IPFS
Larken Rose
More About: GovernmentGovernment = Corruption
Lots of people realize that when huge corporations can basically buy the government, and then have it act as their pet pit bull, there will be big problems. Lots of people of different political viewpoints, including socialists like Michael Moore, can recognize that. However, for some bizarre reason (whether due to dishonesty or ignorance), Mr. Moore labels that situation "capitalism." Even more bizarrely, he goes on to pitch more government as the "solution."
And he's not alone. I've talked with plenty of people who view corporate lobbyists as a big problem (which they are), but who also view more government intervention as the solution. Basically, it boils down to a completely batty argument: "The super-rich are buying the government! So we need the government to stop them!"
As I've said before, as bluntly as I can, the belief in "authority" stems from a refusal to grow up. As kids, we had big people we could whine to, to try to get whatever we wanted. When we get older, some of us realize that real life isn't like that, but some of us still want a giant nanny who we can whine to, who will save the day, fix everything, and take care of us. They wish, as hard as they can, that some huge, powerful entity will be there, to fight for them, to be on their side, to make sure that everything turns out well--the good are rewarded, the wicked are punished, there is truth and justice, and we all live happily ever after.
If such a thing was possible--some magical, omnipotent force which would always make good prevail--I'd be as thrilled as anyone. But there isn't. And expecting "government" to be that all-knowing, all-caring, all-powerful savior and protector is just plain idiotic! It never has been, never will be, and never could be.
"But we need government to protect the little guy!" Okay, but why would it? Sure, you might want that, but why would you ever expect it to happen? Look at the authoritarian regimes that talked the most about helping the lower classes, about being for "the people," and being against "the rich." That was the sales pitch for the Soviet Union, Red China, Hitler's Germany, and many more--but what was the result? Why do such regimes always end up creating a super-rich, all-powerful ruling elite, which constantly stomps on, oppresses, robs, and often murders "the little guy"? The answer is nothing more than basic human nature and simple economics. If there is a throne to be bought, someone rich will buy it.
For example, lots of people complain (and rightly so) about the zillions of dollars the pharmaceutical companies and the AMA throw at politicians to buy their loyalty. You can call it "corruption," but you might as well just call it "government," since that's how it always works. The idea that things would ever happen any other way is absurd, and the idea that a giant authoritarian structure would ever be "for the little guy" is naive to the point of being insane.
If you start with the notion that there should be a huge beast called "government," with the right to forcibly control everyone, what would you expect to happen? Is it likely to do what you want it to, just because you asked nicely, or is it likely to do whatever will provide it with money and power? When a bill comes up in congress, which do you think your "representative" is going to care about more: your pathetic whining, or the lobbyist with a $100,000 check in his hand? You say you'd threaten to vote against him? You think he cares? He can buy a lot of votes with $100,000.
And he's not alone. I've talked with plenty of people who view corporate lobbyists as a big problem (which they are), but who also view more government intervention as the solution. Basically, it boils down to a completely batty argument: "The super-rich are buying the government! So we need the government to stop them!"
As I've said before, as bluntly as I can, the belief in "authority" stems from a refusal to grow up. As kids, we had big people we could whine to, to try to get whatever we wanted. When we get older, some of us realize that real life isn't like that, but some of us still want a giant nanny who we can whine to, who will save the day, fix everything, and take care of us. They wish, as hard as they can, that some huge, powerful entity will be there, to fight for them, to be on their side, to make sure that everything turns out well--the good are rewarded, the wicked are punished, there is truth and justice, and we all live happily ever after.
If such a thing was possible--some magical, omnipotent force which would always make good prevail--I'd be as thrilled as anyone. But there isn't. And expecting "government" to be that all-knowing, all-caring, all-powerful savior and protector is just plain idiotic! It never has been, never will be, and never could be.
"But we need government to protect the little guy!" Okay, but why would it? Sure, you might want that, but why would you ever expect it to happen? Look at the authoritarian regimes that talked the most about helping the lower classes, about being for "the people," and being against "the rich." That was the sales pitch for the Soviet Union, Red China, Hitler's Germany, and many more--but what was the result? Why do such regimes always end up creating a super-rich, all-powerful ruling elite, which constantly stomps on, oppresses, robs, and often murders "the little guy"? The answer is nothing more than basic human nature and simple economics. If there is a throne to be bought, someone rich will buy it.
For example, lots of people complain (and rightly so) about the zillions of dollars the pharmaceutical companies and the AMA throw at politicians to buy their loyalty. You can call it "corruption," but you might as well just call it "government," since that's how it always works. The idea that things would ever happen any other way is absurd, and the idea that a giant authoritarian structure would ever be "for the little guy" is naive to the point of being insane.
If you start with the notion that there should be a huge beast called "government," with the right to forcibly control everyone, what would you expect to happen? Is it likely to do what you want it to, just because you asked nicely, or is it likely to do whatever will provide it with money and power? When a bill comes up in congress, which do you think your "representative" is going to care about more: your pathetic whining, or the lobbyist with a $100,000 check in his hand? You say you'd threaten to vote against him? You think he cares? He can buy a lot of votes with $100,000.
It's a safe bet that if control of the world is up for sale, you will be outbid. And the people who want to buy it--the people who crave dominion over everyone else--will not be good people. Good people don't want to rule the world.
As soon as there is an authoritarian control machine, it will of course be bought and owned by super-rich, nasty control freaks. That's why, if you don't like the corporate fascism we have today, the answer is not to demand more "government" power (duh), and it's not to whine to the politicians who have already been bought (duh), and it's not to try to come up with some magic way to suspend the laws of economics and human nature, to make "the system" give up its money and power in favor of doing whatever you want it to do. The answer is to not have an authoritarian control machine to begin with. If you don't have an all-knowing, all-powerful master, he can't be bought. But if you do have one, he will immediately be bought. Maybe some day people will understand that, and they'll stop engaging in the silly ritual of creating giant, unstoppable monsters, and then hoping they'll do the right thing.
As soon as there is an authoritarian control machine, it will of course be bought and owned by super-rich, nasty control freaks. That's why, if you don't like the corporate fascism we have today, the answer is not to demand more "government" power (duh), and it's not to whine to the politicians who have already been bought (duh), and it's not to try to come up with some magic way to suspend the laws of economics and human nature, to make "the system" give up its money and power in favor of doing whatever you want it to do. The answer is to not have an authoritarian control machine to begin with. If you don't have an all-knowing, all-powerful master, he can't be bought. But if you do have one, he will immediately be bought. Maybe some day people will understand that, and they'll stop engaging in the silly ritual of creating giant, unstoppable monsters, and then hoping they'll do the right thing.
P.S. Statists often accuse anarchists of being naive, for believing that people are basically good, and for believing that everyone would always be nice to each other if there was no master. (I don't actually know any anarchists who think that.) The statists insist that people are inherently greedy and nasty--which may or may not be true--but their bizarre "solution" is to take a few of those greedy, nasty people, and give them permission to forcibly rule the rest of us, hoping they'll use that power for good. So who is being naive?
Watch Streaming Broadcast Live:
LRN.fm
DLive
Live Chat
Telegram
Telegram
4 Comments in Response to Government = Corruption
So very true and obvious. Thank you very much for this article full of wisdom.
Great article. So, many have been fooled by the constant claims that all we need are more laws and more law enforcement to regulate everything. What those fools don’t understand is that all forms of government, no matter what you call them, result in rule by an aristocracy as government agents are given various powers over the general public. Some have very limited power and some have vast power. Therefore, if you want liberty and justice and don’t want tyranny and oppression, the question that any intelligent person should ask is, "How can we keep the aristocrats from abusing their power?"
Once Americans had the ability to hold our government accountable, but those fundamental rights have been stolen. Without these rights, we no longer can secure liberty and justice nor enjoy the peace and prosperity which flowed from a system of government which provided the means for citizens to secure liberty and justice.
If anyone still believes the fairy tales spread by the corporate "news" cartel and the "educational" system that the U.S. government works to preserve liberty and do justice, then see Why Does the U.S. Government Torture People? at http://dailycensored.com/2009/06/24/why-does-the-u-s-government-torture-people/ You’ll learn that the government admits that hundreds of Americans are beaten, raped, and even murdered by "law" enforcement every day.
If you have wondered why the government passes laws that virtually everyone opposes, like the bank bailout, and why the government refuses to investigate and prosecute obvious crimes, like torture and murder, check out Why Does the Government Ignore Our Wishes? at http://dailycensored.com/2009/09/11/why-does-the-government-ignore-our-wishes/ and don’t miss my 18 minute speech.
If you take a look, you’ll learn why government agents and those who can influence them get away with horrible crimes. My article on torture includes a link to the U.S. Supreme Court case which explains how one of our stolen rights makes the difference between justice and injustice, between freedom and slavery.
Remember, if you are not part of the solution, you are part of the problem. Will you help destroy our ability to control the government or will you spread the news and demand that our rights to control the government are restored?
Send the link to Larkin’s article to all of your contacts, or don’t do anything if you don’t value freedom and don’t mind begging your masters for justice, and like another Adams said long ago, "May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen."
Carpe diem,
Mark A. Adams JD/MBA
P.S. I’m active in the media, election, and judicial reform movements. Check out a 3 minute video about some of my work at http://blip.tv/file/1672498
As usual you are right on! I remember when I was a teenager (early 70's) seems like the theme was fear the government, question authority and distrust of law enforcement. What happened? Seems like alot of my peers are now part of the big government problem. What happened to their beliefs? Some say they grew up...but did they? Like you said maybe they refused to grow up and have decided they want something to provide for them, think for them and protect them (lol).
Very well put Larken! Clear, concise, and to the point. Too bad more people just don't get this plainly simple fact.