This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.

Guest Post: Pimping the Empire, Conservative-Style

Tyler Durden's picture




 

Submitted by Charles Hugh-Smith of OfTwoMinds blog,

"Conservatives" and "Progressives" alike are pimping for the Empire when they support the Central State's essentially unlimited powers.

Yesterday I described how so-called "Progressives" are pimping for the Empire. The same is true of so-called "Conservatives." (I am reprinting the intro for those who missed yesterday's essay.)

(I say "so-called" because the "Progressives" are not actually progressive, and the "Conservatives" are not actually conservative. Those labels are Orwellian double-speak, designed to mask the disastrous consequences of each ideology's actual policies.)

Let's begin by stipulating that ideology, any ideology, is an intellectual and emotional shortcut that offers believers ready-made explanations, goals, narratives and enemies without any difficult, time-consuming analysis, study or skeptical inquiry. This is the ultimate appeal of ideology: accepting the ideology relieves the believer of the burdens of analysis, skeptical inquiry, uncertainty/doubt and responsibility: all the answers, goals and narratives are prepackaged and mashed together for easy consumption.

This is one of the core messages of Erich Fromm's classic exploration of ideology and authoritarianism, Escape from Freedom.

And what is the essential foundation of authoritarianism? A central state. This is not coincidental.

What few grasp is the teleology of the centralized state: by its very nature (i.e. as a consequence of its essentially unlimited powers), the central state is genetically programmed to become an authoritarian state devoted to self-preservation and the extension of its reach and power.

This is why the Founding Fathers were so intent on limiting the powers of the Central State. They understood the teleology of the centralized state: by its very nature (i.e. as a consequence of its essentially unlimited powers), the central state is genetically programmed to become an authoritarian state devoted to self-preservation and the extension of its reach and power.

You can't cede unlimited, highly concentrated powers to the central state and then expect the state not to fulfill its teleological imperative to protect and extend its powers. The state with unlimited powers will be ontologically predisposed to view any citizen that seeks to limit its expansion of power as an enemy to be suppressed, imprisoned or marginalized.

The state with unlimited powers will be ontologically predisposed to protecting its powers by cloaking all the important inner workings of the state behind a veil of secrecy, and pursuing and punishing any whistleblowers who reveal the corrupt, self-serving workings of the state.

The state with unlimited powers will be ontologically predisposed to view any other nation or alliance as a potential threat, and thus the state will pursue any and all means to disrupt or counter those potential threats.

The state with unlimited powers will be ontologically predisposed to create and distribute propaganda to mask its self-serving nature and its perpetual agenda of extending its powers, lest some threat arise that limits those powers.

Democracy and a central state with unlimited powers are teleologically incompatible.

Though they piously claim to desire a limited State, conservatives cede it essentially unlimited powers because they want that state to be powerful enough to impose their agenda on others and reward their constituencies.

Conservatives are masters at projecting a preachy devotion to a limited state, democracy, liberty and free enterprise while their support of the Central State undermines every one of these values. Conservatives are like the preacher who issues stern sermons on righteousness every Sunday while skimming big money from pimping sordid, destructive policies Monday through Saturday.

Conservatives claim to want to limit the Central State, but their slavish support of Medicare, Social Security, the Pentagon, the National Security State, the Federal Reserve (and thus interest on the national debt), farm subsidies to Big Ag, law enforcement and the War on Drugs Gulag means they support virtually 100% of the Central State's unlimited powers. Their proposed "cuts" are farcically tiny slices designed for propaganda purposes--out of $4 trillion Federal budget, conservatives preach "austerity" while leaving the Empire and their crony-capitalist cartels entirely intact.

Conservatives claim devotion to national defense while actually having no interest in actual defense. Their sole interest is supporting their favored cartels and projecting a politically useful facade of being pro-national defense. In the real world, they support the revolving door between the Pentagon and defense contractors and profitable but ineffective weapons systems. Conservatives happily shove weapons systems down the nation's throat the Pentagon doesn't even want, all the while masking their crony-capitalist agenda behind pious claims of supporting the military.

That is particularly Orwellian: ignore the military's true needs in favor of funneling profits to your crony-capitalist pals. The same Orwellian agenda powers conservative support of the banking sector (conservatives never met a banking subsidy they didn't love), Big Ag, Big Pharma, Big Everything--conservatives will support any Big Business at the expense of the taxpayers and the national commons.

The one essential tool conservatives need to force their crony-capitalism on the citizenry is an powerful Central State--and so they support the essentially unlimited powers of the Central State with gusto, even as they bleat piously about the Founding Fathers.

The Founding Fathers had two primary concerns: foreign entanglements and the dangers of an unlimited Central State. So-called Conservatives are blind to the gap between the reality of their support of a Global Empire and an all-powerful Central State and the fantasy that they even understand the Founding Fathers' concerns, much less actively pursue them.

Conservatives are against Big Government except when Big Government benefits their constituencies. Boost the Pentagon budget by 10% a year, rain or shine, to counter every possible threat to the Empire, boost the National Security State (Homeland Security, NSA, etc.) every year, boost the War on Drugs Gulag annually, leave Medicare, Social Security and interest on the national debt as sacrosanct, and guess what--you've created a self-liquidating monster State.

Behind their preachy facade, conservatives have turned democracy into an auction of political favors. As they belly up to the limitless trough of central State revenues and power, conservatives have embraced the auction as the true mechanism of governance: banking statutes are written by banking lobbyists and then signed into law.

What is the difference between a so-called Progressive who tells us Congress has to pass a crony-capitalist healthcare law to find out what's in it and a so-called Conservative who pushes a banking law penned by lobbyists? There is none: both are pimps.

Once you cede unlimited, highly concentrated power to the central state, you get an authoritarian empire that is driven to protect itself from any threat at all costs--including democracy, though the state may maintain a facade of carefully managed "democracy" as part of its propaganda machinery.

You cannot have a state with essentially unlimited power and not end up with cartel-capitalism. So-called Conservatives defend their favored cartel-fiefdoms, yet these cartels are busy bankrupting the nation and destroying the very bedrock of the liberties Conservatives claim to hold dear.

Once you choose to cede essentially unlimited powers to the Central State, all decisions after that are made in service of the state. The idea that the state can be limited to national defense is illusory.

The only legitimate duties of the state are limited: 1) protect the commons from destruction and exploitation; 2) protect the citizenry from exploitation or oppression by those with superior power or resources; 3) maintain transparency in all governance and 4) maintain a system of sound money.

The so-called Conservatives will learn what the teleology of the state means in the real world when the state comes after them. Once you cede unlimited power to the central state, any attempt to limit that power marks you as an enemy.

Supporting the Central State to protect your favored cartels and protect your political power over the state's tax revenues is simply pimping for the Empire. You can call it "conservative," but it's still pimping for the Empire.

 

- advertisements -

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Wed, 01/08/2014 - 14:25 | 4312194 Rising Sun
Rising Sun's picture

fuck ideologies

 

vote with your wallet - cut my taxes?  you get my vote, raise my taxes - you can fuck right off.

Wed, 01/08/2014 - 14:40 | 4312277 falak pema
falak pema's picture

moonshining with the red red sunset? 

You never fuck ideologies its always the other way round! Unfortunately.

So knee jerks are fine when you drink wine or beer. But not when u r soberrrr...

Wed, 01/08/2014 - 14:56 | 4312337 Pool Shark
Pool Shark's picture

 

 

The author uses the word "Conservatives" when he really means "Republicans." While there are still many "Republicans," few of them are still "Conservatives."

As a Conservative I share virtually none of the beliefs ascribed to "Conservatives" by this author.

Never confuse Republican with Conservative.

Wed, 01/08/2014 - 15:22 | 4312488 Event Horizon
Event Horizon's picture

yup, the author tries to bebunk the false left right paradisgm (TRUE of course) from within it,,, poor execution when you use self ascribed labels as contextual anchors..

Just call it Statism, then go from there... the meaning of the term "Conservativism" has been corrupted 

Wed, 01/08/2014 - 17:03 | 4312836 Tapeworm
Tapeworm's picture

@ Event Horizon

 The last presidential candidate worth a damn was Barry Goldwater.

 Although he didn't write his book, "The Conscience of a Conservative" he lived it and endorsed it. If you find a copy try it out to see just how far the Neoconservatives have inverted Barry's thesis.

 I was a kid of thirteen when I picked up on that and worked a lot of hours for his campaign. I got thrown out of shool for a resoned rebuttal to my English teacher's LBJ infomercials during class hours.

Wed, 01/08/2014 - 15:28 | 4312507 disabledvet
disabledvet's picture

i agree with this. you still have to GOVERN...and this is the purview of Republicans. So sure..."want my NASA? You can have my NASA! Want my Post Office? You can have my Post Office!" The best quote...or is it quotidian?...i've heard is from Felix Solomon who said "they've put a striking faith in the Federal Reserve here." This largesse isn't being sold...it's being given away....all it takes is a State Actor (call "a Governor") simply to take it. Believe me the Supreme Court will not stand in the way. So far the Center is "hanging on" but eventually the asset sales coming from District 9 will be stupendous...Soviet style if they're not careful here.

Wed, 01/08/2014 - 15:57 | 4312565 JR
JR's picture

One wonders why a man like Karl Rove would be considered a “conservative.” The reason is this disinformation enables the Republican Establishment to work with the Democrat Establishment in Washington to share the political largesse that comes to the capitol city.

Not only has the Republican Party disserted its principles and caused many to leave the party in recent years, but the Republican Establishment is actually disserting those Americans who still identify as Republicans.

The Republican Establishment now is amnesty, empire for international oligarchs and open borders, Obamacare socialism (the Republican-controlled House funding of the Affordable Care Act and McConnell’s Senate support for the Reid cloture bill that enabled ACA passage in the Senate), AIPAC authority over U.S., surrender to out-of-control national debt,  votes for Leftist destruction of America’s Christian culture, and total agreement with the Norman Podhoretz neocon military policy and Obama's radical Left appointees to the U.S. Supreme Court...not to mention, of course, internationalist Janet Yellen to implement central banks' policies of the international financial oligarchy.

And, now, not only has the Republican Establishment generally supported the policies advanced by the Democrats, but they are actively attacking conservatives and Tea Party challengers in Republican priimary races and, in some cases, such as former Republican Senator Lugar’s campaign PAC, funding Democrat challengers opposing conservative Republicans (consider also the U.S. Chamber of Commerce's $50,000,000 donation to oppose conservative challengers to the Republican Establishment).

Wed, 01/08/2014 - 17:04 | 4312816 spooz
spooz's picture

I don't get how people still think Obamacare is socialism.  Its a crony capitalist plan that leaves millions without healthcare while locking in profits for Big Pharma, Big Insurance and Big Healthcare.  If the poor are lucky, they will be in a state where they can get Medicaid, although studies show access to Medicaid does not increase good outcomes compared to being uninsured.  

http://www.forbes.com/sites/scottgottlieb/2014/01/02/new-study-shows-how-medicaid-fails-the-poor-and-why-obamacare-will-fail-the-middle-class/

Wed, 01/08/2014 - 16:07 | 4312642 CH1
CH1's picture

Never confuse Republican with Conservative.

If they pull the R lever in the booth, they share the guilt.

Thu, 01/09/2014 - 06:27 | 4314683 starfcker
starfcker's picture

couldn't have said it better, poolshark. props

Wed, 01/08/2014 - 14:59 | 4312366 CH1
CH1's picture

vote with your wallet

Yes. Withdraw from the system.

Wed, 01/08/2014 - 18:40 | 4313212 GoldRulesPaperDrools
GoldRulesPaperDrools's picture

But half of the people *don't pay* any (income) taxes, so they don't care about that.  Actually, when income taxes for others are raised, people who don't pay any income taxes get more free stuff, so half of the people are already voting against you.

Wed, 01/08/2014 - 14:25 | 4312196 Seasmoke
Seasmoke's picture

ZEROHEDGE 101

Wed, 01/08/2014 - 14:25 | 4312198 El Vaquero
El Vaquero's picture

Pimpin' explained:

 

My bitch better have my money

Through rain, sleet or snow.

My whore better have my money,

Not half, not some, but all my cash,

Cause if she don't,

I'm gonna put my foot in her ass.

Wed, 01/08/2014 - 14:29 | 4312208 Pizza man
Pizza man's picture

I've said it before...95% of the Dems have to go and 85% of the GOP with them.

Wed, 01/08/2014 - 14:30 | 4312220 Xibalba
Xibalba's picture

Ron Paul is the only Conservative politician I'm aware of.  

Wed, 01/08/2014 - 14:30 | 4312221 Martin Silenus
Martin Silenus's picture

The two faces of Janus, without the J.  Divide and conquer, bitchez!

Wed, 01/08/2014 - 16:14 | 4312660 janus
janus's picture

or, better yet, unite and rule...

in either case, it's time these United States take out their greatest enemy -- washington d.c.

nothing but a haunt of demons and foul spirits.

'they' constitute their only remaining support.

here's the story of Jehu, king of israel's northern kingdom, who took a very dim view of ahab and jezebel and their statist policies (i copied and pasted it...no time right now; otherwise, i'd tell it the colorful janus way)

Jehu, meaning Jehovah is he, was the tenth king of Israel (that is, the northern kingdom of Israel, which was separate from the southern kingdom of Judah - see Kings of Israel and Judah and Jews At War With Israel). He was the son of Jehoshaphat (2 Kings 9:2), and grandson of Nimshi, although, according to ancient custom, he is sometimes referred to as the son of Nimshi. Jehu begins in the record of Bible History as a soldier in King Ahab's army (Ahab's wife was the wicked Jezebel), however God commanded Elijah to anoint him king over Israel, which was later done through Elisha, who was designated by God as Elijah's successor (see Where Did Elijah Go?) at the same time (1 Kings 19:16). Jehu's rise to power was one of the bloodiest in Israel's history, although in obedience to God's command to destroy the corrupt and wicked from the land.

Jehu Of Israel

At a time when Israel and Judah were at war with Syria (as has again happened a few times since the modern state of Israel was founded in 1948), King Joram of Israel was wounded in battle, and retired to Jezreel to recover. While there, his ally King Ahaziah of Judah went to express his concern (2 Kings 8:25-29).

With both kings away, the military commanders, including Jehu, met to discuss strategy. Just as this was happening, a young prophet sent by Elisha arrived, asked to see Jehu, and while speaking with him privately, he anointed him king over Israel and ordered him to destroy the house of Ahab, in accordance with God's will (2 Kings 9:1-10). When the other officers were told of what had been done, they proclaimed Jehu king (2 Kings 9:11-14).

Jehu then went to Jezreel. When Joram came out of the city in his chariot to meet Jehu, he was shot with an arrow and killed by Jehu himself (2 Kings 9:24). When the king of Judah, Ahaziah, who also happened to be there, saw what was happening, he fled in his chariot, but he too was hit with an arrow. He later died in Megiddo, also known as Armageddon (2 Kings 9:27-29).

Jehu then entered Jezreel where he was immediately met by one of the most infamously wicked people of the Bible - Jezebel. Jehu ordered the palace eunuchs to throw her out of a window, which they unhesitatingly did, where she died in the street (2 Kings 9:30-37).

Continuing on, Jehu ordered the officials of the capital city of Samaria to kill all of the royal princes of the former king, thereby ending his dynasty. The next morning, their severed heads were delivered to Jehu in Jezreel (2 Kings 10:1-7). The slaughter continued the next day until the house of Ahab was completely destroyed, in keeping with God's condemnation of the house of Ahab and Jezebel, delivered through Elijah (2 Kings 10:10-14).

Jehu then turned his attention to the idolatry in the land. Upon entering Samaria, he lured all of the ministers of Baal to unwittingly assemble together, upon which they too were all killed, their idols were destroyed, and the temple of Baal was demolished (2 Kings 10:18-28).

Having been chosen by God as Israel's king, and having proven himself a very zealous servant of God, Jehu then ironically, and wrongfully, tolerated the worship of the golden calves (see also The Golden Calf) at Dan and Bethel that had been set up as places of worship for the northern kingdom of Israel, so that their people wouldn't travel to Jerusalem which was within the southern kingdom of Judah (2 Kings 10:28-29).

Jehu died after a reign of twenty-eight years, and was buried in Samaria (2 Kings 10:34-36). His dynasty (see Israelite Dynasties) ruled Israel, the northern kingdom, for about a century.

 

...

there are other interesting aspects to the story; but janus (with the "j") hasnt' the time to now include them...maybe some time in the future -- as the story, at least to me, seems VERY relevant.

ahhhh, the Holy Bible...it's the revolutionary's bible.

in my defense: in a world of TOTAL deception, Truth must be mingled slowly and carefully...and why hold me responsible for using the enemy's tactics against it?  they've proven their method's efficacy; i'm only attempting to show that the sword cuts both ways.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O52jAYa4Pm8

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u06DpcFXc4U

strange but not a stranger/

i am an ordinary guy/

burning down the house/

...there has got to be a way,

janus

 

Wed, 01/08/2014 - 14:31 | 4312228 the not so migh...
the not so mighty maximiza's picture

good article

Wed, 01/08/2014 - 14:31 | 4312231 maskone909
maskone909's picture

progressive- in connotation; suggests progress, positive change, with a hint of kill whitey sprinkled on top.

progressives, in the context of political action, move to create reforms that limit liberties, bash "the archaic" constitution, and label anyone that supports the bill of rights as a conspiracy nut or a redneck. 

 

 

Wed, 01/08/2014 - 14:32 | 4312234 Sean7k
Sean7k's picture

The only legitimate duties of the state are limited: 1) protect the commons from destruction and exploitation; 2) protect the citizenry from exploitation or oppression by those with superior power or resources; 3) maintain transparency in all governance and 4) maintain a system of sound money.

Here is the problem in a nutshell: CHS FAILS to understand there are zero legitimate duties, because states are not legitimate. 

The State is incapable of protecting the commons, because it functions at the behest of those that want those commons to exploit. The State cannot protect the citizen, because it places itself ahead of the citizen and their needs. Transparency is useless, you only need it if the State is criminal and then it has to allow you options which the State never allows. Finally, money should NEVER be in the hands of the State, legal tender laws purposely create an abusive monopoly. 

Until we move past the State and systems of law as governing constructs we are destined to lives of slavery.

Wed, 01/08/2014 - 15:17 | 4312465 kridkrid
kridkrid's picture

Would those who voted this post down care to share why?

Wed, 01/08/2014 - 15:30 | 4312519 disabledvet
disabledvet's picture

I didn't vote it down but the problem is that "the State exists" and unfortunately "it exists to solve problems." Polity exists too...

Wed, 01/08/2014 - 16:00 | 4312615 El Vaquero
El Vaquero's picture

I did't downvote, but state or no state, there are still sociopaths and control freaks out there who would just love to have control over your life, and IMO, no matter what system is in place, they're going to do everything in their power to find the loopholes.  I'm no statist, but I'm not an anarcho-capitalist either.  I agree that the state is bad, but I'm not convinced that not having one would be any better.  I just want whatever keeps those sociopaths and control freaks out of my life, and I readily admit to not knowing what would bring that about.

Wed, 01/08/2014 - 16:48 | 4312783 Sean7k
Sean7k's picture

The crux lies in your statement, " no matter what system is in place...". As long as there is a system, there is an apparatus for them to wreak havoc. 

Think of it this way: all herd animals must deal with predators. The most successful have local organizations that come together to defend the whole herd. Yes, they occasionally lose members (this is just life), but how much worse could it be if part of that herd made a deal with the predators to trade a certain amount of the herd, in exchange for their personal safety? 

Worse, where would the predation stop? 

Wed, 01/08/2014 - 18:01 | 4313085 El Vaquero
El Vaquero's picture

I greened you for engaging in honest discussion. I think you and I both want the same fundamental result, we're just not quite aligned on how to get there. 

 

My issue is that systems will arise in one way or another.  Maybe not ridged ones like we have now, but there will be some sort of social organization.  The question is, how to you prevent one person or one small group of people (or even a large group) from having too much power over other people?  The biggest thing that I can offer there is that no one entity should have a monopoly on force, and that should be made exceedingly clear to everybody, whether it be an anarcho-capitalist world, or a world with a state, or something yet to be thought of.  

Wed, 01/08/2014 - 18:21 | 4313155 Sean7k
Sean7k's picture

I agree systems will arise. My previous example is a "system". How is it different? There are no laws, States or structure that can be commandeered. Social organization implies rules, but rules can be ignored- they are voluntary. There may be consequences in terms of social stigma, but coercion does not exist.

As for how we get there? The people must refuse to go along- which is the only reason I still comment here, to hopefully stimulate a conversation.

Thu, 01/09/2014 - 22:45 | 4318055 Pizza man
Pizza man's picture

about 300 million guns..for a start!

Wed, 01/08/2014 - 15:22 | 4312487 kchrisc
kchrisc's picture

Great article, even better info and extremely important things to think about.

Unfortunately, by the down votes, etc., I can see many here are still living on the "government" farm--"That fence over there is to keep the 'foxes' out, not to keep me in." LOL

"First they marched the Jews and other 'undesirables' off to death in the camps, then they marched us off to death on the battlefield."

Wed, 01/08/2014 - 16:13 | 4312657 Woodhippie
Woodhippie's picture

Mankind will never be free until the last politician is strangled with the intestines of the last priest.

Wed, 01/08/2014 - 17:01 | 4312831 spooz
spooz's picture

So who exactly SHOULD be in charge of money?  The banksters, without the burden of any regulation whatsoever? They already own the money supply and the corrupted regulatory system.

Wed, 01/08/2014 - 17:07 | 4312850 Sean7k
Sean7k's picture

No one and everyone. Are you incapable of distinguishing what is good money and what is bad? You are capable of completing an exchange?  When you have legal tender laws, you have zero choice. The dollar has lost 98% of its' 1913 value, yet you are FORBIDDEN to try another currency or value commodity. This is criminal theft, pure and simple.

Wed, 01/08/2014 - 17:18 | 4312878 spooz
spooz's picture

I use and enjoy the convenience of using fiat. I would prefer a debt free version of it, however.

  In my ideal state, the treasury would be in charge of the money supply, banks and their derivative funny money would be wound down, and liquidity would be provided during this implosion with a citizen's dividend, which would provide for the general welfare (enumerated power from the constitution) and get money flowing in local economies.  Kucinich's NEED Act that died in committee explored such a debt free fiat monetary system

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NEED_Act

Wed, 01/08/2014 - 17:37 | 4312972 Sean7k
Sean7k's picture

Debt free money can be inflated or debased. If it is legal tender, you are forced to use it at ANY value. Lincoln's greenbacks were debt free money, research its' ability to retain value during and after the Civil War. Ideal State, now, that's funny.

Wed, 01/08/2014 - 19:09 | 4313270 spooz
spooz's picture

Controls could be put in for inflation (smaller dividends).  Greenbacks were very popular and their value changed with the health of the economy. I think people who are receiving a citizens dividend from the fiat creation would be happier than those whose fiat was used to finance the Civil War.

There are lots of ideal states on which real states are based.  Like "free markets", which don't exist except in idealized states.

Wed, 01/08/2014 - 20:24 | 4313572 Sean7k
Sean7k's picture

Please show where "controls" work. SEC? CFTC? ad nauseum. Greenbacks were NOT popular. Please read the history. Now, think through your idea of citizen dividend. Why would money pay out a dividend? It is not an investment. It is a method of exchange. Finally, free markets exist in many places- black markets especially. 

Instead of investing in a policy, you might want to invest in education so you can analyse a policy before you adopt it. :)

Wed, 01/08/2014 - 21:35 | 4313756 spooz
spooz's picture

Since the dividends would go to all citizens, there would be little room for gaming (banksters bamboozling or bribing regulators). Money isn't "paying a dividend". You seem to be caught up in terminology.  Call it a Basic Income Guarantee if that helps you grasp the concept. It is liquidity provided to citizens to keep the economy running.

 Greenbacks were popular enough for the economy to run on them.  The Intercontinental Railroad was built with Greenbacks and provided employment and infrastructure without debt. 

In the words of Lincoln:

"The Government should create, issue, and circulate all the currency and  credits needed to satisfy the spending power of the Government and the buying power of  consumers. By the adoption of these principles, the taxpayers will be saved immense sums of interest. Money will cease to be master and become the servant of humanity."

Also, if unregulated black markets, with related extortion, violence and swindling, are your idea of what free markets look like, why on earth would you support such a thing?

Wed, 01/08/2014 - 21:57 | 4313856 akak
akak's picture

I'm smelling unpleasant whiffs of the stench of distortion, monetary ignorance, dishonesty and historical revisionism from Ellen Brown the Money Clown and Bill Still the Fiat Shill in your post here.

What is needed is not a tinkering of just what branch of big, centralized government issues our currency (not money), but a complete SEPARATION of government and money!  Money should flow from the free market, not from some centralized and coercive monopoly power.

Wed, 01/08/2014 - 22:05 | 4313882 spooz
spooz's picture

My, my, don't you get nasty when you need to defend your biases.  I don't know of those names, came upon my knowledge elsewhere.  Strawman arguments like yours are pretty useful when you have nothing to say and have lost the ability to think outside your self imposed useful idiot box (or are you a shill yourself, paid for by neolib masters?)

So in your system, money is entirely privatized.  Pretty much like it is now, with banks creating the money supply (endogenous money creation by banksters), but you would eliminate even the pretense of regulation.  Do I have that right?

Wed, 01/08/2014 - 22:12 | 4313929 akak
akak's picture

 

So in your system, money is entirely privatized. Pretty much like it is now

LOL!!!!  I rest my case.

(Not even going to waste my time further here.)

Wed, 01/08/2014 - 22:16 | 4313942 spooz
spooz's picture

Read up on what endogenous money creation means.  As if the banksters are run by the government and not the other way around. lol

Wed, 01/08/2014 - 22:17 | 4313949 nmewn
nmewn's picture

So who exactly SHOULD be in charge of money?  The banksters, without the burden of any regulation whatsoever? They already own the money supply and the corrupted regulatory system."

"So in your system, money is entirely privatized.  Pretty much like it is now, with banks creating the money supply (endogenous money creation by banksters), but you would eliminate even the pretence of regulation.  Do I have that right?"

I never thought you were even capable of holding two opposing thoughts at the same time until now, yet, there you are.

Why does money need more regulation when it already serves the purpose of keeping poor people in serfdom now, with EBT, SNAP and a hundred more contrivances?

The question you should be asking yourself is why are they are doing it through regulation now.

Wed, 01/08/2014 - 22:23 | 4313966 spooz
spooz's picture

I'm not arguing about regulation, fool. Money doesn't need more regulation, it needs to be created by the treasury and distributed to citizens.  The free market banks can still take deposits from citizens and lend money.  They just wouldn't fractional reserve lending anymore. Who cares about regulation then, its buyer beware time.  Why are you so devoted to  deregulating banks?

Wed, 01/08/2014 - 22:25 | 4313979 nmewn
nmewn's picture

Do you still beat your wife?

Wed, 01/08/2014 - 22:32 | 4313985 spooz
spooz's picture

I am arguing for monetary REFORM, not more regulation. Do you get paid for your propaganda?

Wed, 01/08/2014 - 22:34 | 4313996 nmewn
nmewn's picture

I liked your first one better "Do like posing loaded questions."...before you edited it.

Why did you do that?...because its the same shit I did to you ;-)

Wed, 01/08/2014 - 22:36 | 4314001 spooz
spooz's picture

When you start throwing SNAP and EBT into an argument about monetary reform, its more like propaganda than a loaded question, was the thinking behind my revision.

Wed, 01/08/2014 - 22:46 | 4314008 nmewn
nmewn's picture

Its treated AS MONEY, isn't it?

//////

I'm gonna say stumped...and bye ;-)

Wed, 01/08/2014 - 22:47 | 4314038 spooz
spooz's picture

The creation of EBT and SNAP comes through adding to the public debt.  There need be no public debt if we issued a Basic Income Guarantee (BIG) to all citizens with treasury issued fiat.  No need to wash it through the banks with debt free fiat.  No need for much regulation, either.

 

Wed, 01/08/2014 - 23:11 | 4314100 nmewn
nmewn's picture

Because I don't trust you anymore to NOT edit >>>content<<< before I comment...

"The creation of EBT and SNAP comes through adding to the public debt."

So, basically, unicorn farts and debt doesn't matter?

My my my, how polar opposites can become one, for their own purposes.

What does this tell you about them...and you?

Wed, 01/08/2014 - 23:38 | 4314163 Sean7k
Sean7k's picture

Free money for everybody. Nmewn, do you recall there being problems with this concept? 

I take it back Spooz, you won't understand the book I recommended. 

Wed, 01/08/2014 - 23:52 | 4314199 nmewn
nmewn's picture

"Nmewn, do you recall there being problems with this concept?"

I do...something to do with, everyone wanting to sit under the same tree, expecting everyone else to produce, for the same reasons as those sitting under the tree and suddenly realizing nothing is being produced at all and everyone is starting to pass out from starvation...lol.

Its like deja vu all over again ;-)

Thu, 01/09/2014 - 00:11 | 4314257 spooz
spooz's picture

Eventually, it will mostly be robots that produce.  And yes, maybe some people will choose to sit under trees and just get by.  Others, like always, will want more  and will choose to work.  Sorry you have such a problem with that.

And what deja vu is that?  You have some historical examples of debt free fiat in the form of citizens dividends?

Wed, 01/08/2014 - 23:32 | 4314150 Sean7k
Sean7k's picture

But you are arguing about regulation. You want the treasury to regulate money instead of the FED. As if the government, that is run by the same bankers  (as you say) that now create money would function differently? Why would the treasury distribute money to citiens? Do you even know how currency systems operate?

It's buyer beware time? With a national currency? Really?

Thu, 01/09/2014 - 00:27 | 4314299 spooz
spooz's picture

Dolt.  Of course I know how the CURRENT "currency" (you mean monetary) system operates.  I am talking about Monetary Reform. 

The reform I like, Kucinich's NEED act, would take the banks out of the money creation business and regulation of them wouldn't matter because they would lose their ability to game the system.  

Go educate yourself and stop wasting my time doing it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monetary_reform

Thu, 01/09/2014 - 08:51 | 4314792 Sean7k
Sean7k's picture

A monetary system includes policies that control interest rates, leverage (credit) AND currency creation and supply. You are talking about fiat currency- thus you are discussing currency, not monetary policy. Or, are you wanting the Treasury to control all monetary policy as well? Planning to do away with Congress? See also the Exchange Stabilization Fund. 

You want to regulate currency but not banks? They are not dangerous, but are also the reason currency systems suffer? 

You cannot educate yourself on Wikipedia. You may be able to, but no one whom is serious can.

Reading is useful, but understanding is better.

Wed, 01/08/2014 - 23:24 | 4314129 Sean7k
Sean7k's picture

You do understand what money is? Why would the treasury pay a dividend? Answer the question. 

Money is an exchange facilitator. It doesn't matter who makes it, if the people are free to choose whether they will use it or not. I don't want any money that requires I use it- that is the problem. There is ZERO public control over legal tender.

Greenbacks did not run the economy, the use of bonds when the money ran out and an income tax ran the economy. The intercontinental railroad was built with land give aways and private bond issues. What history are you talking about? The jobs were slave jobs and they were PRIVATE railroads with tremendous debt. 

Lincoln was a tyrant.Why would you quote the biggest mass murderer in American history? Why should we "satisfy the spending needs of the government"? Are you crazy? 

How are black markets any different from regular manipulated, violent, swindling markets that are the result of government regulation and control?

You really need an education, you could start here,"A New Economic View of American History" by Jeremy Atack and Peter Passell.

Thu, 01/09/2014 - 01:40 | 4314356 spooz
spooz's picture

Answer the question.

Duh, as part of a reformation of the monetary system as a way to MAINTAIN LIQUIDITY while banks go out of the MONEY CREATION BUSINESS?  

Citizens of the USA use government fiat.  You are revising history regarding Greenbacks.  What are you referring to when you say "the money ran out"?  

When I consume products with my fiat, I can expect the laws to protect me if merchants abuse me.  That is not the case for black markets.  The corruption in the crony capitalist relationships between private and public spheres doesn't make one clean and the other dirty.  The best you can do is build a system that makes gaming difficult.

I have a lot of reading to do, the guys who wrote your book aren't exactly noted historians and have no body of work to refer to, so I don't think I'll have the time.

I suggest you try reading David Graeber's "Debt - The First 5,000 Years" to get a better background on the history of money.

Thu, 01/09/2014 - 08:30 | 4314761 Sean7k
Sean7k's picture

I did no revising whatsoever. Lincoln ran out of money and had to offer bonds and use an income tax to create revenue. Just because you are ignorant of economic history, does not make it revision. The book I referenced is written by econmc historians, just as Graeber is an anthropological historian- I've read his books as well. You obviously don't read what doesn't fit your views. Sloppy academics there.

What you cannot protect yourself from is currency debasement in your model. You fail to understand the international ramifications of monetary policy which a dividend can do nothing to resolve- see Venezuela and Argentina. 

Finally, laws never protect you, they protect those in charge. Until you realize this, you will fall prey to every politician ot there.

Wed, 01/08/2014 - 17:32 | 4312957 Blano
Blano's picture

"Until we move past the State and systems of law as governing constructs we are destined to lives of slavery."

Move past them to what, exactly?  If you're gonna propose an alternative, a little explanation would be nice.

Wed, 01/08/2014 - 17:39 | 4312983 Sean7k
Sean7k's picture

Elimination of the State and the legal system to an environment of NO laws. 

Wed, 01/08/2014 - 14:33 | 4312235 Event Horizon
Event Horizon's picture

Conservatives are blah blah blah except when they are really Progressives... like most of the GOP

Wed, 01/08/2014 - 14:44 | 4312292 Wakemaker
Wakemaker's picture

We should do everything Ron Paul and Denis Kucinich agree on and

Nothing Nancy Pelosi and John McCain agree on.

Wed, 01/08/2014 - 21:49 | 4313846 putaipan
putaipan's picture

'reverse everything john and nancy agreed on' and i'm in!

Wed, 01/08/2014 - 14:49 | 4312318 wisehiney
wisehiney's picture

Fuck em all. GO TEA! (100% authentic only)

Wed, 01/08/2014 - 14:52 | 4312330 GeezerGeek
GeezerGeek's picture

Labels are such slippery things, one can never get a grasp on the exact meaing of words like conservative, liberal, proressive, Democrat or Republican (not to mention a host of others). The lack of common definitions makes it essentially impossible to have meaningful discussions about whether liberals or conservatives are worse or better. In this context, I suggest that the article, to the extent it refers to the US, would better refer to RINOs than to Conservatives. But who can tell when the players keep changing positions (not to mention when they simply lie). So many were for "it" before they were against "it", whatever "it" is. Or vice versa. And such labels might only apply from one topic to another: economic and social policies often find people progressive on one and conservative on the other. 

A pox on all politicians who want to take my money and my liberty. 

Wed, 01/08/2014 - 16:27 | 4312721 hidingfromhelis
hidingfromhelis's picture

+1  With the current level of divisiveness, two people could likely decide in advance to hate each other based on labels, not knowing that they actually agree on principles.  I think it's part of the desire to categorize everything.  To go further off on a tangent, it's part of our dumbing down.  

A pox on all politicians who want to take my money and my liberty.  Even that could be interpreted differently by different readers who claim it as a tenet of their ideology, as basic and fundamental as it is.  (...and +1 worthy!)  Therein lies the problem with labels and interpretation of them.

Wed, 01/08/2014 - 15:07 | 4312410 Czar of Defenes...
Czar of Defenestration's picture

Dear Author: I anxiously await your Part 3 - after Progressives and Conservatives - about the next group of rabid ideologues: libertarians.

Scott M. over at American Digest wrote well about them:

"Libertarianism, for those that sincerely believe in it, not just adopt it to spit at conservatives, is nearly identical to the immoral pacifism that was more common before Sept 11. It's an ideology the believer doesn't even bother to hope to implement. It's an all-purpose, post-hoc formula for avoiding the real world.  If you ask them what would you do about X, their response usually goes back before the earth cooled and they spin out a fantasy of how they would remake the world so the realities of current life would never intrude on their fantasy.

"Like when I challenged pacifists about what would you do NOW that Sept 11 happened?  Their answer was always of the flavor of "well, if I was in charge we would never have had a Sept 11." Notice the y don't answer the question that was asked and they assume intervention before the act.

"For all the evil the Libertarians find in both parties, notice how very small are their efforts, except on pot. They talk as if they are opposed by 2 sets of pure, or nearly pure evil. But, look at how little they organize, except for pot. Look at how few people they elect. They assure us we must not remake the GOP, but abandon it because it's made promises to us about smaller govt but not delivered. Has the accumulated efforts of fellow Libertarians achieved more? No. Do they have contempt for the Libertarian Party and its members? No. Their efforts are about envy or revenge against the senior relative. Think of the moody teenager that has hatred for their parent but not a care for the real low-lifes in town that are much worse, no matter how short of perfection dear old dad has become.

"Libertarians argue the way to future victory is to abandon social issues and concentrate on economic and liberty issues. If that was a sure formula for success wouldn't that demand the Libertarian Party and members need to do everything possible to make their views available? Wouldn't their views be advanced rapidly? Wouldn't the Libertarians be surging and not lounging in the polls and elections? It doesn't cost a dime to vote for anyone on the ballot. No, Libertarianism is seen by many people as an un-serious option. Libertarianism is so vague and undefined every person with a complain can imagine they are Libertarian, and because it's never implemented, and seldom makes contact with flesh and bone humans it's got no record and Libertarians never are in conflict with each other as is routinely the case with members of the 2 big Parties. They share aspects with Anarchists, not the former Communists that are pretending to favor no government, but the fantasists that imagine a world of people just like them all living without any govt.

"Don't take advice from Libertarians unless you want to duplicate their stellar record of not winning much. Voters aren't rushing to Libertarians. The Libertarians, rather than fighting for their beliefs want Republicans to just change and advance the Lt agenda for them. They have a military agenda much too close to the commielib disarmament agenda for my taste.

"Libertarian positions, in most Libertarians, are primarily useful in making the individual Libertarian feel superior, even as they stay out of the political boxing ring. Maybe that's its only purpose, to justify not getting involved. The practical help to the commielibs may only be the side-effect. The strengthening of commielibs isn't important enough to the Libertarians for them to adjust their efforts. The 2 big goals are hurt the majority in the Party, the Libertarians would like to control, and announce they wouldn't have supported whatever is failing now."

Wed, 01/08/2014 - 15:32 | 4312526 disabledvet
disabledvet's picture

Unitarians are far more dangerous. Better keep an eye on them too.

Wed, 01/08/2014 - 16:23 | 4312700 malek
malek's picture

Pretty pointless rant.
Let me ask you the central question it all boils down to:

Do you want equal opportunity OR equal results?
(I hope it's self-explanatory equal opportunity leads to unequal results, as human abilities and perseverance do differ.)

If you choose the first you have to go for a mostly libertarian approach with a set of simple well-enforced rules: a true Republic.

Else you have only one final choice left: which Totalitarian state form you prefer.

Wed, 01/08/2014 - 15:08 | 4312415 smartstrike
smartstrike's picture

All this just to attack Social Security? This con-man, hiding as a blog writer will ALWAYS show his true colors. Why, just look at the silks he is wearing riding for the DK(David Koch) team , a team driving propaganda in order to steal your Social Security.

Wed, 01/08/2014 - 15:09 | 4312422 crzyhun
crzyhun's picture

Power is not a means; it is an end. One does not establish a dictatorship in order to safeguard a revolution; one makes the revolution in order to establish the dictatorship. The object of persecution is persecution. The object of torture is torture. The object of power is power. GO 1984

Wed, 01/08/2014 - 15:28 | 4312510 Jack Burton
Jack Burton's picture

Both parties are corporate crony pimps. I for one welcome a post like this that takes apart the fake conservatives in America. FOX is their icon, this propaganda organ of crony capitalism and empire uses social issues to work up people to vote for the 1% and the empire and their banks at EVERY turn. But we must not be critical of conservatives, because they will save us from big government and social programs. Ha! Ha! You mean anyone believes that bullshit. What about Bush, his 8 years were conservative? His record is on paper, we know it, American conservatives run away from their man as fast as they can when his 8 years in mentioned. And yesterday I made clear what I think of Obama, as if he is a socialist. His record is also on paper. It is one of empire above all else, it is one of crony capitalism, of supprt for the federal reserve and a complete slave to the banking class. 95% of all income gains go to 1% and some claim socialism. For fuck's sake, what do you take us for?

Wed, 01/08/2014 - 15:31 | 4312522 Reference Variable
Reference Variable's picture

This article is garbage. The "conservatives" the author imagines are strawmen from a high school government class term paper. This could not be more wrong.

Wed, 01/08/2014 - 17:37 | 4312973 Blano
Blano's picture

The author is speaking of those posers who call themselves conservatives (and Republicans).  DC is overrun with them.

Wed, 01/08/2014 - 15:32 | 4312527 kchrisc
kchrisc's picture

"One's vote for a 'conservative,' 'right,' or similar, and another's vote for a 'liberal,' 'left,' or similar, is ultimately two votes for the establishment."

Wed, 01/08/2014 - 16:09 | 4312647 hidingfromhelis
hidingfromhelis's picture

Also, a lot of people tend to self-identify with the ideal "in a perfect world" version of their chosen ideology, rather than how they actually conduct themselves in their daily lives. The more public the person is, the more pronounced this seems to be.

Wed, 01/08/2014 - 17:26 | 4312598 falak pema
falak pema's picture

Any argument to be valid has to be based on history, to have a foundation proven in time. Otherwise its a novel experience  which is just a pipe dream. For a pipe dream to be relevant to human constructs its basis has to be demonstrated in contradictory fashion; aka in this instance the consequences in History of not having any centralised power.

Both the endogenous (anarchy and/or might is right feudalism evolutions) and exogenous (invasion by other centrally controlled predatory empires) type consequences of this historical analysis, should be presented to make the case of a novel experience that pretends to be viable and realistic.

As an example, just look at Italy from 500 AD to this day to understand how the CIty State  decentralised structure; although being very innovative and predatory like were Venice and Genoa; invited Empires to invade its realms incessantly from the beginning to the end. It led to the decline of Italy in the nation state age of centralised power.

Counter arguments are the acid test to any true sociopolitical premise. 

CHS is just reacting to the debasement of US central state power under the influence of hegemonical hubris.

It started in 1945, this privileged position of world hegemon; it morphed into belligerent MIC plays in 1964; it went global in 1971-1973 because of petrodollar life line of west. It went Neoliberal and neo feudal in 1981 with the avowed aim of destroying the welfare state. It went rabidly hubristic in NWO 1991 outsourcing rampage and now its imploded in 2008.

A jaundiced knee jerk is not the moment to throw the baby with the bath water in libertarian hopium of same nature as the Bolsheviks who decided to eliminate the Aristocracy to replace it by its Statist mirror opposite. 

History and centrifugal forces are inexorable with dreamers of idealist constructs. 

Wed, 01/08/2014 - 17:47 | 4313013 Sean7k
Sean7k's picture

Your argument implies we must recycle old ideas and concepts. It fails to consider the consequences of new discoveries. You would condemn us to repeating the past, which has always resulted in failure. Then ridicule new ideas because they "might" fail? Your reasoning needs work.

Wed, 01/08/2014 - 20:01 | 4313474 falak pema
falak pema's picture

I don't see any NEW ideas on the agenda here on ZH; only doom and gloom at where the status quo takes us.

Where do you see new ideas in what CHS writes? Its all about tearing down a corrupted government and crony capitalism. The functionning of the institutions is corrupt. THe framework of those institutions is not.

That's my point. Honest men and honest adherence to existing rules by reinstating GS and shutting down the casino. 

Libertarian thought brings nothing new to the table except PM back up to replace fiat! 

THAT'S OLD LOGIC! 

Wed, 01/08/2014 - 20:13 | 4313501 akak
akak's picture

 

Libertarian thought brings nothing new to the table except PM back up to replace fiat!

I had to downarrow you for this, Falak, as it so perfectly represents the corrupted, ignorant, and captured statist mindset that is so typical of almost all you Old-Worlders.

You fail to see what is "new to the table" in libertarianism precisely because libertarianism, in and of itself, does NOT claim, and is not able, to bring anything to the table at all, except for the freedom for you and me to make the table what we wish it to be (absent coercing others to share in our own personal visions).

Wed, 01/08/2014 - 20:33 | 4313614 Sean7k
Sean7k's picture

If you have read my comments, I never endorsed the ideas of CHS. Changing the subject to not address your previous statements is below you.

As for the framework of the institutions: of course they are corrupt. This is the reason for law and regulation- to commit crime against the people. Honest men don't need institutions or frameworks. Honest men don't need rules (laws). Dishonest men do.

Libertarian thought is impossible to define, it has been co-opted and spun until it became everything and nothing.

Eliminate the law- that is my "new" paradigm. Care to take it on a spin?

Wed, 01/08/2014 - 17:21 | 4312895 sbenard
sbenard's picture

I can't imagine a more inaccurate representation of conservative ideology than this one! Smith must have had Republican moderates (RINOs?) in view while he wrote this. NONE of it represents the conservatives I know! His misrepresentation amounts to SLANDER! He has borne false witness! In my mind, he is now just as much of a deceiver as progressives. His cred... is DEAD!

An "ideology", as he wants to label it, is nothing but a set of principles. Without principles, we become nothing but political driftwood! Apparently, that's what Smith wants ALL of us to be!

Wed, 01/08/2014 - 17:29 | 4312939 divide_by_zero
divide_by_zero's picture

Correct and the RINOs are the progressives that crossed over during the cold war years, big government neo-cons and so we get things like Bush's prescription drug plan from an alleged conservative. The progressives in both parties give the appearance of a false left/right paradigm.

Wed, 01/08/2014 - 17:31 | 4312947 divide_by_zero
divide_by_zero's picture

Double post

 

Wed, 01/08/2014 - 18:06 | 4313096 DaveA
DaveA's picture

The problem with Christian and Conservative values is that they've been corrupted by Marxist ideas in ways subtle and hard to root out.  E.g. the Bible says that a man may divorce his wife only for sexual immorality, whereas a woman shall not divorce her husband for any reason.  Yet women in Bible churches ditch their husbands with impunity.  Pastors like Mark Connelly condemn men for not being "holy enough" to keep their wives happy, while rogering a few of those wives on the side.

It's even worse in politics, because there's no "conservative bible" to settle arguments.  I'd suggest the Declaration of Independence, Constitution, Federalist Papers, and first fifteen Amendments, but other conservatives insist that women have a "right" to vote, even if that inevitably leads to a heavily-taxed, highly-regulated, bankrupt welfare state.

Wed, 01/08/2014 - 19:09 | 4313286 Vin
Vin's picture

RINO's are now calling themselves "conservatives" when in fact they're nothing of the sort.  I now call myself a Constitutionalist meaning a supporter of govt being limiting to the WRITTEN Constitution (not the bullshit "living" constitution).  I imagine that pretty soon the RINO's will try and cloak themselves in this term also.

Wed, 01/08/2014 - 20:21 | 4313545 Mike Cowan
Mike Cowan's picture

The fastest growing movement on college campuses is Students for Liberty, a Libertarian organization.

Wed, 01/08/2014 - 20:41 | 4313645 dinkum
dinkum's picture

Dennis Rodman sounding high with his "team" on global msm from N Korea yesterday was one of the sport's blog topics about "What Is the US coming to?". I posted about "Ping Pong Diplomacy", Cyrus Eaton and other ad hoc ways for the greatest superpower militarily and toxic-derivative-wise in history to deal with the 100 Years War from 1914 to 2014.  No response except flaming Rodman and his band of basketball players. 

I grew up in a country that Will Rogers said, "Never lost a war or won a peace conference". Winning the battle and losing the war was a common theme/premise for me in grammar school reports no matter what the topic. In other words, not the past or present causes, but the effects/consequences upon short/mid/long term time horizons' probable outcomes. After a couple years of being examined by the principal in her office about who wrote this, where did you copy this and who told you this, a treaty was reached that I could continue to write as long as I did not allow classmates to read or discuss my writings. 

Hugh-Smith approaches the issues of war and peace more from a top down approach than the bottom up, highly personal approach of my grammar school days in the '40s and early '50s. In 2004-2005 I completed two years of evening classes for a top two Film School Professional Program in Screenwriting. My dream was to be able to write really stupid, dumb and funny screenplays/TV sitcoms with sound asset conservation issues in the backstories to reach Millennials. Like Hugh-Smith in his two attempts to reach ZH readers, my efforts elicit more finger pointing by audiences at the bad gals and guys in classic siege mentality, base tribal instinct responses.

You have to admit the new format NY Times website featuring a Scrooge McDuck-pop-character-type who saved annually 5 to 10 times his annual AG wages is really, really funny appealing to populist progressives, libertarian conservatives and undecides alike. And he sounds so presidential talking with comedic gravitas about himself. 

Hugh-Smith, I've found if it isn't something affecting them personally or within a 5 mile radius of their houses, you lose them. And don't mention money-stuff that doesn't give them something in the mail that can be used in a store or food establishment within 5 miles of their houses. 

 

 

 

 

 

Do NOT follow this link or you will be banned from the site!