Good post, Will. I've wrestled with a lot of these questions. We often talk of regulatory capture, but I think deregulatory capture is just as likely in a lot of instances. I share your last sentiment.
D.C. - well yes. Absolutely the crux of the argument is over power. But plutocracies occur typically in places where government is very powerful. Indeed, plutocracies are often a conspiracy of powerful private interests and their cronies in government. The two become indistinguishable. A limited government which did not have the wherewithal to aid and support cronies in private industry (limited, but not necessary weak in this regard) would be more effective than a very strong state that could even more easily enforce the plutocrats who inevitably would capture and make use of it.
Greg, I think the idea of a stateless society is (at least at the moment) an impossible dream. The state is simply too deeply woven into the burlap sack of society. So we use the idea as a guiding light. We realize that the governments of the world have the capacity to do great good and great harm. We find ways to limit them and replace their good functions with other entities and eradicate their worst functions altogether. We work to decentralize power where we can. We use the federal government to enforce liberty whenever necessary (to undo the harmful precedents of other government actions - think, the Civil Rights Act...). We do not wave a magic wand and say "Poof! No government! All is well!" It is a compass to guide us through a work in progress.
I think turning the ideas presented into a discussion of the characters invoking those ideas is unhelpful at best. This isn't really about Kling at all. He could be the most generous philanthropist on the face of the earth and still be dead wrong, or he could be a miser and still absolutely correct. I fail to see any relevance in a discussion of his character.
I think the idea is to keep the state, but to work to limit it in ways that make it much less invasive and much less relevant to the day-to-day goings on of society; to create an organic society that can get along just fine without the state at least until the invading hordes show up. This is also meant as a guiding light. I am a pragmatist. This piece is one of those idealistic pieces - some might call it ideological but I would prefer idealistic. We are a long ways away, both culturally and politically, from a night-watchman state or from any sort of minimilast state. But I see the good steps we've made as ones which could lead us in many directions - toward a society of arbitrary laws written by special and powerful interests, where the government is pervasive and has its nose in everyone's business at all times; or toward a 'natural society' as the younger Burke would call it.
I very much agree that he's continued (or expanded) many of Bush's worst programs. I mean, look I wrote this at Balloon Juice the other day:
John is, of course, absolutely correct that the folks who led us down this security rabbit hole in the first place were the Republicans – albeit, with the aid of most of the Democrats at the time (a few stalwart civil libertarians on the right and the left opposed the security power grabs – Russ Feingold, Ron Paul, etc.) Nonetheless, it was the Republican party that was in charge when they formed the DHS, the TSA, started torturing people, wire-tapping sans warrants, detaining P.O.W.’s indefinitely at Gitmo without trial, and so forth.
Thank God the Democrats have changed all that.
It’s all well and good to point out the hypocrisy of the Republicans here. The Charles Krauthammers of the world deserve it. But I care more about the people who hold the reins of power now – and the Obama administration and Democrat-controlled congress have not scaled back their war-on-terror powers in any meaningful or sustainable way. That’s also useful to remember when you fly this holiday season. The Republicans may have gotten the ball rolling, but the ball is still rolling under the Democrats.
Another thing to remember is that your team will only hold on to their seats for a limited amount of time. When they’re out of office, whatever power they accrued will transfer over to the Republicans, who, despite their current hypocrisy on the matter, will quickly return to their old ways, heaping fertilizer on the worst parts of government all in the name of national security. Then the Democrats, after supporting these programs when they came to a vote, will campaign against them, win, and continue whatever programs they campaigned against. And so on and so forth ad infinitum.
Bipartisanship is terrifying in practice.
See, I'm really not ignoring these facts. I wrote this for a largely very pro-Obama audience. If I spend a few graphs mocking Republicans it is not for lack of pointing these same things out - I think quite forcefully.
That's fine - I agree - however, I think one can still expend the ink necessary to point out stupid things that the GOP shills have to say. It's not as though I ignore the Obama administration in other posts.
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.
On “All Apologies”
I'm going to research ways to better protect commenter privacy, including implementing a new commenting software altogether such as Disqus.
"
I'd rather this thread didn't turn into a battleground. Thank you both for letting it go.
On “Pushing through the market square, so many mothers sighing…”
The Atlantic had $1.8 million in profits this year so it can be done.
On “Revolver”
Good post, Will. I've wrestled with a lot of these questions. We often talk of regulatory capture, but I think deregulatory capture is just as likely in a lot of instances. I share your last sentiment.
On “Like all conspiracies, there is likely less here than meets the eye”
Publishing unearthed documents without comment can still be journalism.
On “Limits & Liberty”
Not at all Tom. I'm a big fan of Burke.
"
E.C. - it could be pragmatic. Indeed.
On “Michael Moore posts bail for Julian Assange”
That's a good quotation, Tom. Thanks.
"
Indeed, I had the numbers off. I blame a quick read.
On “Limits & Liberty”
D.C. - well yes. Absolutely the crux of the argument is over power. But plutocracies occur typically in places where government is very powerful. Indeed, plutocracies are often a conspiracy of powerful private interests and their cronies in government. The two become indistinguishable. A limited government which did not have the wherewithal to aid and support cronies in private industry (limited, but not necessary weak in this regard) would be more effective than a very strong state that could even more easily enforce the plutocrats who inevitably would capture and make use of it.
"
Greg, I think the idea of a stateless society is (at least at the moment) an impossible dream. The state is simply too deeply woven into the burlap sack of society. So we use the idea as a guiding light. We realize that the governments of the world have the capacity to do great good and great harm. We find ways to limit them and replace their good functions with other entities and eradicate their worst functions altogether. We work to decentralize power where we can. We use the federal government to enforce liberty whenever necessary (to undo the harmful precedents of other government actions - think, the Civil Rights Act...). We do not wave a magic wand and say "Poof! No government! All is well!" It is a compass to guide us through a work in progress.
"
I think turning the ideas presented into a discussion of the characters invoking those ideas is unhelpful at best. This isn't really about Kling at all. He could be the most generous philanthropist on the face of the earth and still be dead wrong, or he could be a miser and still absolutely correct. I fail to see any relevance in a discussion of his character.
"
I think the idea is to keep the state, but to work to limit it in ways that make it much less invasive and much less relevant to the day-to-day goings on of society; to create an organic society that can get along just fine without the state at least until the invading hordes show up. This is also meant as a guiding light. I am a pragmatist. This piece is one of those idealistic pieces - some might call it ideological but I would prefer idealistic. We are a long ways away, both culturally and politically, from a night-watchman state or from any sort of minimilast state. But I see the good steps we've made as ones which could lead us in many directions - toward a society of arbitrary laws written by special and powerful interests, where the government is pervasive and has its nose in everyone's business at all times; or toward a 'natural society' as the younger Burke would call it.
"
I'm not sure where you're headed with this line of, um, critique. But I suppose I'll take useful if I can't have necessary.
On “Tough Crowd”
Nah dude. You just come across as obsessed. It's kind of creepy actually.
"
Like so many others, dude, you display a very unhealthy obsession with me.
"
Quit whining Ihatewhiners.
On “Julian Sanchez on Wikileaks and Economies of Repression”
Well somebody had to turn into the Thomas Sowell of the left.
On “Question for readers”
Jaybird - your work is NEVER done.
On “DADT fails in the Senate: Open Thread”
Cynical bastard.
On “The War on the Poor”
No we lock up more people period. Total and per capita.
"
Freedom to exit is key, for sure.
On “Julian Assange: bank account closed, prepares to meet with police, face talking-point wrath of GOP hopefuls”
I very much agree that he's continued (or expanded) many of Bush's worst programs. I mean, look I wrote this at Balloon Juice the other day:
See, I'm really not ignoring these facts. I wrote this for a largely very pro-Obama audience. If I spend a few graphs mocking Republicans it is not for lack of pointing these same things out - I think quite forcefully.
"
He's got balls for sure.
"
That's fine - I agree - however, I think one can still expend the ink necessary to point out stupid things that the GOP shills have to say. It's not as though I ignore the Obama administration in other posts.
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.