Liberty or Deaf (pt. 2)

The second half of this update will further explore the incompatibility of corporations with a free market, as well as the insanity that is the Far-Right fringe in America. Also: For comedic purposes I will be posting information about Kid Rock next to a picture of a hideous abandoned chihuahua.

"Never in living memory has a single individual embodied so many negative stereotypes as Kid Rock. Kid is a perfect storm of every pro-eugenics argument."

 While these modern Libertarians often bemoan corporate regulations and taxation as redistributionist, anti-capitalist, and success punishing examples of government activism that are targeted at destroying the free market, this view ignores the major premise that corporations are, by their very nature, State-manufactured creatures. Given that the existence of corporations, artificial creatures endowed by the State with legal rights and protections, can only be possible with significant government interference in the free market to begin with, it would be nonsensical to claim a Libertarian defense with regards to their regulation after having already set an arbitrary baseline that allows for significant State interference in the market (Crane, 2005).

Additionally, the Conservative-Libertarian argument that government market regulations infringe on individual liberty relies on the selective reasoning that only the government has the ability to engage in coercion, when in reality any large concentration of power, such as an artificial entity granted exclusive power and privilege by the government, may do so (Crane, 2005). This is as true for large corporations as it is for private militia, private police forces, illegal cartels, and organized crime syndicates. The accurate Libertarian stance in all of these instances is that it is the State's almost exclusive responsibility to protect individual liberty from such coercive and authoritarian concentrations of power.

"After hearing American Bad Ass I thought 'Finally! Uneducated, violent, meth addict white supremacists have found their champion in Kid Rock!'"

The current American system of State-capitalism, or corporatism, is fundamentally authoritarian, as it funnels capital into the hands of a select few, who then use their power and influence to minimize competition and immunize themselves from failure in an increasingly exclusive and unassailable shell of corporate welfare and government protection (Goetting, 2010). This involves any number of mechanisms that either protect corporate interests at the expense of individual liberty or selectively favor certain corporations over others.

This system of corporatism, viewed from a Libertarian standpoint, is inherently flawed in that it self-corrects only where increasing profits and market dominance are concerned, the long term effects of which invariably lead to less competition, lower wages, and, once a certain level of success is reached, an ever-decreasing possibility of failure, all of which are antithetical to a free market. Such a system cannot act individually and will not act collectively to promote individual liberty (Chomsky, 2002).

This trend is not, as with authoritarian government power structures, caused by individual inequity, greed, or corruption, but is a mechanism enforced by the system itself. Individual corporate acts, undertaken by the CEO or Board of Directors, that seek to promote competition, equality or the betterment of the market or society as a whole are routinely weeded out to protect the corporation from market loss, takeover, and failure. This is accomplished by the gradual process of egalitarian management being superseded by officers that will act more in accordance with the shareholders' desires, which are collectively divorced from the well-being of society as a whole beyond the government regulations and employment laws that Right-Libertarians are currently lobbying against.

 "It's not that Kid Rock steals beats from good songs to 'sing' and 'rap' over, or that his non-retarded lyrics are just clumsy references to much better artists. It's that he sells records that are nothing but that!"



When corporate officers are allowed to continue acting for the good of society and not the good of the corporation for any length of time, then the corporation almost invariably suffers for it, and if it does not soon fail in the cutthroat market of corporatism, it will be so weakened that it will usually be either bought out or taken over by another corporation that is better able to fulfill its primary functions: to increase stakeholder profit, ensure market dominance, and minimize competition (Chomsky, 2002).

This authoritarian, coercive system masquerading in the guise and language of free market ideology is further exacerbated by the tendencies of those most opposed to such systems also being of the most politically dissatisfied and inactive socioeconomic classes, while the perception of public opinion is largely dictated by members of higher socioeconomic classes that place greater priority on the individualistic policies that most benefit themselves, than on equality-promoting policies that benefit society as a whole (Bobo, 1991). This has led to a self-perpetuating cycle in which those that stand to gain the most from a truly Libertarian market, the majority in the laboring class, become increasingly jaded and indifferent to market struggles and political representation and more acquiescent of exploitative and coercive practices, while those already benefiting the most from the current system are the most involved, have the greatest influence, routinely receive more favorable media attention, and have access to the resources necessary to influence policymakers and public opinion.

This trend does much to explain Tea Party Libertarian politicians and spokespersons that selectively defend policies that give unfair advantage to large, private concentrations of power (such as corporate person-hood and campaign contributions,) while attacking policies that protect individual liberty from those same concentrations of power (such as the calls for privatized public education and social security, or the abolition of minimum wage and child labor laws). Additionally, while the rhetoric used to defend these stances may sound like the same rhetoric used to argue for a small, limited government and to promote liberty, in practice it is merely shifting the power structure from a publicly accountable 
system to a private, unaccountable system. 

"It takes a unique kind of stupid to auto-tune yourself rapping over a country song and be proud of it. It's like a damaged toddler when they discover that feces can be used as paint."



While historically and globally Libertarianism is viewed as a Liberal political ideology, the language has been co-opted in the American political arena to be synonymous with far-Right Conservatism. This new far-Right movement has been found to be predominately composed of older, white males that largely identify as Republican or Republican-leaning (Williamson et al, 2010). Given that the Tea Party message, (contradictory claims, logical inconsistencies, and conflated terminology aside,) mirrors closely the Republican/Conservative message over the past thirty years it should come as no surprise that just beneath the free-market rhetoric and Libertarian language there exists a strong pro-corporate message. This pervasive conflation of laissez-faire free market language with corporate welfare and intervention on the behalf of big business has led to a large and increasing misunderstanding and misrepresentation of the Libertarian stance in American politics, and has rendered the true Libertarian stance effectively non-existent (Long, 2008).

The Tea Party arguments, inasmuch as they can be made sense of, seem to stem from a misunderstanding or outright perversion of the Libertarian concept of the free market, largely influenced by the writings of Adam Smith, and as such fail to account for the inevitable outcome of this form of unfettered capitalism. As Smith himself stated in 1776, when writing about the results of the division of labor in the system that would eventual become corporatism, that unless the laboring class is protected from exploitation in some way by their government, then eventually these private concentrations of wealth and power will lead to a stupid, ignorant, irrational and hopelessly corrupted laboring class.

These pro-corporatist arguments, largely made by informed politicians and pundits either intentionally misrepresenting or unintentionally misunderstanding the Libertarian stance, set the stage for far-Right Conservatism in America. These views have been reinforced in the public mind by Tea Partiers and other Conservative Libertarian groups, as well as pseudo-journalistic organizations with an unapologetically Conservative message, under even more nebulous, poorly-defined, and arbitrary concepts, such as 'freeloaders,' and 'hard-working taxpayers,' which seem to be applied based more on factors such as religion, race, nationality and physical appearance than on factors such as employment, welfare receipt, or tax bracket (Williamson et al, 2011). These beliefs, such as they are, seem to be based far more on straw-man arguments, moving goalposts, special pleading, conspiracy mongering, false dichotomies, jingoistic scapegoating, and appeals to emotion than on any sort of rational, well-reasoned, or even internally coherent and logically consistent arguments, goals, or philosophy drawn from the available facts. Given this, regardless of what individual Tea Party members may believe, as a whole the movement has been manipulated and spun, perhaps unwittingly, into the role of mouthpiece and shill for pro-corporatist, plutocratic policy hiding behind the language of small government fiscal conservatism.

While calling for a smaller and more limited government, particularly in the area of the market, these groups, although failing to address the inherent problems with corporatism as a whole, often speak out against government bailouts, such as the recent banking and auto industry crises. However, this narrow stance fails to address the more pervasive and invasive problems with the current Market/State dynamic, such as subsidies, eminent domain, grants of privilege or monopoly, selective tax breaks, excessive intellectual property laws, military intervention, and inflationary monetary policies (Long 2008). Beyond these examples of obvious government assistance, the state routinely implements prohibitive regulations, fees, and standards that have a disproportionate negative impact on smaller, less well-funded, and newer concerns than the giant, entrenched corporations that lobby for them (Long, 2008). 

 "I always wondered what the term was for a howlingly desperate and pointlessly rebellious attention whore that still manages to sound as homogenous, non-threatening, bland, and uninspired as a fast food jingle. It's 'Kid Rock' if you were curious."


Therefore, while the most likely outcome of the current corporate system, at least following the logic of the modern Conservative-Libertarian movement, would involve a smaller government, it would also be a more selective government that does less to protect individual liberty. The price for this, of course, would be greater concentrations of authoritative power and influence in the private market, hardly a favorable outcome for a group that claims to value individual liberty, self-ownership, and the level playing field of laissez-faire capitalism.

Self-sovereignty, the idea that an individual has absolute ownership of their own person, cannot be practiced in a system of hierarchical, authoritative power structures. Whether that power structure is an unaccountable government body or an unaccountable private institution that can only exist with the government's sanction is irrelevant, as the outcome invariably leads to less individual sovereignty the more exclusive and entrenched the power structure becomes.

Additionally, the principle of individual liberty, represented by voluntary association and free contract, is only possible in a non-coercive, competitive free market. This cannot be practiced in the current system of corporations, as choosing between death and sub-poverty servitude with no guarantee of security can not be said to be a decision free from coercion. Similarly, a market can only be said to be free if all participants are free to fail or succeed based on their individual merit. This is certainly not true in the current system, as evidenced by the decades long trend of corporate welfare, bailouts, and unequal tax breaks and subsidies, as well as stagnating wages for laborers, increased layoffs, rising income disparity, and the outsourcing of jobs overseas, while the management of those same companies report record profits and award seven figure bonuses to their corporate officers in a class of business that, in a market free from government interference, wouldn't exist.

Finally, while modern Tea Party Libertarians may call for smaller government, in actuality a limited, minimal governing body is antithetical to their own ideals, as those ideals rely on selectively defending policies that award unfair advantage to large, private concentrations of power at the expense of individual liberty. Similarly, while attacking policies viewed as intrusive and anti-capitalist, modern Libertarians are, in actuality, not calling for competition with the government in the fields of education and healthcare, but are rather seeking to privatize those concentrations of power through government sanctioned and protected grants of privilege and monopoly. The result of all of this, at least so far, has not been smaller government in the sense of a less powerful government accountable to a greater number of people, but a smaller government in the sense of a less accountable government controlled by fewer people that has, in effect, outsourced the public welfare to private institutions.

In conclusion, while groups such as the Tea Party Patriots and Americans For Prosperity, as well as their representatives in the public and private sectors, may use Libertarian language and free market ideology, in reality and practice this rhetoric is merely a misleading and confusing attempt on behalf of private corporations and their beneficiaries to impede the practice of such Libertarian principles as self-sovereignty, voluntary association, and a limited, minimal government

"Remember when Kid Rock's genre-bending, groundbreaking, confrontationally anti-authoritarian music galvanized a generation into social activism? Of course not. That's because Rage Against the Machine is what Kid Rock wants to be if he ever manages to learn to read."

So that's that. I'll be posting the references later if I don't lose interest.

Liberty or Deaf (pt.1)

A while back I made the claim that corporate personhood was an inherently corrupt and society-destroyingly vile institution. Since I was so obviously right I didn't bother checking the facts until recently. I say I was obviously right because anyone can usually be right by the simple practice of disagreeing with whatever claim Fox News, the Tea Party, Rush Limbaugh, and most Republicans make.

Anyway, after doing a lot of research into what, exactly, Libertarianism is, since it seems to be some magic word used by Tea Party candidates to immunize themselves from being seen as the fringe-politic lunatics they so obviously are.

What I found, of course, was a bottomless pit of information that the vast majority of Americans would rather, to quote one Facebook friend, run their genitals through a meat grinder than read.

So for that reason I'll be breaking the following protest-sign-unfriendly text dump with pictures of a cat I found outside of a homeless shelter next to information about Jason Mraz, who is an awful human being.

"After hearing Jason Mraz for the first time, my house is now surrounded by the howling ghost of every dead rape victim for 50 miles."








There has been a trend in recent years in the American political arena for certain far-Right protest groups and politicians to self-identify as Libertarian. With so much extreme, violent, incoherent, and blatantly one-sided rhetoric dressed in the banner of non-partisan Libertarianism it's no wonder that many Americans have an inaccurate idea of what Libertarianism actually means (Gerstein, 2009). With groups such as Americans for Prosperity and the Tea Party, as well as politicians such as Allen West and Michelle Bachmann and media pundits such as Glenn Beck and Sarah Palin calling for contradictory, extreme, and even impossible measures, this should come as no surprise. These include demands to eliminate government debt while cutting taxes, or calling for less government interference in individual lives while simultaneously demanding increased criminalization of minor offenses, as well as marriage and reproduction restrictions (Teaparty.org, n.d.).

With such confusion and contradictions, such as criticizing government regulations of corporations as interfering with the free market while ignoring the fact that corporations are, by definition and design, government interference in the free market, it should come as no surprise that the average American citizen has no clear idea of what Libertarianism really is.It is important to begin by defining what Libertarianism is, as far as the globally and historically accepted definition of the ideology. 

Philosophically the movement began during the Enlightenment based upon the works of philosophers like Adam Smith, John Stuart Mill, William Godwin, and John Locke. Libertarians believe in a limited, minimal government that concerns itself mainly with defense and protecting the individual's liberty from coercion, exploitation, tyranny, and abuse at the hands of large concentrations of power. Individual liberty includes such ideas as voluntary association, self-sovereignty, and freedom of contract. Libertarians view a laissez-faire market, free from as much government influence as possible as the best system to conduct interpersonal business. Research shows that modern American Libertarianism, as expressed by such groups as The Tea Party and Americans For Prosperity, has little in common with the globally and historically accepted ideal of the various Libertarian schools of thought, such as self-sovereignty, voluntary association, and a limited, minimal government. 

"Jason Mraz is the noise abused housewives claim to hear 24 hours a day as they slowly descend into the madness that eventually manifests with them cutting their spouse's genitals off with a steak knife."






Self-sovereignty, the belief that an individual has absolute ownership of their own life and body, cannot be practiced in a system of hierarchical, authoritative power structures, whether that power structure be a governing body or a State-sanctioned and protected private institution, such as a corporation. While the Tea Party Right, and Libertarian's themselves, may argue that government is inherently evil and is best kept away from the market, there is an important distinction that needs to be made between Modern Libertarian calls for the deregulation of the corporate marketplace and the Classical Libertarian stance, which would be to abolish the corporate market altogether. Claiming, as modern Right-Wing groups do, that deregulating corporations will encourage laissez-faire free market practices ignores several foundational factors of the American Market that impede upon self-ownership

For thousands of years any market interaction of individuals was relatively small in scale. Even successful merchants and trade barons were somewhat limited in scope, and labor was valuable as the pool of laborers was somewhat limited in relation to the amount of available work. This changed during the Industrial Revolution, which took place around the same time as the birth of what came to be known as Libertarianism. Just as some philosophers, economists, and political thinkers were realizing the importance of the concept of self-ownership, labor was being replaced by machinery on such a scale that the old system of labor and capital was being replaced by a system of huge industries helmed by unbelievably wealthy and powerful capitalists. As a consequence of this the value of labor plummeted to a point that labor was worth only the minimum amount necessary to keep the working class from entirely dying off (Engels, 1847).

 "If you play Jason Mraz near a sex toy it will kill its owner exactly 13 days later, and unless exorcised by a Highpriest of Dagon, will annually murder a virgin on the Winter Solstice."








As a result of this shifting dynamic the laboring class, existing under the delusion of self-sovereignty and the illusion of a fair and competitive market were, in actuality, placed in a position arguably worse than slavery. The reason for this is that while a slave or indentured servant is normally assured subsidence and some degree of security, in this new age of capitalist empire individual laborers were and are forced into competition with each other for the privilege of toiling for subsidence at the whims of the bourgeois capitalists (Engels, 1847). This system of wage-slavery survives in modern society in such areas as the misleadingly named 'at-will' employment contract, which often provides wages far below the poverty line and demands unrealistic levels of productivity from laborers, yet also denies those same laborers the security of long-term employment, liveable wages, or any mechanism for the workers to organize and petition the corporation on their own behalf, as evidenced by the levels of corporate downsizing, outsourced jobs, increasing poverty, vanishing labor unions, and large-scale layoffs throughout America in recent years, even as those same corporations report record profits for their CEO's and shareholders.

"If date rape made a noise, it would be Jason Mraz's impossibly shallow, douchey, insincere, frat boy songs written in the key of sexual assault."








True liberty, or self-sovereignty, is further curtailed in this system, as it often forces noteworthy and exceptional individuals to either accept one of the preconceived molds of this society, or to face alienation from the society as a whole (Mill, 1859). This tendency of big industry to force remarkable people into unremarkable lives through manufactured necessity or accident of birth is antithetical to the idea of self-sovereignty, and represents a tyrannical infringement on both the individual and society as a whole, not by a publicly accountable State, but by State protected private institutions in the form of corporations. This corporatism, largely ignored by self-identified Libertarians in America, cannot exist in a society that values individual liberty

Given this evidence, that post-Industrial Revolution capitalism, particularly America's system of corporatism, promotes divisiveness, class struggle, oppression, and hierarchical tyranny, it would be folly to call for an increase in unfettered corporatism as so many modern Libertarians do. Whether it takes the form of deregulation, union-busting tactics, or privatization of public institutions such as education or infrastructure, in practice these tactics lead to an increase of centralized, private power that invariably mimic liberty-eradicating systems, such as monarchies and police states (Werhane, 2000).

"If you drop a Jason Mraz CD in a garden, no vegetation will grow on that spot. Ever. The ground will periodically shriek in agony and vomit maggots, however."

 





Next: Further Findings, Conclusions, Sources, and Kid Rock

.