrian School of Economics. Now is this because they are simply lovers of liberty and care about their fellow man? They donate a lot of money to charity. Maybe it is. That would make them unusual capitalists. Most capitalists primarily want to make more money and have more power.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "Most [elites] primarily want to make more money and have more power."

      Fixed it for you. You diatribe above is a perfect description of politicians.

      But that's not the real question. The real question is: Have you figured out the difference between the debt and the deficit?

      Delete
    2. As usual, off the mark. The Koch Bros have done more than anyone to undermine the Austrian School of Economics.

      Also note that most socialists primarily want to take more money and have more power.

      Delete
    3. Why the rage?

      Because these "court intellectuals" who's writings are disseminated widely by the corporate- state press are the "intellectual body guard" to the state. They defend the state in order to benefit from the state.
      Their books get published and become required texts in the schools and universities throughout the country. They get on television and radio promoting one state scheme after another.

      A few themes are embedded in all their works. Distrust individuals and don't think for yourself. Trust officials and PHD holders to make decisions for you. Trust their narratives; don't question them. Distrust the public and the market, but trust monopolies as the ultimate and absolute problem solver.

      For their efforts, they get praise from the same press that highers them, and from the politicians and officials who they wax gloriously about in their writings. This helps their careers immeasurably and gives the police state the academic legitimacy it must have to continue existing.

      Delete
    4. So much fodder, so little time.

      "The Koch Bros have done more than anyone to promote the Austrian School of Economics." Yes, you can't go anywhere without hearing the Koch brothers singing hosannas to Von Mises and Rothbard. It's disturbing in its pervasiveness.

      "Most capitalists primarily want to make more money and have more power". Unlike the selfless politicians you so revere; their only concern being the downtrodden as anyone can attest.

      Delete
    5. The Koch brothers: the dead horse the left socialists keep kicking.

      Delete
    6. Anyone who thinks the Kock's a libertarians are extremely naive. Either that or just plain stupid.

      Delete
    7. JWolf, tell us another joke!

      The Kochs HATE Rothbard and the Austrians. They are LINOs (Libertarians in name only) and are useful by the elite to paint Real Libertarians as elitist rich white straight males.

      They use their wealth to get the government to give them special treatment- something abhorrent to real libertarians.

      I wish you were smart enough to actually debate. Why don't you ever come back and try to refute criticism, or debate the issue?

      Perhaps you are too cowardly, like most socialists?

      Delete
    8. Ah yes, there we have that infamous strawman "The Koch Brothers" again, a bunch of crony capitalists no true libertarian would ever mistake for lovers of individual liberty (beyond which suit their purposes).
      The Koch Brothers love Austrian economics so much, they just love contributing to the campaigns of Keynesian politicians (like Mitt Romney) while utterly IGNORING the one politician that actually espouses Austrian economics (Ron Paul).

      Leftists are so pathetic in their utter twisting of the facts, in order to make them fit their so-called "criticism" of the genuine free market. What would they say if they didn't have the Koch Brothers pinata to beat over and over again.
      Fortunately we hear these critics of capitalism, greed, and cronyism really lay into the likes of Warren Buffet, George Soros, and Bill Gates...NOT.
      After all, while they may be lining their pockets at the expense of the lower classes, at least they pay lip service to social democracy. And that's all that counts right? Not REALITY, but wishful thinking and pipe dreams.

      Delete
    9. Rick,

      Types like Jerry argue on the basis of lies and emotions. They're not coming back to debate because debate is never their intention. What is pathetic is that his trolling would only be effective among his own kind, whereas here he is just the butt of a running gag. But he doesn't seem to mind.

      Delete
  3. Keep trolling Jerry, keep trolling....

    ReplyDelete
  4. It is disappointing that most of the comments to this insightful article are reactions to a misdirection.

    Fortunately, like the Internet, the samizdat destroyed the arguments for Communism no matter how many times the elites tried to change the subject.

    ReplyDelete
  5. I do not understand why libertarians view the Constitution so dismally. Perhaps it is a case of making the perfect the enemy of the good. For 220 some years average Americans enjoyed more liberty than almost any other peoples who inhabited the earth. Most libertarians should view a return of government size and principles to roughly what we had in 1900 as a positive development: GDP - 95% private, secret courts - prohibited, recognized Federal police powers - nearly nil.

    Now I understand that the edifice fell, it all went bad, and that may have been due to some flaws in the design, but the design was largely intact for hundreds of years. But those who say the Constitutional Convention was usurped by a cabal to gain vast power - well it took 200 plus years for a level of governmental power equal; to primitive despots to manifest itself. To see the difference in citizen freedom in say 1950 and citizen freedom in most other than existent countries is breathtaking.

    Libertarians think that they have "on paper" a plan that will endure forever (never tried) - but in actuality the design of America has endured to maximize individual liberty longer than any plan yet put into effect

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This libertarian doesn't have an "on paper" plan. Nor do I think I need one. Try again.

      Delete
    2. Gradually turn up the heat and the frog won't jump out of the pot.

      Delete
    3. Most libertarians would view a return to the government of 1900 as a positive step: no 16th Amendment, no Federal Reserve, no alphabet soup of executive agencies and rule by executive order. That doesn't negate the fact that the Constitution was a secretive step backwards for liberty, as Patrick Henry and other anti-Federalists of the time warned.

      The Constitution enables all sorts of mischief, with its strengthening of executive powers, its vague language (see the Commerce clause for one particularly egregious example), its lack of clarity on the division of powers which enabled the mini coup d'etat that was Marbury v. Madison. The past 224 years provides more than enough evidence that the cause of liberty would have been much better served by leaving the Articles intact.

      Delete
    4. "I do not understand why libertarians view the Constitution so dismally. "

      Because it was intended from the start to subvert liberty, in the interests of an elite.

      "Perhaps it is a case of making the perfect the enemy of the good."

      Since the constitution have NEVER really been respected by the government, why settle for a good fiction rather than a perfect ideal?

      "For 220 some years average Americans enjoyed more liberty than almost any other peoples who inhabited the earth."

      That's like saying: settle for a nice beat down by thugs, because there are people out there getting tortured. You are making an argument from totalitarianism.

      "Most libertarians should view a return of government size and principles to roughly what we had in 1900 as a positive development: GDP - 95% private, secret courts - prohibited, recognized Federal police powers - nearly nil."

      So? Are we seeing such a return anytime soon? No? Then why settle for this fiction instead of going much much further? If you don't have either, why not work for the best option?

      "Now I understand that the edifice fell, it all went bad, and that may have been due to some flaws in the design, but the design was largely intact for hundreds of years."

      There were no "flaws". What you call flaws were by design. America has been a mercantilist state from the start (read "Our Enemy the State" by Albert Jay Nock). And this "design" was NOT largely intact for hundreds of years. Ever heard of the Whiskey rebellion? Shay's rebellion? Ever heard of the civil war? The constitution has NEVER meant anything in terms of checks on power (just ask Abe Lincoln).

      "well it took 200 plus years for a level of governmental power equal; to primitive despots to manifest itself."

      No thanks to the constitution, but thanks to 'realistic' despots who knew you couldn't just start tyrannizing people without risking a revolt. You don't want to blow up the frog. You want to slowly cook it so it won't jump away. You want to keep a people pacified so they stay productive. The state cannot fund its system without milking a productive people.

      "To see the difference in citizen freedom in say 1950 and citizen freedom in most other than existent countries is breathtaking."

      You are again making an argument from totalitarianism. Quite frankly, if the people here weren't so awake of this type of logic, i'd suggest you were trying to lull them into thinking that government itself is a good thing. That is has just been "hijacked" by the wrong people and all we need to do is just go back to those good ole days of the 50s, which ironically, were AFTER the reign of FDR (and the New Deal), which makes your argument seem even more naive.

      "Libertarians think that they have "on paper" a plan that will endure forever (never tried) - but in actuality the design of America has endured to maximize individual liberty longer than any plan yet put into effect"

      WRONG. For the reasons stated above. And it's kind of hard to put a "plan" into effect when there is a monopoly of violence, whose interests lay in keeping its power and destroying anyone threatening it.
      Your reasoning is both factually and historically wrong, illogical and at points downright stupid.

      Delete
    5. Is a document written 230 years ago our last great step in the evolution of governance? Or is there a better way?

      Delete
    6. Apparently one of the lessons to be learned from the American Experiment is that a written constitution setting limits on the power of the governors is eventually interpreted by the governors to impose no limit on themselves. Witness "regulate commerce among the States" becomes "regulate any private action that could effect commerce". It's obviously an interpretation that is not in good faith, the sentence is a blanket grant of power interpreted the latter way.

      Now if you take one group with power and you set their interests up against another group with power you have a more effective limitation than a written instruction set. So tripartite government and the States/Federal bifurcation of power probably did more to preserve liberty in America than written rules alone. Direct election of Senators and the Administrative State ended all that. I view that as directly dismantling the Constitutional scheme.

      Delete
    7. "Is a document written 230 years ago our last great step in the evolution of governance? "

      The document was written to safeguard economic interests of American mercantilists against discriminatory policies by English mercantilism serving rulers. Almost immediately after the war of independence, America's elite started demanding a strong, centrally governed government. The "independence" was only meant vis-a-vis England. A weak government was never truly the intention, in so far as they couldn't benefit from it.
      Therefor, it was never meant to be an "evolution" of governance. NO governance is supposed to be an evolution. All governance is set up with only one goal in mind: serve the interests of the powerful and exploit the productive classes. All nice sounding ideas like "individual liberty" or "democracy" are no more than tools to pacify the masses into conformity.

      The only better way is a society with an utter lack of political power. That is to say, an utter lack of a monopoly of aggressive force.

      Delete
  6. If Chris Rossini put out a white paper on how to write I would read it, whether it was liberty-themed or not.

    In fact, that might be a good idea. "Writing for Liberty: a PDF"

    ReplyDelete
  7. As I recall, Jefferson failed to object more strenuously to Marbury v. Madison because he didn't want to encourage Justice Marshall to tamper with the Louisiana Purchase. Can anyone clarify?

    Also, some years later, in Eakin v. Raub, the chief justice of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, when confronted by an appellant who reminded the judge of the judge's initial opposition to judicial review of an act of the legislature (the judge had voted to declare an act of the Pennsylvania legislature unconstitutional) commented that since the people seemed to have gone along with the results of Marbury v. Madison, the people, by default, had more or less validated the court's power of judicial review.

    ReplyDelete