The horizon is not so far as we can see, but as far as we can imagine

Month: January 2022 Page 2 of 3

Western Australia Proves Basic Pandemic Control Methods Would Have Stopped Covid

Western Australia:

Per Capita Cases, Western Australia: .11%.

Per Capita Deaths, Western Australia: practically none.

Per Capita Cases, Australia: 8.1%

Per Capita Deaths, Australia: .12%

Per Capita Cases, USA: 21%

Per Capita Deaths, USA: .26%

Australia is famous, or perhaps infamous, for its lockdowns, but Western Australia has essentially closed its borders since Covid. Australia has thus done far better than the US, with fewer cases and even fewer deaths per capita. Western Australia, on the other hand, essentially hasn’t had a pandemic, at least not in terms of deaths and cases.

Of course, all numbers will be under-counts, but I doubt the overall picture changes because of that.

What this tells you is something simple: Basic measures for dealing with a plague were required to control Covid and would have worked. If travel, except for shipping, had been shut down the way that Western Australia did (ship crews staying on ships), then Covid would be controlled, and most likely, over by now.

Simply stopping travelers (or at least forcing them into long quarantines) is probably the oldest method of plague control in history, used for thousands of years.

We didn’t even do that. Our leaders wanted us to die and get sick, and we did. Our media rains contempt on places which dare control Covid. In those cases where our leaders preferred we not die, and were willing to do what is necessary to ensure our health and well-being, we did not die.

Had we done things right, at the start, there would have been no Omicron and probably no Delta. It wasn’t hard, it would have spared the economy in the long run, and a lot of people wouldn’t be dead or have long Covid, with more to come.

Let NO ONE tell you that letting Covid run free as a plague was not a choice. It has more than doubled the wealth of billionaires, and so a choice was made: Their money was more important than your life or health, or that of your parents, grandparents, children, or friends.

People were killed so the rich could get richer. Every one of you who has Long Covid has it because that’s what the rich wanted, so they could get richer.

Had this been done properly, at the start, or even after a couple months, we also would most likely be finished with most Covid restrictions — except maybe a few travel bans to a few countries, so, ironically, clamping down hard would have made any civil liberties restrictions (the right to infect other people or force your workers to infect others) brief and not in danger of turning chronic, like Covid.

Your leaders kill you, disable you, and they do it to get richer.

Understand that at your core. They are your enemies, by any reasonable definition of enemy, with a few rare exceptions, like in Western Australia.

(Near the start of the plague I noted that if US states wanted to control Covid, those which did the right things (currently, so far as I know, none of them) would be required to close their borders to other US states. Western Australia shows the difference that makes.)

DONATE OR SUBSCRIBE

Elevated from Comments: This comment, from GM, is important enough that I’ve partially quoted it here:

1. Over the last few days they have had one, then two, then five, then now seven local cases, and they are not in lockdown to stop it (while previously, they did lockdown for three days over even a single case). So there is a real danger that this is deliberately allowed to get out of hand and then McGowan says “Well, it is out of the bag now, we will reopen.” There have been mentions from the local government previously that if an outbreak gets out of control, they will reopen, and this would be following the script that played out already elsewhere (NSW, VIC, Vietnam, Singapore, etc.) that allows the government to both ease the population into endemic COVID and save face by putting a “Look, we tried our best, but there is nothing that can be done” facade over it.

2. There is a long-standing suspicion that the local oligarchs controlling the mining industry in Western Australia are the ones pushing for keeping COVID out. Not because of concern for the wellbeing of the general population, but because they want to keep it out of the mines. Of course, mines have been operating in the midst of devastating COVID outbreaks in Brazil, South Africa, Indonesia, etc. But WA is a bit of a special case because of how remote from any significant population centers most of their mines are. So if you get all of your workers seriously sick at the same time, it will be a very problematic logistic operation to transport them from somewhere in Middleofnowhereville in Pillbara to Perth, which is the only location within a 1500 km radius that can treat them. And Perth’s hospitals are barely keeping up with their load even without COVID (due to many years of the usual neoliberal defund-and-crapify practices).

1) and 2) are mutually exclusive, unless there are, indeed, as is rumored, plans to impose intrastate borders in case Perth is lost, so that COVID does not spread to the mining regions.

Politics Series: Power

(Previous: Economy)

(Introduction and Table of Contents)

We have seen that who gets how much of what is a political decision, that the economy and economics is downstream from politics.

Power is the ability to make people do what you want, or not do what you don’t want. Ideology determines what the good life is and power determines who lives it. All political power ultimately derives from control of people’s consciousness.

Violence seems like the exception, but it isn’t, because you must convince some group to be violent on your behalf; those are the people whose consciousness you control. No individual is truly powerful without control of other people’s consciousness, because all individual power is based on “don’t kill me while I’m asleep or knife me when my back is turned.”

Even groups that are controlled by violence usually have some level of consciousness control. It’s very hard to stop people from committing suicide rather than complying. Short of that, in the case of some Native American groups, treatment was so horrible they stopped breeding, and died out. Fear can force a lot of compliance, but even terror has its limits.

That said, using fear and violence is inefficient. It requires too much effort and supervision, and destroys initiative. Slaves, whether they recognized as such or not, do not work enthusiastically. Degrees of power over consciousness can be divided into tiers.

First Tier: People who feel they want to, ought to, or should do what those with power want. These can be quite downtrodden. In many patriarchal societies, where women had and have few rights, and have been subject to violence by their husbands and menfolk, many women believe this is right and good, that they should be controlled by men. There are good peasants, content with their places; workers who think the bosses know best, and; soldiers who volunteer and die in their millions for wars that benefit them not at all.

Herman Goering, the Nazi minister, was interviewed by Gustave Gilbert after World War II, and the exchange is worth quoting in full.

Gilbert asked Goering how it was possible to build and sustain public support for a war effort, especially in Germany, which had barely recovered from the still-recent disaster of World War I.

Why, of course, the people don’t want war,” Goering shrugged. “Why would some poor slob on a farm want to risk his life in a war when the best that he can get out of it is to come back to his farm in one piece. Naturally, the common people don’t want war; neither in Russia nor in England nor in America, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood.

But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy or a fascist dictatorship or a Parliament or a Communist dictatorship.”

There is one difference,” [Gilbert] said. “In a democracy, the people have some say in the matter through their elected representatives, and in the United States only Congress can declare wars.”

Oh, that is all well and good,” replied Goering, “but, voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country.”

This is control of consciousness, convincing people to do what you want, even though it is clearly against their self interest, and to do it willingly and enthusiastically.

Second Tier: Informal negative social consequences. Things like disapproval, shaming, scorn, minor violence, and discrimination when seeking housing and employment. This is where there is no official sanction, but some people believe so strongly in what those with power want that they make those who resist miserable.

In World War I Britain, for example, white feathers symbolizing cowardice were given to men out of uniform and women, in particular, scorned able-bodied men who were not in the military. Almost 900,000 British men died in the war, charging machine guns or from disease and other hazards, and many came back maimed. It’s hard to make a case that anything ordinary soldiers gained from the war (in any nation) was worth that.

Third Tier: Formal sanctions to make people do what those with power want. Most commonly, this includes the civil justice system, schools, and corporate discipline systems. If you don’t do what teach wants, there are consequences. If you displease your boss, likewise. If you don’t pay bills on time, you get a bad credit record and can’t rent good homes, etc. A criminal record means you will probably never have a good job again.

These consequences work on people who don’t want to what those who are in power want, but do them out of fear of what will happen if they don’t.

Fourth: Violent Sanction. For those whom all the other methods of control fail, there is violence. Police, courts, and prisons. In the past, and in some countries still, beatings from teachers. Parental violent discipline also falls into this category; parents have power, and some hit children who don’t obey.

Now, power isn’t always bad. Perhaps those in power genuinely want what is good for you, and you agree and do it, and that’s wonderful. Take your medicine, see the doctor regularly, don’t drink and drive or do meth. Perhaps a little mild social disapproval makes you not bully people, or steal, or drink too much, and that’s likely a good thing, though it’s still coercive.

But ultimately, power is about someone else deciding what you do, and when it works smoothly and well, controlling your consciousness so that you want what they want, whether it’s good for you or not.

Let’s bring this back to legitimacy, to the start of our chain. We conceive of some uses of power as legitimate, and others not. If police arrest a rapist or murderer violently, we think that’s good (unless we’re right-wing religious types who think husbands can’t rape wives). If we think drugs are bad, we will think it’s okay for government to restrict access to them and hurt those who insist on using them anyway. If we think that property rights are the most important thing, we will be okay with police rousting homeless people who are reducing property values. If we believe in vaccination, we will feel coercing people who don’t want to be vaccinated is acceptable, and in fact, even good.

Coercion causes legitimacy damage to decline when a group doesn’t agree that the coercion is legitimate. If the group is relatively powerless, that may not matter much (US blacks and drug laws that discriminated against them, or Native Americans and various genocidal policies), but if they do have power or if some of those with power identify with them (and thus feel with them), this can cause great legitimacy damage.

In the Russian revolution, when the palace was surrounded and then invaded, the armed guards did not fight back; an important chunk of the enforcer class no longer felt it had the legitimacy to resist. With those taking the palace were many members of the Russian navy; for them legitimacy had switched entirely.

When the USSR and the Warsaw pact fell, the Communist leaders declined to use the Red Army to keep it together. The Red Army was certainly large enough to stop any breakup, but Communist Party legitimacy was too low to allow its use.

Coercion works when elites and enforcers are willing to use it, and not when either of the pair won’t. Coercion is thus downstream from legitimacy, and coercion by force is usually a sign that more efficient forms of power are failing to reach certain groups in society.

The exception is that coercion by force is often used on outsider groups as a way of increasing legitimacy in core groups. If a group is not considered “one of us,” or if core identity groups don’t identify with an out-group such as blacks, or slaves, or natives, or poor people, or Irish, or whatever, then enforcement against them does not reduce legitimacy. Instead, it increases legitimacy with those who aren’t in the out-group.

What is seen is the ruling ideology being enforced. That provides good feelings because of identification with the ideology, without negative feelings because the groups it is being enforced against is not identified with.

As long as whoever enforcement is used against can be made into “not one of us,” enforcement is a positive for creating legitimacy and identification with the ruling ideology. Entire groups are possible, but when someone is accused of a crime, the process is meant to strip them of as much of their in-group identity as possible, to make their punishment feel good. (Again, remember, if we identify with someone, them being hurt, hurts us.)

There’s a corollary to this: Because coercion is done for ideological reasons (because people are not obeying the “rules”), if the “rules” are not seen as legitimately part of a group’s ideology, it renders any coercion illegitimate. For many Americans, locking people up for drug use is illegitimate. For others, any protest by someone they disagree with obviously requires those people be locked up. Stopping blacks from voting was and is considered legitimate by many, but for others it is a wrong, and so on. You can come up with hundreds of examples, historical and contemporary.

However, when coercion, especially violence, fails, it is powerfully de-legitimizing. Coercion in service of an ideology / an identity is an extreme form of ritual, and if the ritual fails, then legitimacy is harmed. In extreme cases, like the Russian defeat in World War I, it can lead to revolution.

Coercion, then, both relies on legitimacy to even be possible, and its exercise increases or decreases both the legitimacy of the people who do it and the ideology with which they identify. If a group or ideology’s legitimacy collapses, so does the ability to coerce. All power does not come out of the barrel of a gun, as per Mao, bur rather from the ability to convince someone to use that gun.

Powerfully legitimate ideologies often barely need to use force at all to sustain themselves, except against any out-groups — members self-regulate and deal with almost all deviation through social pressure at most.

An out-group can be a powerful source of legitimacy to the ruling ideology, though, by allowing the ideology to be seen to be enforced without any backlash in the form of feeling bad about those who are hurt during enforcement.

The most important user of power and legitimacy is the government, and it is to them we will turn next.

Next: Government

DONATE OR SUBSCRIBE

China’s Economic Plans Amount to Preparation for Cold War

From the Wall Street Journal:

The article itself is a bit foolish. China can’t, and knows it can’t, be entirely self-sufficient. But it can reduce its dependency, in particular on US and Western sources, and that’s what it has to do. Unlike with Venezuela and Iran, seizing Chinese freighters routinely is a no-go (and, if necessary, China can send military escorts). But US sanctions can bite, and hard, as they did with semiconductors, and the US showed its teeth under Trump and continues to growl under Biden.

What Americans don’t seem to understand is that China could easily retaliate: It is the sole source for a huge number of manufactured goods and is the world’s largest manufacturing power. So far it has chosen not to; it wants the status quo to limp on for as long as possible, but if the US decides to start a real trade war, it’s likely the US will be hurt badly. This isn’t the USSR vs. the US, where the US was the clear, superior industrial power. The US has the lead in a few areas, its allies in others (it’s Taiwan that makes semiconductors), but China is the lynchpin industrial economy.

Still, the Chinese have decided that the US is determined to have a cold war, and they are right, and they are preparing for it.

US propaganda has become particularly unhinged of late. My favorite being this from the NYTimes:

It seems more apt to describe the “herd immunity” policies followed in the West, especially since Omicron, as Holocaust-like, as official US death figures are 800K, and likely real figures are twice that and Covid isn’t close to over yet.

But “they are very strict at lockdowns and the work is exhausting but they’ve saved millions of lives” seems like an odd thing to criticize China for, but US elite lack of self-awareness continues to be the marvel of the world.

Western elites can’t admit basic facts. Covid could be controlled. They chose not to control it because letting it rip made them rich. Millions died as a result. They are responsible for more deaths than the Holocaust due to their refusal to handle the pandemic (and it will be many more by the end). The “evil, totalitarian Chinese Communist Party” are the ones who went all out to save lives, not the “good, wonderful, free democratic governments of the West.” (With, yes, a few minor exceptions.)

Western elites, through their actions and lack of actions, in effect, murdered millions of people. Covid could be controlled, China proves it, and so they hate China even more.

Hopefully they won’t let their hate reach such a peak they toss nukes around when the Cold War they are so determined to have goes hot.

DONATE OR SUBSCRIBE

Week-end Wrap – Political Economy – January 16, 2022

Week-end Wrap – Political Economy – January 16, 2022
by Tony Wikrent

Strategic Political Economy

[Twitter, via Naked Capitalism 1-10-2022]

.

Heather Cox Richardson, January 14, 2022 [Letters from an American]

Yesterday, by a vote of 6 to 3, the Supreme Court struck down the Biden administration’s requirement that businesses with more than 100 employees address the coronavirus pandemic by making employees either get vaccines or, if they choose not to be vaccinated, to test weekly and wear a mask at work….

In his opinion, Gorsuch explicitly raised the concept of the “nondelegation doctrine” and the related concept of the “major questions doctrine.” The nondelegation doctrine relies on our government’s separation of powers. It says that, as its own branch of government, Congress cannot delegate regulatory authority to the executive branch, where agencies like OSHA live.

But, since Congress has, in fact, been delegating authority to the executive branch since the administration of President George Washington, those who want to reduce federal authority sometimes rely instead on the more limited major questions doctrine, which says that although Congress can delegate minor authority to administrative agencies, it cannot delegate major questions (although just how to define a major question is unclear).

A recent study by University of Southern California professor of public policy Dr. Pamela Clouser McCann and University of Michigan professor of social science Dr. Charles R. Shipan, both experts on intergovernmental delegation, found that 99% of today’s federal laws involve delegation. Unwinding them and requiring Congress to make all its own regulatory decisions would paralyze the modern government.

Those who support the idea of nondelegation argue that it guarantees government by the people rather than by an unelected bureaucracy, and this is a worthy thought. But unfortunately, it depends on the goodwill of those elected to state legislatures, and because those lawmakers also get to decide who votes in their states, that goodwill can be thin on the ground.

At heart, this is the same states’ rights argument that the U.S. has grappled with since the 1830s. Since that time, while some state legislatures have used their power to reflect the will of the people, others have limited the vote, putting a small group of people into power. Once in power, they have used the state government to promote their own interests. States’ rights advocates have consistently said that any federal interference with a state’s unfair laws is tyranny…

Since the 1930s, though, lawmakers have used the federal government to combat unfair state laws. They have regulated businesses when state lawmakers wouldn’t, protected civil rights from discriminatory state laws, and, ultimately, guaranteed the right to vote in states that kept their citizens from the polls, with the expectation that if everyone could vote, they would, indeed, create state governments that reflected the will of the majority..

TW: “lawmakers have used the federal government to combat unfair state laws.” In other words, guarantee to each state a [civic] republican form of government.

 

The Republicans’ Death Panel Finally Emerges! The Supreme Court’s Republican Six rule that the government lacks the power to fight a pandemic.

Harold Meyerson, January 13, 2022 [The American Prospect]

For a bunch of jurists who claim to adhere to textualism, the six Court right-wingers gave no indication that they’d actually read the act that established the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), which was signed into law by left-winger Richard Nixon. That law gives OSHA the authority to protect workers “exposed to grave danger” from “substances or agents determined to be toxic or physically harmful or from new hazards.”

 

The Supreme Court can’t get its story straight on vaccines — The Court is barely even pretending to be engaged in legal reasoning.

Ian Millhiser,  January 15, 2022 [Vox]

The Court is fabricating legal doctrines that appear in neither statute nor Constitution.

Open Thread

Use this to discuss topics unrelated to recent posts. No Covid.

Calling My Shot on Letting Omicron Rip

In a few years, we’re going to read a lot of op-eds and articles about how it was a mistake and “no one could have known.”

Like with the Iraq War, the housing bubble, Afghanistan, climate change, and everything else of importance, there are always people who got it right, and those people are generally the people who got other things right that those in the bubble don’t.

When you’re in the bubble, which includes the media, the most important thing is to not leave the pack. If you get something wrong, but almost everyone inside is wrong, you’re good. If you get it right, against the pack, your career can end and if it doesn’t it will be set back. (This is what happened to most public figures who warned about Iraq.)

Omicron is going to produce a huge wave of disabling, and a slew of downstream deaths. Children will get chronic damage from it which will last for years and, in some cases, for their entire lives. So will adults.

In Ontario, where I live, the government has decided to reopen schools this coming Monday, and said that it won’t tell parents about any Covid cases until 30 percent of students and teachers are out with Covid. (As most Covid cases are asymptomatic, this could mean as much as a 75 percent prevalence rate.) Wouldn’t want parents to protect their children from risks.

I’m really tempted to call this genocide. It’s certainly mass murder and mass-disabling. A lot of parents are complicit. Ontario originally closed schools, and I’d lay long odds that a blizzard of calls is part of why they’re reopening, also calls from business-owners and executives. School is mostly daycare, and if you don’t do a real shutdown with support, people need their daycare. (Though as a 70s kid, I’ll say that children can care for themselves during the day better than you think, younger than you think. Any reasonable ten year old, and many eight year olds.)

Anyway, we’re in the stupid season, just like before and during the first few months of Iraq, when fools opine about how it’s going great, kids will be fine, etc. As usual, we’ll have to wait for the damage to be done for the fools and psychopaths to admit that maybe some of them were wrong, but jeez, it was in good faith, and no one could have known, and since we were all wrong there shouldn’t be any consequences.

For the rest of my life, I will support bringing back the death penalty for any politicians and bureaucrats who supported sending children back to school during the Omicron surge. Hang them from the neck, every one — and throw in the business-people who forced workers with Covid to come in to work as well.

Meanwhile, New York has decided not to prosecute ex-Governor Cuomo for deliberately sending Covid-infected people to old-folks homes, thus killing huge numbers of old people, and then lying about them.

In this type of situation, you don’t take chances. You don’t expose the entire population including children to the new strain, waving your hands about how “mild” it is.

But this is barely “taking a chance,” this is odds-on a catastrophe unfolding as we watch, and those who do it either know it or should know it.

DONATE OR SUBSCRIBE

Mass Democratic Legitimacy Loss from Mass Disabling

The figures I have seen for Long Covid start at about 10 percent. You can have Long Covid without knowing it; there can be organ damage, including brain damage, without you having symptoms, but that damage will effect your future health and lifespan. Ironically, it may create a co-morbidity if you get Covid again and you’ll be considered part of a vulnerable population.

For some, it is very severe. One acquaintance had enough brain damage to cause aphasia, and needs speech therapy. Others go from fit to out-of-breath walking down the street.

As the policy in most Western nations is “Everyone will get it, let’s just make sure it doesn’t swamp the hospitals,” let’s run some numbers. Assume everyone is 80 percent. The US population is 329 million, so 263 million people will get Covid. Of those, assume 10 percent (and I’ve seen double that number, but we’re going with conservative estimates), about 33 million people, will get Long Covid.

In the EU, numbers run to about 36 million. Worldwide, excluding China and Japan (who seem to be handling Omicron), there are about 5.9 billion people (with some generous rounding against Long Covid). 80 percent of that is 3.9, so you’re talking 390 million people with Long Covid.

These are VERY conservative numbers. Long Covid estimates go as high as 20 percent that I’ve seen, and there is the issue of re-infection. If you get Covid multiple times, do you have multiple chances to get Long Covid? Bear in mind that there will be new variants as well, so immunity will not carry forward that well.

So it wouldn’t be hard for those headline numbers to double: 780 million worldwide, 72 million in the EU, and 66 million in the US.

These are—staggering numbers, and their affect on our societies cannot be underestimated. The deaths are terrible, but the bad health and disabling of many (and remember, that organ damage will lead to disabling later in people who seem fine now) will require us to restructure large chunks of our society to support those who are injured. Many people will not be able to work, or their working lives will be reduced in length and intensity.

What’s worse about this is that, while people die only once, they can remain sick and disabled for decades. So unlike the Spanish Flu, say, Covid will be with us in ways we can’t ignore — every time someone looks at a friend or loved one who is sick because of it. No matter what people “feel” now, years to decades of watching the consequences will sour them.

Letting Covid run wild through the world was a choice. We made it. A few societies didn’t.

Ironically (or not?), the Chinese Communist Party decided to not let their population die in droves and acquire long-term health problems (the number for China would be 112 million at the conservative end). Most Western “democracies” chose to have mass deaths and Long Covid.

This isn’t just about the horrid consequences of our choice to let Covid rage and mutate, this is also a mass legitimacy loss event for the West and for democracy, though a very few democracies have proved non-psychopathic.

If “freedumb” means governments that let you die or get Long Covid, is it “freedumb” worth having? If being ruled by “commies” means that you live and stay healthy and so do your parents, grandparents, and kids, is “Communism with Chinese characteristics” so bad?

That’s a question a lot of people are going to be asking themselves.

DONATE OR SUBSCRIBE

Week-end Wrap – Political Economy – January 9, 2022

Week-end Wrap – Political Economy – January 9, 2022
by Tony Wikrent

Strategic Political Economy

Yes, Maggie, There Is Such a Thing as “Society”

Lambert Strether, January 3, 2022 [Naked Capitalism]

The Iron Lady, the late Tory Prime Minister Margaret Thacher, famously remarked: “And, you know, there is no such thing as society. There are individual men and women and there are families.”

In this short and simple post, I will show that we can prove Thatcher wrong, using what we have learned about airborne transmission in the current pandemic. First, I will present an experiment, and then I will show why it is disproves Thatcher (and, if one should wish to undertake the task, a lot of libertarian and libertarian-adjacent foofra about “methodological individualism” as well, although that is a task for another day).

First, the experiment. (I am using The Asahi Shimbun‘s coverage; here is the original study.) Here is a photo of the setup….

Now, let’s reframe the experiment as a model, the sort of simple model that pseudo-Nobel prize-winning economists construct. Let’s model “interactive coexistence” of humans or “persistent social interaction” as two mannequins locked in a box together, sharing air. This is, in fact, not as far-fetched a model of humanity as it seems at first. We are an indoor species:

“We spend more time in our homes, than whales spend submerged beneath the surface of the ocean,” said Dr. Richard Corsi of Portland State University, who has studied indoor air quality for 30 years. “The average American lives to 79 and spends 70 of those 79 years inside buildings.”

And unless we are Ted Kaczynski, in solitary confinement, leaving on the street, or Simeon Stylites — all surely edge cases — we spend our time indoors with others, sharing air. In other words, breathing is a social relation[2]. We have the most material social relationship possible — sharing air — between two individuals, and they do not have to be family. Ergo, Maggie Thatcher is wrong….

It’s interesting to rethink the arguments for “freedom” — a word, though not a concept, I am coming to loathe — in terms of seat belts or cigarette smoking. Ultimately, seat belts became mandatory, and cigarette smoking in shared air was forbidden. Auto accidents and cancer weren’t multiplying exponentially in the space of days, however….

 

[Twitter, via Naked Capitalism 1-7-2022]

.

“The liberty of local bullies”

Noah Smith [Noahpinion, via Naked Capitalism Water Cooler 1-4-2021]

“I have often remarked in the past how libertarianism – at least, its modern American manifestation – is not really about increasing liberty or freedom as an average person would define those terms. An ideal libertarian society would leave the vast majority of people feeling profoundly constrained in many ways. This is because the freedom of the individual can be curtailed not only by the government, but by a large variety of intermediate powers like work bosses, neighborhood associations, self-organized ethnic movements, organized religions, tough violent men, or social conventions. In a society such as ours, where the government maintains a nominal monopoly on the use of physical violence, there is plenty of room for people to be oppressed by such intermediate powers, whom I call ‘local bullies.’ The modern American libertarian ideology does not deal with the issue of local bullies. In the world envisioned by Nozick, Hayek, Rand, and other foundational thinkers of the movement, there are only two levels to society – the government (the ‘big bully’) and the individual. If your freedom is not being taken away by the biggest bully that exists, your freedom is not being taken away at all.”

Page 2 of 3

Powered by WordPress & Theme by Anders Norén