Friday, January 27, 2012

Know your Place...

I do want to do a bit on government as a monopoly of violence and add the proper restrictions: government is the legal monopoly on aggressive violence.

That way crime and self defense are accounted for. And one can see the immediate dangers of a monopolistic collective that can legally beat you up, take your stuff, and toss you in the gaol.

Here's a little bit on the difference between American and German traditions on that idea. And instead of legitimate I went with legal as the legitimacy is derived from being legal.

Here's a bit on how the President just doesn't get America.

I don’t mean that Obama is crazy. What is so evident, however, is that he is so detached from reality. Even assuming Obama’s political goals, how he goes about expressing and implementing them proves that point. The issues and the America Obama described in the speech have nothing to do with current issues and problems. The ridiculous bit with Warren Buffett’s secretary—income tax and capital gains tax are two different things—the talk about “fairness” and “teamwork,” simply don’t address what’s going on: things like the economic recovery just not happening, costs of production being too high, investor’s confidence shaken, government spending wasted to an extent far beyond what’s been seen before, and the nation’s resources misapplied in a ruinous manner.

Obama’s major speech in Kansas, an echo of one given by Teddy Roosevelt in 1912, also indicates what’s wrong with this president. It’s as if he’s half in the past—populism against the big monopolistic corporations running roughshod over a feeble government and defenseless workers—and half in the future, pushing a green utopia.

Second, Obama doesn’t have a very good understanding of America, its history, its system or its institutions. We see this constantly in his attitude toward the basic governmental structures. He simply doesn’t seem, for example, to comprehend the role of Congress. Obama really thinks that Congress has no right to thwart him, and he isn’t quite sure that the Supreme Court, not him, determines what is Constitutional. He has no real idea how the economic system works, including the function of the bankruptcy laws or of the private enterprise system generally . What could be more ironic than the fact that the man who is supposed to be the smartest guy around is, in functional terms, the dumbest guy around?


Consider how a functional liberal Democratic president would be behaving. He or Hillary would not have thrown trillions of dollars down the toilet for absolutely nothing in return. That kind of president would not sincerely believe that the economy is doing okay. That kind of president would be a political survivor—think of Bill Clinton—who would understand that he had to change course and truly move toward the center if only in order to be reelected

Such a president would understand that even if he got all the rich-bashing tax increases he wanted that would have no effect on an avalanching deficit. So he would acknowledge and take action on the government being too big, spending too high, and regulation too complex. And he would implement such a program out of political advantage, his own reputation, and some concern for the well-being of the country. Of course, there would be a sharp disagreement with Republicans about what and how much to change.

Which shows the real hackery of many of Obama's supporters. It's not just that they keep defending Obama as the smartest guy around, its that they're forced to pretend the stimulus saved the US (and it should have been larger damnit!), that there isn't a spending problem, that high tax rates and military cuts alone will satisfy the budget problems, that the president really can twart congress and the courts if he really really wants to, that people complaining about greater police powers (TSA, speech limitations, war on Terror, war on drugs) are just paranoid and unpatriotic.

That's not to say that if Obama wins the dance won't reverse, but it is important to note it. And to note the reversal from the previous "Party Line."

And the media is doing it's best to pretend that the massive debt crisis just isn't going to happen.

The whole core of their behavior really is "We're smarter and more compassionate than you therefore we deserve to run things and if you deny us our power or money then you must be stupid or evil."

As Ace explains.
Democrats are just a collection of rent-seekers, beak-dippers, and vig-skimmers, who have convinced themselves that it is not only acceptable that they should collect rents, dip their beaks, and collect a vig on everyone else's transactions, but that to deny them such rents, dippings, and vigs constitutes the most hateful, vicious, and fundamentally un-American behavior they can conceive.

If a guy comes over to your business and begins demanding that you do x and pay y tithe to group z, and is all up in your grill about it, you'd probably either call the cops or spare them the trouble by getting out your gun and telling the miscreant to remove himself from your site or be removed from the earth.

But these cats get a degree in Public Policy and worm themselves up the Media-Distributionist Complex, and suddenly that behavior isn't merely legal -- now they've got the coercive force of the government on their side.

And that's why they don't see a problem with the coercive power of the government. Like a prohibitionist waxing about how banning the "devil rum" or the "devil weed" can't ever see the law going after the vices he likes, people that plan to abuse the coercive power of the state hardly ever consider such vast power being used against them.

And they also just don't get that --

1. Even if they were smart, you weren't looking for a new boss.

2. You don't accept that they're that smart. In fact, you think they're kind of douchey faegelas who don't know shit about shat.

3. You also reject the weird premise that a certain type of ability, like intelligence, naturally makes one party a master and a complete stranger a slave. Why shouldn't we just say that physical might creates such a relationship, as was true for the first 10,000 years of human existence?

If your idea or charity comes via the barrel of a gun, then you're a thief and a thug, if it comes from the barrel of someone else's gun then you're a mobster, but if that gun is in the hands of a policeman well... then you're a politician.

Just consider that "Anti-Gun" people are perfectly satisfied by using armed agents of the state enact their confiscatory dreams. And then you realize their problem is not that arms exist, but who has them. That's a similar situation the "Anti-rich" Democrats have with the wealthy. Really they don't mind the rich, just as long as they're the "right kind."

Here's some more on the handouts, payouts, and bailouts.

When President Obama promised "no more bailouts, no more handouts" in his State of the Union address, and declared "it's time to apply the same rules from top to bottom," he was either prescribing a total reversal of his current industrial policy, or he was once again using words to mean something they've never meant before.

Get ready for the whiplash...

When liberals speak of "fairness," conservatives tend to hear "redistribution" and "welfare," but Obama's fairness talk is not just code for liberal class warfare. He's also trying to tap into a broad sense that right now, the game is rigged -- that the insiders get special treatment and regular folks get short shrift. This is a real problem, and it's prudent to tap into this dissatisfaction. It's too bad all his policies just rig the game even more.

Obama opened his discussion on industrial policy Tuesday night by bragging about how the taxpayer bailouts of Detroit had helped put General Motors "back on top as the world's number one automaker." In other words, if the government stacks the deck sufficiently in favor of one huge, politically connected corporation, that corporation can beat other, huge, less politically connected corporations.

Then Obama promised, "What's happening in Detroit can happen in other industries." The meaning was clear: With enough handouts, enough bailouts, enough mandates, government can prop up all sorts of manufacturing corporations.

Remember, might makes right if it's coming via a authorized monopoly in coercive violence, and since its for the greater good why not whet the beaks of those making sure things role along smoothly. The people's work is thirsty work.

Via Glenn Reynolds ho says "He’s only against handouts to the wrong people."

Rich or poor, play along and you'll get prizes, don't and you'll pay for them

No comments: