Written on June 19th, 2012
I
read an article the other day that described Scott Walker as taking
the first step towards libertarian small-government ends. Canadian
liberty activist Stefan Molyneux said that even if Ron Paul or some
other libertarian becomes president, since they want small
government, it will inevitably involve cuts in government services,
cuts in the pay and benefits of government employees, and cuts in the
size of governments’ work forces. Molyneux’s point was that a
libertarian taking charge of a monopoly government that stays
monopolistic will appear to most people as a corporatist (fascism
minus the theocracy) system.
I’d
say that the more socially tolerant the libertarian president or
governor is, the less he would appear as a fascist. This is why more
liberals like Ron Paul and Gary Johnson than do Scott Walker; Ron
Paul and Gary Johnson – although they may be far from
enthusiastically pro-choice when it comes to personal ethics, and
although their abortion policy is guided by the principles of dual
federalism (states’ rights) – are not actively trying to make
abortion clinics dissuade people from getting abortions, unlike
Walker and the Republicans in the Wisconsin state legislature. And
since most people who oppose abortion oppose it on religious grounds,
that puts the theocratic element back into corporatism, making Walker
appear as nearly a fascist to most pro-choice labor rights’
advocates.
The
problem I think we’re overlooking is the problem of monopoly
government. Which government controls us depends not on our choice
from among a varied selection of alternatives, but on where we live.
A government monopoly (on the legitimate use of power) can easily
engender corporate monopoly (by threatening to use that power).
We
have a “corporate government” to an even greater extent than that
to which we have a “pay-to-play” system full of corruption,
corporate welfare, and wealth disparity; we have a “corporate
government” because it has the potential to exist indefinitely
(like corporations), and because its debt is shared by people who –
through the legal-fiction paper representations of themselves – are
never given the ability to resist their government, or given enough
information to understand why they might have wanted to resist
becoming a corporate person in their first weeks of life.
But
a monopoly government also engenders monopoly unionism. It can be
very difficult to criticize the most visible problems with the labor
movement without offending leftists. It took me a long time to figure
out what’s to like about the labor movement and what’s not to
like about it. But what appears clear to me now is that there needs
to be a way for government employees to keep their jobs and benefits,
for them to compete against the private sector to provide similar
services, and for them to choose who is their boss (or governor,
president, etc.).
My
solution – as clumsily as I might phrase it sometimes, like right
now – is to simply submit to “private governance”. The founding
fathers intended for the General Welfare Clause to mean that federal
spending should benefit all or most people in the country. But most
people in the country are very wealthy, nor are most people
government employees. Those types of people want specific
welfare, not general welfare.
If
Walker’s opponents would just admit that they want special benefits
for union members, and if we just change things to that the current
governments have to allow other governments to co-exist with them –
and compete with them for citizens in the same territory – then we
wouldn’t see things like the Walker controversy happening;
Democrats would be governed by Democrats, Republicans would be
governed by Republicans, union supporters would be governed by
someone to the left of Tom Barrett, and we would be having a very
different conversation.
For
more entries on Wisconsin politics, please visit:
No comments:
Post a Comment