Anarchy Right and Left

I read a right-wing paean for anarchy in a libertarian newsletter; it was mirrored by a left-wing article expressing disgust--at corporate anarchy!

The pro-anarchist rhapsodizes about how 'mates' helped each other in the Australian floods, volunteering by the thousands--and then the government comes in, hunts for looters, restores law and order, and worst of all, collects taxes: end of paradise, the renewal of theft.

The leftist describes how the corporations are running Washington, and do the same thing--siphon off the people's wealth--with government collusion, bought and paid for.

So, is it the government, or is it corporations?

Conservative anarchists assume that all taxation is theft. Government service, to them, is an oxymoron. Nothing government does has any economic value. They assume that everything should be provided by 'business.' So, private roads and military would be more efficient? Would every road be a toll road?

What anarchists ignore, are the 300 pound gorillas on the loose, all over the world--the global corporations. Wouldn't they mind if corporations ruled everyone's lives without any government oversight, or intervention? Wouldn't they mind the toxic pharmaceuticals, dangerous toys, dangerous roads, dangerous cars, and above all, dangerous banks?

Why do conservatives, more generally, think that less government, or no government is preferable? These aren't the days of Daniel Boone. Now, there are huge, powerful private institutions--as well as a lot of crooks--predators: human and institutional. Will corporations protect you from other corporations? Their only rationale is greater profit. Ultimately, government's motive (in a democracy) is to please enough voters so that its elected leaders get reelected.

The profit motive does make private enterprise efficient, but there are examples of better government-provided outcomes: health care and utilities abroad and in municipalities are only two. But there are many functions that only a government should do: maintain order, maintain means of transportation, i.e. roads, airports, city streets, public health, ensure that the marketplace is not a shark-pit and then, there's also defense. Should we fire the Pentagon and hire Blackwater/Xe?

That I would go for: dismantle the Pentagon, then don't renew Xe's contract. But seriously, there are a lot of issues that the left and right see in tantalizingly parallel ways.

Doesn't everyone get impatient with bureaucracy? But it's both government and corporate, isn't it. The major difference is that government legalese is usually of legible size.

What we're really facing here is the takeover of corporate gangsters, who buy the government, or enough of its members so that they can continue siphoning off Americans' wealth, regardless of the hardship. Raise taxes on the middle class and poor (Sales taxes, real estate taxes) and cut income taxes on the rich, and on the corporations, from which they derive their wealth. License corporations to do everything, and profit handsomely.

I present to you the Selfish Class, the title of a book you'll find on the referenced site.

Next Right-wing Target

They anticipate that their dirty deal with Obama is sealed, and will pass even in the Democratic House. Why Democrats will pass such a monster is another question.

So, right-wingers are pleased about the $700-800 billion in income tax breaks for those who don't need it--people earning over $250,000 a year. They also are moderately pleased with the Estate Tax deal, in which estates under $5 million will be exempt, and the rate above that is lowered to 35%. Actually, many right-wingers want to eliminate the estate tax altogether. They don't call it the "Death Tax" for nothing. Under Bush, they had put in place the budget-busting Medicare Part D, which is lavish to big Pharma, as well as the tax cuts now being renewed.

So, what is their next target? They are mobilizing to prevent the GOP from supporting "compromise" on the debt ceiling. It's currently at $14.3 trillion.

That looks like a large number, and it is, but the US keeps on bumping up against whatever ceiling is current law; it has been for years--except during Clinton's last two years.

Before the Great Recession, the biggest and fastest addition to the debt was during the Bush II administration. Trillions in debt were added from the two unjustified wars, the two rounds of tax cuts and the unfunded Medicare Part D.

The recession, as recessions always do, caused the debt to rise further, because the unemployed and/or defaulted homeowner is unlikely to pay income tax, but aid to both means the government has to borrow. Would it be better to let people starve in the streets? Or sink into a depression?

Right-wingers seem to think so. They don't expect to be the ones who do the starving. They apparently assume that if people don't have jobs, it's their own faults--after all, jobs are listed in newspapers and online, so why aren't people working? They have it too easy with unemployment insurance! Those stupid Democrats wanted unemployment benefits extended; it was the lever Republicans used to get their way.

However, if the government runs out of money, it won't pay unemployment. To stop the government from borrowing will, effectively, stop the government from operating.

Why do right-wingers want this?

There is much rhetoric in right-wing venues about the damage government does. Their assumption is that a coming period of stalemate will be a good thing: it will stop that African Socialist, Obama, from expanding government programs and regulations. It will also demonstrate what right-wingers believe: government can't do anything right. If they can hamstring government until the 2012 election, then right-wingers can regain power.

But they don't appear to care if, in the process, they drive the US into a depression. If they succeed, the US will lose the dollar's reserve status. Then, goodbye American Empire.