Letter to a Right-Winger

Workers create value; employers organize a workplace, but only when there is demand for products/services: employers DO NOT CREATE JOBS. Governments create jobs more directly than most investors. And produce value, like census data, standard weights and measures, highways, civil peace, international stability. If you want to know what it's like without government, look at Somalia.

You need taxes to pay for collective values. People with wealth, and owners of businesses benefit more from these collective goods than those who live in ghettos, or under bridges. So, they should pay more. Currently, they don't pay their fair share.

The current tax system is more skewed in favor of the rich than it has been since the 1920's. The money created from economic growth should not all go to the investor, but 95% of all increased value since 2008 has gone to investors, not workers. Is that a fair distribution of value? When you tax, or even if you don't tax, you distribute wealth.

While employers may play some positive role in providing goods and services, investors are much less important, since there is an abundance of capital in the world. Why do you think interest rates can be kept so low? Investment should not be valued more highly than people's work, but that is exactly what our current tax system does. It's unjust (capital gains or "carried interest" at 15%, work: 20-35%). Our current system steals value from workers and transfers it to investors. That's Robin Hood in reverse, and that's what Obama proposes to undo.

If we continue along the same path of taxing investors lightly, then we'll end up like a Third World country with a small wealthy class and a poor, desperate class. Don't be surprised if we end up not with a moderate Obama, but with a revolutionary like Venezuela's Chavez, who gained political traction because of the extremes of wealth and poverty in Venezuela. My mother's family lives there behind doors that look like safe vaults!

In Sweden and Canada, people don't have to lock their doors even in Stockholm and Toronto, because those countries have fairer taxes and higher levels of equality.

Do you want people desperate, or relatively satisfied and willing to support the status quo? If you want stability and civil peace, you have to pay for it. If you have more, then you should pay more: you've benefited disproportionately. Does a black son of a waitress in a central city have your advantages? He struggles not because he's lazy, or stupid, but because our system intensifies his disadvantages; it should eliminate them.

Obama is no revolutionary Robin Hood; he's attempting to rectify a system that favors only a tiny proportion of the population. If that imbalance continues it will impoverish us all, not enrich us--except for the tiny few, like the Roman Senators of Fifth Century Rome prior to the Empire's collapse.

When Government is Small Enough

We've heard a lot about the conservatives' drive to cut government spending, and functions. Famously Grover Norquist said that his aim was to make government small enough that he could "drown it in a bathtub."

In other words, the ideal was no government at all. It's an interesting idea, especially since we see examples of it in various places around the world.

Somalia, for example. In Somalia, there is a government, but its writ is extremely limited even in the capital city of Mogadishu. Nevertheless, the US and the UN are supporting it--even though it has been caught using child soldiers in its national army. But there is virtually no security, except in some of the rebel-held areas, where strict, extremely brutal "sharia" law is arbitrarily enforced. If someone is starving, and he grabs a loaf of bread, having no money--there is no viable currency--he could have a hand and foot hacked off by al Shabaab, a fundamentalist insurgent group.

So, if you travel in Somalia, you need at least a couple of bodyguards, armed (at least) with AK47's. If you want to send a letter out of the country, you're out of luck. If you're near one of the local businessmen-warlords, who has a local private mail service, you might be able to send a letter within parts of Somalia.

If you want to send your children to school, in most of the country you'll just have to forget about it. One of the reasons for Somali piracy is that there is no security for the nation's fishing areas, so the international fishing industry has moved in, and the Somalis make a living by commandeering unprotected shipping. It's become a big business.

Nations without governance for large parts of their territories are vulnerable to freelance armies like the LRA (Lord's Resistance Army), which bills itself as a rebellion to replace Uganda's government with a Christian theocracy, but ranges over four nations, killing, raping, looting, and recruiting boys to fight and girls as sex slaves. The LRA reminds me of the worst aspects of medieval freelance armies: it really isn't interested in holding territory, simply in maintaining (and enriching) itself. It has ranged free for years, because northern Uganda, southern Sudan, Central African Republic and DR Congo have large territories without government control. The LRA is like Attila's Huns.

The Congo has also been vulnerable, especially its eastern territories, to the same kind of freelance armies (a lot of them): government hardly functions there. Africa (and other ungoverned parts of the world) are like the period during and after the fall of Rome in Europe, when barbarian hordes roamed free, ripped off whatever they could carry, killed any resisters, recruited malcontents and kept on moving. That era has been labeled "the Dark Ages."

They illustrate what No government looks like. Is that what Grover wants?

Gulf of Mexico: Only Oil Wells!

Gee, why don't we just write off the Gulf of Mexico as anything but an oil production site? Why stop drilling?

We've already committed ecocide there. Dead zones all over the place as oil and gas escape at huge volumes from BP's blowout. They'll continue to spread and there doesn't seem to be any end in sight. Even if the first relief well succeeds in tapping into the blown-out well, there is still the possibility that BP won't be able to plug it, and we won't even know if that's a success until August--if more hurricanes don't disrupt the process until after the hurricane season (June-November).

So, we should simply write off the whole non-oil Gulf Coast economy. Just open the whole Gulf to extensive oil drilling, and who cares if there are more blow outs? America needs the oil. Isn't that what Republicans, tea-partiers and others are saying? We can't have a moratorium! Oil drillers' jobs will be lost.

Since we've already screwed the Gulf, we might as well just continue doing it. Shrimpers, et al, aren't going to recover for years, so expand the oil patch and hire them as oil drillers.

We should not, under any circumstances, sanction those poor oil companies: they have so much on their plates, and if we look cross-eyed at them, why they might go and despoil the Nigerian delta, instead.

Oh. They already have.

Well, all the more reason why all oil-drilling regulations and limitations should be removed. We're competing with Nigeria, but we want the oil in our backyard. Who cares if a little bit is spilled?

Is anyone calculating the effects of the trillions of cubic feet of methane being released by the blowout? Will it accelerate global warming? But then there is no such thing. One of my favorite right-wing bloggers warns that the criminal conspirators who control the world--including Obama's White House, of course--have decided that they haven't been able to sell global warming, so they'll try to persuade everyone that the real danger is Global Cooling!

Now, if it's global cooling, then the oil spew disaster is no disaster, at all: it helps solve the problem. It releases huge quantities of methane into the atmosphere, thereby helping to hold in the precious heat this planet is in danger of losing. And polluting industries, cars, etc. all help stave off the imminent ice age.

Now that we've solved that problem, let's move on to the financial system: obviously, there should be no regulation of those poor banks. Who knows how much profits Goldman would lose!

Right-wingers unite! You have nothing to lose but your tenuous grip on reality! Somalia is our new model: no government at all.