Tuesday, April 9, 2019

Teri Kanefield: "Libertarians: Destroyers of Democracy"

Rarely am I floored by something I find (to read). Teri Kanefield's blog -- specifically her April 7, 2019 post -- astounds me because it strikes at the deepest root of what is wrong with the Trump administration. By that, I mean what he has been doing by installing cabinet ministers since first seizing power on January 20, 2017. Kanefield also posts her writings as a series of posts on Twitter.
Libertarian Peter Thiel said, “I no longer believe that freedom and democracy are compatible.”
I’m surprised it took Thiel—an intelligent Stanford Law grad—so long to figure out that freedom (as defined by libertarians) isn’t compatible with democracy. [...]
Libertarianism, according to David Boaz, means “the only actions that should be forbidden by law are those that involve the initiation of force against those who have not themselves used force.” 
It has been obvious from Day One of the Trump administration that he intends to rend in pieces the fabric of our society, including and, especially the Social Contract and the safety net protections of FDR's New Deal.
The Social Contract is a major source, for example, of the doctrine of popular sovereignty. Almost all modern states claim to be “people’s states.” Public deliberation, mass demonstrations, voting, plebiscites, all rituals for arousing a popular will are as necessary to authoritarian states as to liberal ones. It is generally accepted that The Social Contract exposes a doctrine that is valid.
Arizona Eagletarian readers likely are familiar with the name Kanefield. Joe Kanefield (now Chief of Staff for AZ Attorney General Brnovich) has been co-counsel for the Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission since 2011. Teri (I understand is related to Joe) wrote a biography of Ruth Bader Ginsberg that was reviewed on this blog in 2016.
Libertarians view government regulations and the agencies that promulgate them as a form of force.
Let’s pin this down on specifics. Does individual liberty mean I can build a factory and dump toxins into the air and water? Can I trade stocks on inside information? Can I sell my luxury condos to Russian oligarchs and hide the source of the money? Can I chop down all the redwoods and sell the lumber?
I suggest that libertarians don’t mind Trump’s law breaking because he’s breaking the laws they don’t think should exist.
Libertarians love property rights — but who decides who owns what? Like, who gets to own all the redwoods?
Does ownership go to whoever grabs first?
Let’s say 20 libertarians move to an island and set up a Libertarian Utopia. How do they decide who owns what? Do they divide the island into 20 parts? What if I end up owning the only source of fresh water. Free market means I can charge whatever I want, right? So I live like royalty and the others do my work. Libertarian utopia?
DOES OWNERSHIP GO TO WHOEVER GRABS FIRST?

Think about that for a moment... or two... or a whole lot more. What do you think the underlying motive for all the things Ryan Zinke did as Secretary of the Interior?

... by libertarian logic, we shouldn’t have any. Here’s what they overlook: The Constitution grants the federal government power to create laws that provide for “the common welfare.”
We have federal agencies and lots of laws because they promote the common welfare. And about those taxes libertarians don’t like: Industry can’t function without infrastructure like highways. Who is going to pay for it?
It seems to me that privatize means “whoever grabs first gets.” [...]
Boaz tells us America was founded on the precepts of individual liberty.
We can stop right there.
The nation was founded on the institution of slavery. And taking land from native people (whoever grabs gets). Boaz, like most libertarians, loves quoting Thomas Jefferson. When Jefferson said beautiful things about liberty, he didn’t mean for everyone. He meant white men.
Libertarians overlook the fact that there were two rival factions at the founding of the nation, the Jeffersonians and Hamiltonians.
Hamilton was anti-slavery and in favor of a strong central government. Jefferson thought individual liberty meant the freedom to own slaves.
The view of the Confederacy was that it was fighting for liberty—defending the Southern “way of life.”
When the Supreme Court declared segregation unconstitutional in 1954, libertarians denounced the decision as federal overreach. They also oppose affirmative action.
Nancy MacLean enraged libertarians by arguing that libertarianism is based in racism. [...]
When asked why the libertarian party consisted largely of white men, Boaz said, “another way to put that would be well-educated people.”
Maybe that’s because of coverture laws and hundreds of years of a few white men grabbing everything?
One theory is that libertarians align with autocrats, segregationists, and white supremacists because they share a common enemy: liberal democracy and the liberal establishment.
Libertarians particularly hate it when governments bail out industries. They also like to talk about “creative destruction,” whereby innovation replaces outdated products or processes and essentially destroys them.
They seem to apply “creative destruction” to letting entire industries or banks fail. Let them fail! A new better thing will arise from the ashes Here’s the problem: If a bank or major industry fails, it will inflict pain and suffering on large numbers of people.
Imagine what would happen if a major bank fails. Large numbers of people would lose everything and fall into poverty. If major industries fail, the people who suffer could number in the millions.
This brings us to one of many problems with libertarianism: They’re fine with widespread suffering.
A colleague once told me that he resented the fact that his tax dollars paid for legal representation for the poor. I immediately imagined what it would be like if (once more) only the wealthy could afford lawyers.
Innocent poor would go to jail in even larger numbers than today. Lower income families and communities would be ripped apart, plunging them into poverty (you can’t support a family from jail). The poor communities would get poorer. Children would grow up troubled without adequate education.
It would get easier to prey on the uneducated.
Libertarians, like other Trump supporters, view the American government as illegitimate. That’s why they love it when Trump attacks free press, dismantles regulatory agencies, attacks rule of law—and even lies and cheats.
It’s creative destruction. A desire to dismantle a government they believe is illegitimate is why they pretend to believe all of Trump’s lies. The lies are destructive. Destroy it all!
They think a libertarian utopia will rise from the ashes.
If the libertarians manage to get rid of the New Deal, all federal agencies, and the federal income tax on the ground that they’re all unconstitutional — there’d be chaos. Entire industries would be thrown into bedlam. There’d be widespread suffering and pain.
We do NOT have to imagine. All we have to do is search the history of America in the 1920s and 1930s.
But they’re okay with that, as long as the government that taxes them and limits their “individual liberty” is gone. Democracy can’t exist if the income inequality is too extreme. If that happens we have oligarchy. The way to get there is destroy every government program. [...]
People need to stop thinking of all Trump’s supporters as uneducated & gullible.
Many libertarians are wealthy, powerful, & highly educated and good with propaganda.
Put another way, libertarians are the “sado” part of “sadopopulism” Fortunately, libertarians are a minority. They know if enough people vote, they’re doomed.
This may be why Thiel bemoans women (& minorities) voting.
If we get organized and stay focused, we can out vote them. But don’t expect libertarians to care about Trump’s lying & destructive lawbreaking.
Your outrage probably just amuses them.
This is why meme posting on Facebook is not productive. It doesn't convince the gullible who eat up Trump's demagogic rhetoric. It just amuses the Oligarchy/Plutocrats.

Back in the 1990s, Libertarian Presidential candidate Harry Browne appeared live in-studio on a local radio talk show in Phoenix. I called in and was able to ask him where in Libertarian doctrine were egalitarian principles protected. He was stumped and couldn't answer.

Now I understand why.

Follow Teri Kanefield's blog at http://TeriKanefield-blog.com.

No comments:

Post a Comment