Reason, Liberty, & Culture

Happy Face Assault on Liberty

by Lewis Loflin

Liberalism's Double Standard on Bigotry and Intolerance

Today liberty - the right to live one's life with minimal government control or interference - is under assault. But this is an assault with a smile as the wealthy and powerful in enlightened self-interest offer most people just enough benefits so the opposition is simply disarmed and the masses pacified.

Let me define some terms as used here:

Corporatism or corporate socialism is what we often call "public-private" partnerships, or how business and government work closely together on a vast number of issues to the point lines of separation are blurred. What is good for business is good for society. Corporations get benefits in return for what they contribute to society as a whole - in reality compromising with the opposition and both get what they want.

Here in anti-labor pro-business Southern States this "public-private" fusion of business and government creates a lot of political corruption and is robbing the public treasuries of billions. Tennessee for example gave one corporation $188 million to relocate a manufacturing plant and helped them cut wages by one-third.

Here the State give special rights to a corporation to receive public funds, passes laws to favor them, assists them in lowering pay scales. At the same time Tennessee has among the most regressive sales tax in the nation that punishes those buying groceries to pay the in this case free manufacturing plant given to a Swedish corporation - after they fired almost 3000 workers in Canada and Iowa.

In the above case besides 3000 workers had their jobs taken, Tennessee workers have their pay lowered through state efforts, then have their tax dollars given away to someone else. Socialism at its core is the taking from some and giving to others and it's far more than just taxes. This is not capitalism.

The fact is the Republicans are socialists as much as the Democrats are. Corporatism belongs under other "collectivist' ideologies on the Left. The terms "left-right" are left overs from the French Revolution. Corporate socialism has nothing to do with the "right" if using a scale from tyranny to liberty.

Liberalism, Progressive left, Leftism, etc. are much the same differing in how they apply control over others. Liberals are more likely to use bribes (benefits or some form of public subsidy) to get desired outcomes while Progressives are more likely to use direct laws, coercion, force etc. to get compliance with their demands.

A good example of the latter is Colorado. They recently legalized pot on the one end while making catching and using rainwater from your roof a crime. (This was they claimed preventing runoff from getting to streams during a water shortage.)

To quote the New York Times June 29, 2009:

In Colorado, for example, it is illegal for residents to divert rainwater that falls upon land they own unless they have explicit permission to do so. Even collecting rainfall in a backyard barrel can technically violate the law.

"The rain barrel is the bong of the Colorado garden," wrote a columnist in the The Gazette of Colorado Springs. "It�s legal to sell one. It's legal to own one. It's just not legal to use it for its intended purpose."

Colorado is a prime example of the problem we have today with politicians in both arties. The following was asked, "What are the elements of collectivism that are common to all of these seemingly opposite forces?" Collectivists on the so-called Left and Right agree that:

1. Rights are derived from the state;
2. The group is more important than the individual;
3. Coercion is the preferred method to bring about reform;
4. Laws should be applied differently to different classes;
5. Providing benefits (redistributing wealth or power) is the proper role of government.


Rights are thus arbitrary and can be given and taken at the whims of the State.

So in the case of Colorado the State granted a collective "right" to smoke pot, but revoked the private right of watering one's garden with rainwater from your roof. The collective "good" of more water in Colorado streams is more important than your private tomatoes.

In Tennessee the State again under the guise of "job creation" and "business friendly" redistributed wealth from the "public good" by "creating jobs" which in reality mainly benefits business interests.

This concept goes back to 19th century Germany under Bismark who believed the social order can be maintained if the masses - or least enough of them - were given most of what they want. This isn't just the left (liberals) but also Corporatism or corporate socialism as well.

Both sides however they label themselves know what's best for society but Corporatism focuses on benefits to business - liberals focus on fixing society which is often economic inequality as they define it - which also means fixing people - and power for themselves. This really goes back even further to Plato and the enlightened despots of the 19th century who believe enlightened government can fix all social ills.

The elite are still somewhat limited by laws and the Constitution - laws they either ignore or invent interpretations that legalizes their nonsense:

Disregard for the text of laws - for the dictionary meaning of words and the intentions of those who wrote them - in favor of the decider's discretion has permeated our ruling class from the Supreme Court to the lowest local agency.

Ever since Oliver Wendell Holmes argued in 1920 (Missouri vs. Holland) that Presidents, Congresses and judges could not be bound by the US Constitution regarding matters that the people who wrote and ratified it could not have foreseen, it has become conventional wisdom among our ruling class that they may transcend the Constitution while pretending allegiance to it.

This is how corporations become people with "rights" while "rights" of the collectivist' type are invented from thin air - while others are revoked on whim. Nowhere in any state or Federal Constitution is there a right for the government to take from one group and give to another public or private. Taxes for public services yes, free stuff for others no.

This creates a system we have today of massive government agencies tasked with "fixing" a particular problem but then are given power to write the rules themselves - something that can shield politicians from the blowback. This isolates the people directly holding politicians accountable making the public helpless.

This is true of corrupt economic development here in the South, the Federal EPA, affirmative action racism that robs one of earned rewards to reward another for past wrongs, etc. Robbing people of the property, wealth, or opportunity be it through taxation, restrictive regulations, or taking earned opportunities given to another is all socialist redistribution.

And how do they justify such obvious wrongs? Angelo M. Codevilla notes:

It was Holmes that concocted the notion of a "living" constitution that doesn't mean what it says, but whatever the elite want to claim it means. This has since turned the Rule of Law into a joke. That is why there is so much fear of foreign treaties overthrowing the Constitution - this case did just that and was related to a migratory bird treaty.

This allows the political class of both sides to produce so much legal and technical complexity no average person can interpret what the rules even mean and often lack the resources to even comply - so by default they are robbed of their liberty.

This is not just the liberal left by any means but the corporatist Right that loves government regulation that crushes competition and favors them. Expensive regulations, licensing, etc. also rob millions of their most basic rights in many cases to earn a living and even grow their own food.

Don't kid yourself the corporatist' Republicans also believe in the redistribution of wealth just as the Left does. The Republican gets "redistribution" through mass immigration that destroys labor driving down wages; they get it through the tax codes, and mountains of economic regulations that hurt competition. People can go to jail for selling their own milk or eggs.

See America's Regime Class, And The Perils Of Revolution by Angelo M. Codevilla.

Why do both sides seem different but are often more alike in reality? To quote one of the above links:

One common approach, for instance, fails to specify the precise nature of either side, yet proceeds to place communism, socialism, and modern "liberalism" on (or toward) the left-and fascism, conservatism, and capitalism on (or toward) the right.

This makes no sense, at least in terms of the right. Capitalism-the social system of individual rights, property rights, and personal liberty-has nothing in common with conservatism or fascism...

So what we've developed is tyranny by pin-prick. The elite fight among themselves publicly but agree on far more than they disagree on. Conservatism with the Republican Party elite is Corporatism. The Democratic Party is simply racial socialism. Both are still socialists and socialism always tramples the individual - always - and they do it to help you - with a smile.

What about education fraud? Quoting Professor Walter Williams:

Some of the greatest fraud occurs at the higher education levels — colleges and universities. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, 70 percent of white high school graduates in 2016 enrolled in college, and 58 percent of black high school graduates enrolled in college. Here are my questions to you: If only 37 percent of white high school graduates test as college-ready, how come colleges are admitting 70 percent of them? And if roughly 17 percent of black high school graduates test as college-ready, how come colleges are admitting 58 percent of them?