The conversation began when I read an article, “Tonight We Are All Tunisians” by Yvonne Ridley, shared on Facebook by Roger Wolsey regarding the riots in Tunisia and subsequent overthrow of a dictator who, as tyrants do, lived in wealth while his oppressed people struggled with crushing poverty. One such, a young man who was unemployed and trying to sell fruit to make a living, was arrested for selling fruit without a license. He set himself on fire, which sparked the flames of revolution which led to the dictator’s demise. What kind of desperation could lead to such an act, and subsequent civil unrest? Surely it could not happen in the U.S.! As I pointed out in my comment, it’s not that unlikely and there are parallels; in fact, it is illegal in America to sell food without a license, or even to give away food to the homeless without a license, depending on where you live. I was reminded of the rioting that occurred in Santa Cruz last year, an attempt at revolution which was quickly nipped in the bud, at least for now.
I had read last spring about some people who were arrested for giving sandwiches to the homeless in Santa Cruz. The arrest was done under the guise of “food safety” on the basis that the providers were not licensed to distribute food. Nobody had gotten sick and nobody complained about the quality of the sandwiches. How very odd; it was the first I had heard of such a law. A few days later the real motivation behind the arrest began to emerge when the “loitering” laws were changed so that, for example, it became illegal to cover oneself with a blanket on Santa Cruz streets at night, or to “panhandle” within a certain distance from some establishments. It soon became clear that authorities did not have the homeless peoples’ health in mind; rather, it was an attempt to “clean up” the trendy area where tourists went to shop. Feeding the homeless had encouraged them to gather and this was unacceptable, since it might interfere with business, making it uncomfortable for the shoppers to encounter the homeless on the street.
Well, it should be uncomfortable. And I have experienced that discomfort myself.
No, I have (thank God) never been homeless myself, although as mentioned in a previous blog entry, I came very close and it was only my parents’ generosity that kept me off the street. I don’t know if it is just the crowd that I associate with, or a sign of the times, but several of my friends have been in that position. My partner has been homeless; when his mother died, his step-father threw him out of the house. He was 16 years old. A woman I used to work with had been homeless for a couple of years, and one of my best friends as well. One of my college alums, a brilliant man, lost his mind and became homeless after chemo treatments for cancer.
A common theme expressed by all my formerly homeless friends is the constant search for food of any kind and the extreme gratitude for any help received. They would have been THRILLED to have those nice fresh sandwiches and could give a rat’s ass about licensing! An ugly truth is that the homeless eat from trashcans and they feel lucky when they find something that hasn’t been in there very long. I would assume that their digestion and immune system adapts, otherwise they could never survive. Licensing is the least of their concerns.
I have had many opportunities in my life to experience the discomfort of seeing people who don’t have a home and are living on the street, at the mercy of the elements and the kindness of strangers.
When I lived in Hawaii as a teenager in the 1970s I knew many homeless people, although some of them had chosen the lifestyle; if you are going to be homeless, Hawaii is definitely the place to do it. I was friends with a group of long-haired, pot-smoking “hippy Christians" comprised of several haoles (caucasians) and a couple of native Hawaiians, who lived in a public park by the beach. They seemed content. How did they afford cannabis? People donated it to them. They told me that God always provided for all their needs. They could use the public rest rooms and showers and people gave them donations for food. Usually they received so much that they were actually able to help feed the less fortunate who were involuntarily homeless. They preached the gospel but I was not interested, being somewhat an atheist or agnostic at that time, although once when I went hiking on Diamond Head crater with two of the women, in our flip-flops and bathing suits, off the trail and sliding perilously down the east side of the volcano in the loose gravel I prayed, "if there is a God and you get me out of this alive, I will believe in you." My friends did not seem the least bit worried. We survived the volcano unscathed but my faith took years to grow.
When I lived in Northern California in the 1980s I spent some time in that very neighborhood in Santa Cruz enjoying the gift shops and restaurants, on the same street where the sandwich providers were arrested last year and where people are no longer allowed to cover themselves in blankets when it is cold at night. I met plenty of homeless people in California and I enjoyed giving them donations. I fretted that I wasn’t able to do enough, but they were always very gracious and thanked me profusely for even a dollar.
Now, this was back when I had money – or at least, it seemed that way to me, although I really didn’t make that much, relatively speaking. People had money back then. Jobs were plentiful; when looking through the classifieds you had to narrow down the possibilities according to which ones offered the best benefits (this was back when jobs actually came with benefits like health insurance, vacation, retirement, etc. – some of you might be too young to remember that). I ended up getting a great job with a wonderful, progressive company in Berkeley that distributed high-end stereo equipment.
I also had a part-time job teaching yoga at a “new age” store down the street. I had been going there on my lunch breaks doing yoga on their back porch, and they had some customers who wanted to learn; would I be willing to teach them? Nobody asked if I was licensed. I don't know if yoga licenses even existed back then. They offered to pay me $20 per person per hour. I felt a bit awkward accepting money for doing yoga, which for me was a spiritual practice. I had always taught for free in the past. However, they insisted on paying me and everybody seemed to think the price was very fair. Nowadays I make $10 for a yoga lesson and people complain that they can’t afford it, which is probably true, since we are all broke. Anyway, back then I considered myself “rich” because unlike today, I was able to work 40 hours and make enough money to pay all my bills and still have some left over to spend on clothes and things for myself and gifts for friends and family, and to give to those in need.
There was a homeless man who lived in the garage of the building where I worked. He was a nice man, very sane, polite and harmless. We would share our lunch or snacks with him, but the owners of the building didn’t want him there and asked my boss to make him leave. She tried telling him, “you shouldn’t stay here; it really isn’t safe.” Ah, the supposed concern about "safety"! Well, it probably wasn’t particularly "safe" there at night, but as he said, he had nowhere else to go. We had a company meeting. My liberal bosses wanted to do the right thing. What on earth should we do about this poor man? There was only one good ethical solution: Hire him! And they did. He worked in shipping and receiving and did a great job.
On my lunch breaks and after work in the summer I used to enjoy walking all over the neighborhood between my job and the U.C. Berkeley campus, a very trendy touristy area. I made sure to bring enough money to be able to help some folks. I considered it part of my shopping expenses. I figured it was the least I could do. Also through yoga I had begun to appreciate the concept of God, and the Hindu stories said He liked to masquerade as a beggar so we should always be kind to the homeless. They were always kind to me. They would say, “God bless you, sister!” and I was humbled by their graciousness. I felt it was a privilege to be able to help even a little bit.
I smile thinking back to one incident which I guess was humorous in a way; if indeed one can find humor in such situations. I had bought 2 large cookies from a popular bakery when a man asked, “excuse me, could you spare some change for food?” I said, “If you’re hungry, here, I’ll share these cookies with you.” He said, “Oh no, I do NOT eat SUGAR!” I said, “Dude, seriously, you know the expression –“ He laughed. “yeah, I know: beggars can’t be choosers. But, I don’t eat sugar because it’s bad for you. Is that your meal? You really shouldn’t be eating it, either.” “You’re probably right,” I said. “Tell you what, how about if we go get something healthier?” He agreed and we went to a nearby café and split a vegetarian sub sandwich. He was a pleasant conversationalist, quite educated, and we discussed philosophy and spirituality and I asked him about his life. “That must be a total bummer, being homeless.” “Well,” he said, “at first it was. But now I appreciate the freedom. I do as I please. You, on the other hand, are a wage slave. Anyway I’m not REALLY homeless; I have a very nice tent and sleeping bag at a camp where I stay with some other folks up in the hills behind the university.” He invited me to come to his tent and do tantric yoga. I turned down his gracious invitation, but I would be lying if I said it was because of moral qualms. The young man was just a few years older than me and very attractive despite the layer of grime that one acquires living on the street; he had gorgeous blue eyes, lovely cheekbones, and would have been strikingly handsome if his blond dreadlocks and faded clothing could have been cleaner. In my wild youth, had the situation had been different, had we met at a university function, and if he had an apartment, I might very well have accepted the offer. No, it was the stigma of homelessness, plus the very real concerns about privacy and lack of bathing facilities, that stopped me.
I haven’t been back to California in a long time and I’m told “the homeless problem” is much worse than ever before, with so many people losing their jobs and homes. More cities in California and across the America are “cracking down.” Stopping the distribution of free food, again supposedly to “protect” the starving from unlicensed benefactors, is a key element. In some cities it is now illegal to give anyone a handout of any kind so as not to “encourage” them. Encourage them to what?! To hang around. If our lawmakers are really concerned about the welfare of the homeless, why are they taking away their food and blankets and donations? No, they don’t want to help these poor people – they just want them to go away. But, where are they supposed to go?
When enough people become poor and desperate, it reaches a point where everything kind of boils over. That is what happened in Tunisia and that is also what happened in Santa Cruz at the May 1, 2010 labor rally. Windows were smashed at the trendy stores and restaurants including, ironically, an organic food co-op which had done a lot for the community. The perpetrators said that they had lashed out at the co-op because of a mural on the wall – which depicted white people working in the vegetable garden. The rioters said, “That is clearly wrong and bogus, because white people don’t work in the fields, brown people do!!” This managed to stir up anger on the part of immigrant laborers living in absolute poverty who worked the fields in the region and resented all the wealthy white people who owned the farms and businesses, who would have preferred not to have the poor and homeless people cluttering up their pretty streets. However, in the case of the co-op, white (hippy) people did, indeed, work in the vegetable garden, so the rage was misplaced. Not that I support violent revolution in any case; I do not. But I do think it is understandable.
Whether in Tunisia or in Santa Cruz, when you have extreme poverty next door to extreme affluence; when the top 2% of people in the country own the majority of the wealth while ordinary working people can no longer support their families; when people cannot afford medical care and are losing their homes; when the government on behalf of that 2% enacts “helpful” regulations that actually make the situation worse for the poor – we should not be surprised when people who feel that they have no other options, eventually rise up and revolt against the system.
With the cost of living continuing to rise while wages drop and jobs are scarce, the middle class is becoming the poor, and many of us (myself included) are just a step away from joining our homeless brothers and sisters on the streets because we can't afford to pay our mortgages and taxes. Clearly “something” needs to be done; I hope and pray that we will somehow find a better way to create a society of freedom and justice for all.
Tuesday, January 18, 2011
Tuesday, January 11, 2011
A Liberal Libertarian
I have been hearing from some of my friends on the Left, both pagan and Christian, that libertarianism is actually an "extreme right-wing Republican” philosophy and incompatible with liberalism. I find this both humorous and alarming; it is the first time in my life anybody has ever accused me of being “right-wing” or “Republican”! I have been called by various names or labels in the past, such as “wild-eyed liberal,” “loonie,” “hippy,” “jesus freak,” “pagan,” “heretic,” “crazy bitch,” “nerd” and “idealist,” many of which I admit are to some degree accurate, and some more so than others. But until recently nobody has ever called me “right-wing.” LOL, or rather, ROFLMAO! Anyone who knows me would find such a label hilarious. Only since the rise of the Tea Party has the word “libertarian” come to mean “extreme right-wing Republican” in the public consciousness.
It could be argued that the Libertarian Party in America has always had a strong connection to the right wing in the sense of being pro-capitalism/ ”free market,” not that there actually is, or probably ever was, a “free market” in America. While this "free market" connection has always existed in the Libertarian Party, I have noticed a definite trend towards the more conservative/Republican direction in recent times, as opposed to the Libertarians I knew as a child in the 1970s.
But, it must be noted that libertarianism as such predates the American Libertarian Party, having its roots in classical liberalism in Europe in the 1800s, when the term at that time referred to “left-wing anarchism” or anarcho-socialism. I refer the interested reader to these links which may help clarify:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarianism
www.radicalacademy.com/philclassliberalism.htm
Libertarians Against Capitalism
So, how do I personally manage to be a libertarian without being a right-wing/ Republican?
First, I think it is necessary to distinguish between the Ideal World and the Real World: In my Ideal World, everybody would live together in peace, love and harmony, freely trading goods and services on a level playing field to everyone’s benefit, and/or forming voluntary collectives/communes - people basically being free to do whatever we darn well please, so long as we harm nobody. There would be no nanny government to steal our personal property or conscript our labor under the guise of protecting us from ourselves. At the very most, a consensual democratic government would exist in a limited manner to ensure that nobody took unfair advantage of anyone else, nobody used force or fraud, and the powerful did not exploit the weak. And everybody would hold hands and sing “Kumbaya” and we would all live happily ever after. OK.
By contrast, in the Real World in which I find myself, there already exists an entrenched System whereby the government enables the rich and powerful to use force and fraud to exploit everyone else - i.e., the other approximately 98% of us, who are kept on a very short leash and too busy trying to make a living to worry much about our "liberties" or lack thereof - and a few crumbs are thrown to the sick and poor only because enough compassionate people (the Left) loudly insist on it and politicians grudgingly go along with the charity only because it might help them get re-elected. Clearly there is no way to get to my Ideal World from the Real World by, for example, de-regulating Big Business in the hope of encouraging the “free market,” because a “free market” does not exist; there is no level playing field and the game is already rigged. This is the key point where I differ from my right-wing friends in the Libertarian Party.
Am I opposed to taxation? Yes, because in principle taxation = legalized theft or extortion. It allows the government to do something which, if you or I did it, would be highly illegal. Let’s say you have worked hard all day and earned $100, and I approached you and said, “I need you to give me $21 [the actual rate my partner and I are paying as independent contractors living just above the poverty line] to help build a parking lot in the meadow.” You might reply, “I don’t think we need another parking lot and the meadow is nice just the way it is. What we need is more green space. I’m not giving you the money.” If I then said, “I’m sorry, but it’s for the public good and anyway you have no choice because I have a gun and I can tie you up and take the money,” that would clearly be robbery. But this is exactly what the government does: take your money by force to fund all manner of projects that you may or may not agree with, including paying huge salaries with lavish benefits to the so-called “public servants” who make and enforce the laws. If you don’t pay you will go to jail and/or the government will take your home. So I am opposed to it in principle. Having said that, however, I am a law-abiding citizen and I do my part by paying my taxes, even though in my opinion they are excessive for somebody who makes as little money as I do. I would certainly feel more generous about paying taxes if my income were such that I could afford to pay my own mortgage, electric bill, food, etc. without falling deeper into debt. If I were wealthy it would be even less of an issue; I would be happy to help.
However, the other aspect of taxation which troubles me is that the money is being used to fund some things that I would not voluntarily support, such as setting up oppressive regimes overseas, and then sending our young men and women over there to kill and be killed when the dictators we put in place inevitably get out of hand and turn against us and need to be put down. I also do not appreciate my tax money being used to lock up drug users in prison; I would rather pay for them to go into voluntary rehab, which would actually be cheaper as well as more humane. I don’t want my taxes used to arrest people for such “crimes” as skateboarding or surfing, something with which I myself have been threatened on several occasions, because it is illegal to surf in Panama City, FL when a bureaucrat who has never been in the ocean or a police officer who is too fat to get on a surfboard, decides that the water is “unsafe.” I don’t want to pay to lock up prostitutes or other consenting adults minding their own business while getting their groove on in whatever manner they like, whether or not I personally agree with it. And I sure as hell don’t want my money used for “corporate welfare,” i.e., to bail out Big Business/ Wall Street when “the market” fails to reward their attempts at ripping people off! (Newsflash: in a true “free market” the government does not bail out businesses when they fail; the Big Boys should have to play by the same rules as the rest of us.)
Now, to give the conservatives credit where credit is due, and contrary to what you may have heard, most folks on the Right generally ARE in favor of helping the poor! Many of them contribute lots of money to charity. They just don’t believe that it is a proper function of government and/or that their tax money should be used for it. This, again, is where we differ and what perhaps, in essence, makes me a “liberal,” and it is a very fine line: I believe that in an Ideal World the government should not take our money by force for whatever purpose; but since we live in the Real World, as long as I am being taxed anyway, personally I would much rather see the money used to help the poor, to help people keep their homes and family farms, to fund health care, to clean up the environment, develop alternative energy sources, etc., versus many of the projects which the Republicans cheerfully fund, such as locking up dope smokers, promoting “abstinence only” programs in the schools, preventing gays from getting married, helping the multinational corporations exploit people here and abroad, and bombing the hell out of foreign countries, especially those which did not attack us.
Hence I am a “liberal libertarian” who, in the Real World, can no longer vote for the modern “Libertarian” candidates who are de facto Republicans in terms of most of the issues which matter to me. So I’m back to choosing between Tweedle Dumb and Tweedle Dee or Tweedle Dumber, whichever candidate I think will be most likely to uphold the individual liberty of men and women, while at the same time doing the least harm to society. And in my heart I still hold dear the Ideal that someday people will evolve beyond coercive government altogether and we will be free to live in peace, love and harmony, but it’s not going to happen through the political process.
It could be argued that the Libertarian Party in America has always had a strong connection to the right wing in the sense of being pro-capitalism/ ”free market,” not that there actually is, or probably ever was, a “free market” in America. While this "free market" connection has always existed in the Libertarian Party, I have noticed a definite trend towards the more conservative/Republican direction in recent times, as opposed to the Libertarians I knew as a child in the 1970s.
But, it must be noted that libertarianism as such predates the American Libertarian Party, having its roots in classical liberalism in Europe in the 1800s, when the term at that time referred to “left-wing anarchism” or anarcho-socialism. I refer the interested reader to these links which may help clarify:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarianism
www.radicalacademy.com/philclassliberalism.htm
Libertarians Against Capitalism
So, how do I personally manage to be a libertarian without being a right-wing/ Republican?
First, I think it is necessary to distinguish between the Ideal World and the Real World: In my Ideal World, everybody would live together in peace, love and harmony, freely trading goods and services on a level playing field to everyone’s benefit, and/or forming voluntary collectives/communes - people basically being free to do whatever we darn well please, so long as we harm nobody. There would be no nanny government to steal our personal property or conscript our labor under the guise of protecting us from ourselves. At the very most, a consensual democratic government would exist in a limited manner to ensure that nobody took unfair advantage of anyone else, nobody used force or fraud, and the powerful did not exploit the weak. And everybody would hold hands and sing “Kumbaya” and we would all live happily ever after. OK.
By contrast, in the Real World in which I find myself, there already exists an entrenched System whereby the government enables the rich and powerful to use force and fraud to exploit everyone else - i.e., the other approximately 98% of us, who are kept on a very short leash and too busy trying to make a living to worry much about our "liberties" or lack thereof - and a few crumbs are thrown to the sick and poor only because enough compassionate people (the Left) loudly insist on it and politicians grudgingly go along with the charity only because it might help them get re-elected. Clearly there is no way to get to my Ideal World from the Real World by, for example, de-regulating Big Business in the hope of encouraging the “free market,” because a “free market” does not exist; there is no level playing field and the game is already rigged. This is the key point where I differ from my right-wing friends in the Libertarian Party.
Am I opposed to taxation? Yes, because in principle taxation = legalized theft or extortion. It allows the government to do something which, if you or I did it, would be highly illegal. Let’s say you have worked hard all day and earned $100, and I approached you and said, “I need you to give me $21 [the actual rate my partner and I are paying as independent contractors living just above the poverty line] to help build a parking lot in the meadow.” You might reply, “I don’t think we need another parking lot and the meadow is nice just the way it is. What we need is more green space. I’m not giving you the money.” If I then said, “I’m sorry, but it’s for the public good and anyway you have no choice because I have a gun and I can tie you up and take the money,” that would clearly be robbery. But this is exactly what the government does: take your money by force to fund all manner of projects that you may or may not agree with, including paying huge salaries with lavish benefits to the so-called “public servants” who make and enforce the laws. If you don’t pay you will go to jail and/or the government will take your home. So I am opposed to it in principle. Having said that, however, I am a law-abiding citizen and I do my part by paying my taxes, even though in my opinion they are excessive for somebody who makes as little money as I do. I would certainly feel more generous about paying taxes if my income were such that I could afford to pay my own mortgage, electric bill, food, etc. without falling deeper into debt. If I were wealthy it would be even less of an issue; I would be happy to help.
However, the other aspect of taxation which troubles me is that the money is being used to fund some things that I would not voluntarily support, such as setting up oppressive regimes overseas, and then sending our young men and women over there to kill and be killed when the dictators we put in place inevitably get out of hand and turn against us and need to be put down. I also do not appreciate my tax money being used to lock up drug users in prison; I would rather pay for them to go into voluntary rehab, which would actually be cheaper as well as more humane. I don’t want my taxes used to arrest people for such “crimes” as skateboarding or surfing, something with which I myself have been threatened on several occasions, because it is illegal to surf in Panama City, FL when a bureaucrat who has never been in the ocean or a police officer who is too fat to get on a surfboard, decides that the water is “unsafe.” I don’t want to pay to lock up prostitutes or other consenting adults minding their own business while getting their groove on in whatever manner they like, whether or not I personally agree with it. And I sure as hell don’t want my money used for “corporate welfare,” i.e., to bail out Big Business/ Wall Street when “the market” fails to reward their attempts at ripping people off! (Newsflash: in a true “free market” the government does not bail out businesses when they fail; the Big Boys should have to play by the same rules as the rest of us.)
Now, to give the conservatives credit where credit is due, and contrary to what you may have heard, most folks on the Right generally ARE in favor of helping the poor! Many of them contribute lots of money to charity. They just don’t believe that it is a proper function of government and/or that their tax money should be used for it. This, again, is where we differ and what perhaps, in essence, makes me a “liberal,” and it is a very fine line: I believe that in an Ideal World the government should not take our money by force for whatever purpose; but since we live in the Real World, as long as I am being taxed anyway, personally I would much rather see the money used to help the poor, to help people keep their homes and family farms, to fund health care, to clean up the environment, develop alternative energy sources, etc., versus many of the projects which the Republicans cheerfully fund, such as locking up dope smokers, promoting “abstinence only” programs in the schools, preventing gays from getting married, helping the multinational corporations exploit people here and abroad, and bombing the hell out of foreign countries, especially those which did not attack us.
Hence I am a “liberal libertarian” who, in the Real World, can no longer vote for the modern “Libertarian” candidates who are de facto Republicans in terms of most of the issues which matter to me. So I’m back to choosing between Tweedle Dumb and Tweedle Dee or Tweedle Dumber, whichever candidate I think will be most likely to uphold the individual liberty of men and women, while at the same time doing the least harm to society. And in my heart I still hold dear the Ideal that someday people will evolve beyond coercive government altogether and we will be free to live in peace, love and harmony, but it’s not going to happen through the political process.
Friday, January 7, 2011
why I am not thrilled with government
As a libertarian, I am often asked, "But why don't you like the government? Why do you want less government regulation - wouldn't that just allow the big corporations and Wall Street to screw people even more?" Yes, it would. But that is not the kind of libertarianism I am advocating (see my last post, "Republicans have hijacked libertarianism"). The Big Boys have demonstrated that they do indeed need to be regulated, or some would say, be kept on a much shorter leash. Rather, I am talking about less government intrusion in the lives of ordinary citizens. Not the CEOs of big corporations, not the top 2% who own the majority of the wealth - just the rest of us "commoners," who are trying to make a decent living either as employees (wage slaves), or as independent contractors (wage slaves without benefits), or trying to run our own small businesses. How does government regulation affect us? Isn't government supposed to help us and protect us?
Well, whether it's "supposed to" or not, is debatable. But I'm not going to go into a deep theoretical analysis. Rather, I would like to share with you my own personal experiences of how government has affected me as an ordinary American citizen and how this colored my political view over time.
In high school I belonged to a program called "Junior Achievement," sponsored by private businesses, which allowed students to create and run their own little "business." I belonged to a "business" which made little boogie boards which strapped onto your hand to allow you to body surf better. It was kind of fun. The JA program was intended to encourage young people to become entrepreneurs and pursue the American Dream of success which, they assured us, was achievable by anybody who could dream and was willing to work hard. At that time I think I actually believed them. Also, I didn't yet hate politics or politicians; in fact, I worked as an intern for Neil Abercrombie, the "Hippie Senator from Manoa" while attending Punahou School in Hawaii (where future president Barry Obama was one of my classmates) and I had a fairly positive attitude towards politicians as "public servants," probably because the only politician I personally knew well, was indeed a "public servant," a good, caring man who put in long hours helping people. At the time I did not realize how rare that was in politics.
In my youth I was very independent and freedom was extremely valuable to me, as was peace, so the potential renewal of the military draft - clearly involuntary servitude - was a big deal. I became interested in libertarianism, did a lot of reading and attended some lectures and study groups. At some point during college I wrote an essay and was granted a scholarship to attend a sort of libertarian "summer camp" sponsored by The Institute for Humane Studies. It was held at a beautiful campus near Boston, where I met other students interested in libertarian thought and we read things like, "Kinds of Order in Society" and "The Rule of Law" by F.A. Hayek, "Violence as a Product of Imposed Order" by Butler Shaffer, and "Liberty and Law" by Giovanni Sartori, and attended lectures and discussions. I had a wonderful time and I'm sure it was very edifying, although I must admit that because I was horribly allergic to a tree which was blossoming there, could barely breathe and therefore experienced the entire thing through a haze of antihistamines, decongestants and lack of oxygen, not to mentioned the fabulous parties, my recollection of exactly what I learned is rather vague. I do recall it reinforced my basic feeling about the importance of liberty, and also there was some emphasis on the "free market" (which at that time I did not realize does not actually exist in America) and the idea, as promoted by JA, that anyone can achieve their goals and fulfill the American Dream.
After obtaining my B.A. in Philosophy I did not, unfortunately, become a successful paid writer, contrary to my professors' predictions; oh, I was "published" numerous times, just never paid. So I ended up doing various boring secretarial-type jobs in an attempt to make a living while hoping some day to escape from the 8-to-5 drudgery and do something really fulfilling and meaningful. To that end I went back to school (with my parents' help) and got my M.A. in Psychology, with the intent of becoming a counselor. My first experience with government regulation was when the private college I was attending (Sierra University - a University Without Walls) lost its accreditation for providing the MFCC (Marriage, Family and Child Counseling) license, which was the primary credential for counselors in California. I did not despair, however, because in California the law would allow me to practice psychology with my M.A. provided that I also became a licensed minister, which I proceeded to do. I had already studied a lot of theology and it was not difficult to obtain the ministerial license. Without the MFCC I could not bill insurance for my patients, and I would have to charge less, but I could still legally practice counseling. However, as it turned out, since I couldn't accept insurance, my client base was very limited, and I could not afford to rent an office for my private practice. So I counseled on the side while continuing to work 8-to-5 at soul-sucking office jobs.
My next encounter with government helpfulness was when, after having been healthy my entire life, essentially a poster girl for a healthy lifestyle - a vegetarian, yogini, athlete - I suddenly came down with a strange flu-like illness which knocked me on my ass and I never fully recovered. My immune system was destroyed and I caught every cold or flu that went around the office and it would settle in my chest and become pneumonia. I was weak as a kitten and in constant pain. When I had used up all my sick days, which I think were only maybe 7 per year, the company was going to fire me. They could legally do that - fire a person for being sick. I thought it was a little unfair in that one of my coworkers was given 3 months off for voluntarily having a baby, whereas I was being fired for missing 7 days for involuntarily having pneumonia. But when my boss called me in, I had just returned from the doctor's office that same day, where I had been diagnosed with CFIDS (Chronic Fatigue Immune Dysfunction Syndrome) and had in my hand a piece of paper from the doctor placing me on Long-Term Disability, and since they could not legally "fire" a person on Disability, I was spared the insult, but was out of a job all the same.
California actually took good care of me in providing the State Disability payments. That was the one instance where "the system" actually worked for me. It's the only time that I have felt I truly benefited in return for the taxes that I was paying. I did study medical transcription while on Disability in hopes of being able to work again. I was able to get a job as a medical transcriptionist which paid so well that I only had to work 4 hours a day to make ends meet. However, I was not even able to keep up with this, and my health soon deteriorated further. I went back on CA State Disability, which only lasted a limited amount of time, and when it ran out the doctors told me: "You have an incurable disease and you will never work again. You need to go on SSDI. We will file the paperwork for you. You will certainly be approved." My SSDI was in the preliminary stages of being approved and processed when my parents encouraged me to move to Florida to be near them.
Upon moving to Florida I had a huge shock: My SSDI was denied! How could this be? It was already approved in California. I got a lawyer and subsequently learned that although SSDI is a Federal program, each State is allowed to decide who they will cover, and CFIDS was "not a covered illness" under SSDI in Florida. But I was too sick to work, so what could I do? I went to the local "welfare" office, HRS, "Health and Rehabilitative Services," although in my condition, the ordeal of just bathing and dressing and making myself halfway presentable and driving over there was exhausting. I stood in line for a very long time behind some ladies who were wearing the most beautiful designer clothes and jewelry, their nails done and their hair perfectly styled, to pick up their welfare checks. I was encouraged by this, thinking, "These ladies are doing o.k., apparently Florida is very generous with welfare!" When I finally got to the window and explained my situation, the clerk told me there was nothing they could do to help me. "But my SSDI was turned down and I am too sick to work. Can't you put me on welfare, or even food stamps?" The clerk asked, "Do you have any children?" "No," I said. "Well I'm sorry, but there is no welfare for individual adults - only for people with children; that's why it is called Aid to Families with Dependent Children. Next." So, once again I noted that "the system" would have rewarded me, had I done my womanly duty by producing offspring. But instead I was left sick and penniless.
It was only the generosity of my parents, who were by no means wealthy, that prevented me from becoming a bag lady. With their help and financial support I was able to spend the next few years resting and recuperating while studying alternative medicine - precisely the kind of medicine that our government, in cahoots with Big Pharma, is currently trying to outlaw. I learned about very effective herbs and supplements and was thereby able to somewhat heal myself from this illness which, according to mainstream medicine, was "incurable." The people who taught and healed me included non-M.D.s such as a midwife/herbalist, one of the best healers I have ever met, who technically could be jailed for "practicing medicine without a license," and a well-known M.D. who has since been threatened with losing his license simply for stating on t.v. that certain herbs boost immunity against the flu (which had been shown in clinical trials). The mainstream doctors were amazed at my recovery although they still insisted that "alternative medicine does not work," in accordance with the AMA mandate, so as not to risk losing their medical license.
I thought I might go back into counseling, only to discover that my California psychology credentials were completely useless in Florida; not only was a licensed ministerial counselor not recognized, it was indeed illegal for ministers to practice counseling in Florida! In addition, Florida would not recognize my California school nor transfer credits, so that I would have to go back to school and get a whole new psychology M.A. starting from scratch, followed by a 2-year unpaid internship, to practice counseling in this State, which was not even remotely possible. Fortunately I had the opportunity to be a spiritual counselor over the telephone for Psychic Friends Network, and thereby avoid the Florida licensing requirements. When Psychic Friends went out of business a few years later I went back to work in medical transcription, but now on an "independent contractor" basis and at much lower pay, like all my subsequent "jobs" from that point on.
To this day, my partner and I are both independent contractors, because nobody is hiring "employees" in our fields. Many people are surprised to learn that the various labor regulations designed to protect employees - minimum wage, overtime, health insurance, retirement benefits, etc. - do not apply to contractors. Needless to say, this is very convenient for the employer ("contractee"?) who also does not have to pay their half of the employment taxes and Social Security, since the employee, excuse me, "contractor" is legally responsible for paying everything. Republicans would argue that this new trend towards hiring "contractors" instead of "employees" is a direct result of government regulations which make it too expensive for companies to hire employees. This may be true, at least in regard to small businesses. In any case, we are essentially "employees" without any of the benefits, and paying double taxes. I don't notice the government rushing in to do anything about this situation.
My partner started his own small business, flooring installation, back in 2006. He has had to do it all by himself as a sole proprietor. He could not hire any employees due to State laws which either were not well thought out, or else were intentionally designed to prevent entrepreneurs from succeeding: e.g., any company with 1 or more employees is required to have Workers' Compensation Insurance; however, no insurer in Florida will provide Workers' Compensation Insurance to any company having fewer than 5 employees. You don't have to be a math whiz to see that this law effectively prevents a small business from growing! And since my partner cannot obtain Workers' Compensation Insurance for himself, he is required by the State to pay a yearly fee to declare himself "Workers' Comp Exempt." What this means is that if he gets hurt while working, his employer (excuse me, "contractee") is under no obligation to pay for his medical care. Since he also cannot obtain health insurance, I hate to think what would happen, if he got hurt. He also has to provide his own liability insurance, just in order to get any contract work at all.
As for me, in 2009, after 33 years of study and experience in yoga, and having used alternative medicine to maintain my health to be able to do this, I opened my own yoga studio. Maybe the American Dream is truly attainable after all! In this troubled economy it is difficult to get enough students, since fitness/yoga is a "luxury" when people can't pay their mortgages and electric bills, but I remain hopeful that things will improve and some day I will be able to make a living teaching yoga full-time. Meanwhile I continue doing medical transcription and also working as a Psychic (both on a contract basis and at 1/3 to 1/2 of what they paid 15 years ago) in attempt to make ends meet.
However, there is now a lobby for a law requiring yoga teachers to complete a 200-hour certification program in order to legally teach yoga - regardless of how many years of past training and experience they may already have. The certification program would involve traveling out of town and missing work and would cost in total around $5000 or more, which I could not possibly afford. If this law passes I will no longer be able to teach yoga, despite my extensive experience and the fact that I am already "certified" under a different program (one which would not be recognized under the new law); while any person having $5000, with no previous yoga training whatsoever, would be able to attend the approved 10-weekend program and, in about 3 months, become a Certified Yoga Instructor and take my job.
If, however, the pharmaceutical lobby succeeds in getting the FDA to outlaw herbal supplements, the yoga certification will be a moot point because in all likelihood my health would deteriorate so that I would be physically unable to work.
So, in summary, my own experience with government regulation has been overwhelmingly negative in terms of my and my partner's ability to make a living. There is no "free market" in America, as far as individuals being able to freely trade goods and services, because regulations hinder us at every turn. And our tax burden is quite substantial despite the fact that our income is just barely above poverty level. I suspect that if we were wealthy CEOs, our situation would be quite different, as we could buy whatever kind of certification might be required; and if success at the American Dream somehow managed to elude us, we could depend on the government using the peons' tax money to bail us out - corporate welfare.
Well, whether it's "supposed to" or not, is debatable. But I'm not going to go into a deep theoretical analysis. Rather, I would like to share with you my own personal experiences of how government has affected me as an ordinary American citizen and how this colored my political view over time.
In high school I belonged to a program called "Junior Achievement," sponsored by private businesses, which allowed students to create and run their own little "business." I belonged to a "business" which made little boogie boards which strapped onto your hand to allow you to body surf better. It was kind of fun. The JA program was intended to encourage young people to become entrepreneurs and pursue the American Dream of success which, they assured us, was achievable by anybody who could dream and was willing to work hard. At that time I think I actually believed them. Also, I didn't yet hate politics or politicians; in fact, I worked as an intern for Neil Abercrombie, the "Hippie Senator from Manoa" while attending Punahou School in Hawaii (where future president Barry Obama was one of my classmates) and I had a fairly positive attitude towards politicians as "public servants," probably because the only politician I personally knew well, was indeed a "public servant," a good, caring man who put in long hours helping people. At the time I did not realize how rare that was in politics.
In my youth I was very independent and freedom was extremely valuable to me, as was peace, so the potential renewal of the military draft - clearly involuntary servitude - was a big deal. I became interested in libertarianism, did a lot of reading and attended some lectures and study groups. At some point during college I wrote an essay and was granted a scholarship to attend a sort of libertarian "summer camp" sponsored by The Institute for Humane Studies. It was held at a beautiful campus near Boston, where I met other students interested in libertarian thought and we read things like, "Kinds of Order in Society" and "The Rule of Law" by F.A. Hayek, "Violence as a Product of Imposed Order" by Butler Shaffer, and "Liberty and Law" by Giovanni Sartori, and attended lectures and discussions. I had a wonderful time and I'm sure it was very edifying, although I must admit that because I was horribly allergic to a tree which was blossoming there, could barely breathe and therefore experienced the entire thing through a haze of antihistamines, decongestants and lack of oxygen, not to mentioned the fabulous parties, my recollection of exactly what I learned is rather vague. I do recall it reinforced my basic feeling about the importance of liberty, and also there was some emphasis on the "free market" (which at that time I did not realize does not actually exist in America) and the idea, as promoted by JA, that anyone can achieve their goals and fulfill the American Dream.
After obtaining my B.A. in Philosophy I did not, unfortunately, become a successful paid writer, contrary to my professors' predictions; oh, I was "published" numerous times, just never paid. So I ended up doing various boring secretarial-type jobs in an attempt to make a living while hoping some day to escape from the 8-to-5 drudgery and do something really fulfilling and meaningful. To that end I went back to school (with my parents' help) and got my M.A. in Psychology, with the intent of becoming a counselor. My first experience with government regulation was when the private college I was attending (Sierra University - a University Without Walls) lost its accreditation for providing the MFCC (Marriage, Family and Child Counseling) license, which was the primary credential for counselors in California. I did not despair, however, because in California the law would allow me to practice psychology with my M.A. provided that I also became a licensed minister, which I proceeded to do. I had already studied a lot of theology and it was not difficult to obtain the ministerial license. Without the MFCC I could not bill insurance for my patients, and I would have to charge less, but I could still legally practice counseling. However, as it turned out, since I couldn't accept insurance, my client base was very limited, and I could not afford to rent an office for my private practice. So I counseled on the side while continuing to work 8-to-5 at soul-sucking office jobs.
My next encounter with government helpfulness was when, after having been healthy my entire life, essentially a poster girl for a healthy lifestyle - a vegetarian, yogini, athlete - I suddenly came down with a strange flu-like illness which knocked me on my ass and I never fully recovered. My immune system was destroyed and I caught every cold or flu that went around the office and it would settle in my chest and become pneumonia. I was weak as a kitten and in constant pain. When I had used up all my sick days, which I think were only maybe 7 per year, the company was going to fire me. They could legally do that - fire a person for being sick. I thought it was a little unfair in that one of my coworkers was given 3 months off for voluntarily having a baby, whereas I was being fired for missing 7 days for involuntarily having pneumonia. But when my boss called me in, I had just returned from the doctor's office that same day, where I had been diagnosed with CFIDS (Chronic Fatigue Immune Dysfunction Syndrome) and had in my hand a piece of paper from the doctor placing me on Long-Term Disability, and since they could not legally "fire" a person on Disability, I was spared the insult, but was out of a job all the same.
California actually took good care of me in providing the State Disability payments. That was the one instance where "the system" actually worked for me. It's the only time that I have felt I truly benefited in return for the taxes that I was paying. I did study medical transcription while on Disability in hopes of being able to work again. I was able to get a job as a medical transcriptionist which paid so well that I only had to work 4 hours a day to make ends meet. However, I was not even able to keep up with this, and my health soon deteriorated further. I went back on CA State Disability, which only lasted a limited amount of time, and when it ran out the doctors told me: "You have an incurable disease and you will never work again. You need to go on SSDI. We will file the paperwork for you. You will certainly be approved." My SSDI was in the preliminary stages of being approved and processed when my parents encouraged me to move to Florida to be near them.
Upon moving to Florida I had a huge shock: My SSDI was denied! How could this be? It was already approved in California. I got a lawyer and subsequently learned that although SSDI is a Federal program, each State is allowed to decide who they will cover, and CFIDS was "not a covered illness" under SSDI in Florida. But I was too sick to work, so what could I do? I went to the local "welfare" office, HRS, "Health and Rehabilitative Services," although in my condition, the ordeal of just bathing and dressing and making myself halfway presentable and driving over there was exhausting. I stood in line for a very long time behind some ladies who were wearing the most beautiful designer clothes and jewelry, their nails done and their hair perfectly styled, to pick up their welfare checks. I was encouraged by this, thinking, "These ladies are doing o.k., apparently Florida is very generous with welfare!" When I finally got to the window and explained my situation, the clerk told me there was nothing they could do to help me. "But my SSDI was turned down and I am too sick to work. Can't you put me on welfare, or even food stamps?" The clerk asked, "Do you have any children?" "No," I said. "Well I'm sorry, but there is no welfare for individual adults - only for people with children; that's why it is called Aid to Families with Dependent Children. Next." So, once again I noted that "the system" would have rewarded me, had I done my womanly duty by producing offspring. But instead I was left sick and penniless.
It was only the generosity of my parents, who were by no means wealthy, that prevented me from becoming a bag lady. With their help and financial support I was able to spend the next few years resting and recuperating while studying alternative medicine - precisely the kind of medicine that our government, in cahoots with Big Pharma, is currently trying to outlaw. I learned about very effective herbs and supplements and was thereby able to somewhat heal myself from this illness which, according to mainstream medicine, was "incurable." The people who taught and healed me included non-M.D.s such as a midwife/herbalist, one of the best healers I have ever met, who technically could be jailed for "practicing medicine without a license," and a well-known M.D. who has since been threatened with losing his license simply for stating on t.v. that certain herbs boost immunity against the flu (which had been shown in clinical trials). The mainstream doctors were amazed at my recovery although they still insisted that "alternative medicine does not work," in accordance with the AMA mandate, so as not to risk losing their medical license.
I thought I might go back into counseling, only to discover that my California psychology credentials were completely useless in Florida; not only was a licensed ministerial counselor not recognized, it was indeed illegal for ministers to practice counseling in Florida! In addition, Florida would not recognize my California school nor transfer credits, so that I would have to go back to school and get a whole new psychology M.A. starting from scratch, followed by a 2-year unpaid internship, to practice counseling in this State, which was not even remotely possible. Fortunately I had the opportunity to be a spiritual counselor over the telephone for Psychic Friends Network, and thereby avoid the Florida licensing requirements. When Psychic Friends went out of business a few years later I went back to work in medical transcription, but now on an "independent contractor" basis and at much lower pay, like all my subsequent "jobs" from that point on.
To this day, my partner and I are both independent contractors, because nobody is hiring "employees" in our fields. Many people are surprised to learn that the various labor regulations designed to protect employees - minimum wage, overtime, health insurance, retirement benefits, etc. - do not apply to contractors. Needless to say, this is very convenient for the employer ("contractee"?) who also does not have to pay their half of the employment taxes and Social Security, since the employee, excuse me, "contractor" is legally responsible for paying everything. Republicans would argue that this new trend towards hiring "contractors" instead of "employees" is a direct result of government regulations which make it too expensive for companies to hire employees. This may be true, at least in regard to small businesses. In any case, we are essentially "employees" without any of the benefits, and paying double taxes. I don't notice the government rushing in to do anything about this situation.
My partner started his own small business, flooring installation, back in 2006. He has had to do it all by himself as a sole proprietor. He could not hire any employees due to State laws which either were not well thought out, or else were intentionally designed to prevent entrepreneurs from succeeding: e.g., any company with 1 or more employees is required to have Workers' Compensation Insurance; however, no insurer in Florida will provide Workers' Compensation Insurance to any company having fewer than 5 employees. You don't have to be a math whiz to see that this law effectively prevents a small business from growing! And since my partner cannot obtain Workers' Compensation Insurance for himself, he is required by the State to pay a yearly fee to declare himself "Workers' Comp Exempt." What this means is that if he gets hurt while working, his employer (excuse me, "contractee") is under no obligation to pay for his medical care. Since he also cannot obtain health insurance, I hate to think what would happen, if he got hurt. He also has to provide his own liability insurance, just in order to get any contract work at all.
As for me, in 2009, after 33 years of study and experience in yoga, and having used alternative medicine to maintain my health to be able to do this, I opened my own yoga studio. Maybe the American Dream is truly attainable after all! In this troubled economy it is difficult to get enough students, since fitness/yoga is a "luxury" when people can't pay their mortgages and electric bills, but I remain hopeful that things will improve and some day I will be able to make a living teaching yoga full-time. Meanwhile I continue doing medical transcription and also working as a Psychic (both on a contract basis and at 1/3 to 1/2 of what they paid 15 years ago) in attempt to make ends meet.
However, there is now a lobby for a law requiring yoga teachers to complete a 200-hour certification program in order to legally teach yoga - regardless of how many years of past training and experience they may already have. The certification program would involve traveling out of town and missing work and would cost in total around $5000 or more, which I could not possibly afford. If this law passes I will no longer be able to teach yoga, despite my extensive experience and the fact that I am already "certified" under a different program (one which would not be recognized under the new law); while any person having $5000, with no previous yoga training whatsoever, would be able to attend the approved 10-weekend program and, in about 3 months, become a Certified Yoga Instructor and take my job.
If, however, the pharmaceutical lobby succeeds in getting the FDA to outlaw herbal supplements, the yoga certification will be a moot point because in all likelihood my health would deteriorate so that I would be physically unable to work.
So, in summary, my own experience with government regulation has been overwhelmingly negative in terms of my and my partner's ability to make a living. There is no "free market" in America, as far as individuals being able to freely trade goods and services, because regulations hinder us at every turn. And our tax burden is quite substantial despite the fact that our income is just barely above poverty level. I suspect that if we were wealthy CEOs, our situation would be quite different, as we could buy whatever kind of certification might be required; and if success at the American Dream somehow managed to elude us, we could depend on the government using the peons' tax money to bail us out - corporate welfare.
The Republicans have hijacked libertarianism
I knew this blog was going to be necessary a couple of months ago when I mentioned to one of my yoga students that I am a libertarian, and she said, rather taken aback, "you mean - the Tea Party?!" "No - that is a new phenomenon. Libertarianism has been around for a long, long time." She looked at me blankly. But now it appears that this is what comes to mind when people hear the word.
Let me admit up front that I am, in an ideal world, sympathetic to anarchism and I don't like politics at all. I can't fully support any of the mainstream candidates, or as I call them, the "Republicrats." Nearly every election has been like, should I vote for Tweedle Dumb or Tweedle Dee? Or perhaps, Tweedle Dumb or Tweedle Dumber? Which one would be the lesser evil? Because I know the people I REALLY like (e.g. libertarian Mary Ruwart, or maybe one of the Green candidates) don't have a chance in hell of ever getting elected. It's bad enough that the guys I have voted for over the years have rarely won anything and usually get, like, 0.004% of the vote. But what is even worse is that my own party - Libertarian - has now been largely taken over by Republicans, so that "our" candidate is no longer "my" candidate and I simply cannot bring myself to vote for them.
The last few elections, the "Libertarian" candidates have been anti-choice (?!) Republicans whose main objective seems to be allowing Wall Street and the multinational corporations to run amuck while ignoring the liberty of individual citizens - whom we may marry, whether, when and with whom we will choose to have children, what jobs we are allowed to have, or even what types of plants, medicines or foods we may ingest. That is what libertarianism used to be about a long time ago, when I was a teenager: the liberty of ordinary individuals to live their lives as they please, so long as they do not harm anyone else in so doing. It was a utopian dream of people living in freedom and harmony, voluntarily helping one another because it was in everybody's best interest to do so. The role of government was to protect the innocent from those who would use force or fraud, to prevent the powerful from taking advantage of the weak, and to otherwise interfere in peoples' private lives as little as possible.
Nowadays, however, "libertarian" has come to mean the liberty of corporations, including the insurance companies, to rip people off to the fullest extent possible, while the rich get richer, the poor get poorer and the middle class becomes poor. These faux "libertarians" want to "deregulate" the banks while continuing to regulate the living daylights out of ordinary (i.e. non-wealthy) people. Our lives have become more and more regulated and constrained - usually under the guise of "protecting" us or keeping us "safe" - to the point that we would not know what "liberty" was if it came up and bit us on the ass, while we are not actually any safer.
The politicians don't care what happens to us serfs so long as they can convince us to vote for them on the mistaken premise that they are going to somehow stand up for our individual rights and liberties, when in fact they have no intention of doing so, because they are in bed with the big corporations and they bow to the almighty dollar - just like all the other Republicrats. Please don't call this "libertarianism" because it really, really isn't. Just like the "Religious Right" is not really Christianity.
Let me admit up front that I am, in an ideal world, sympathetic to anarchism and I don't like politics at all. I can't fully support any of the mainstream candidates, or as I call them, the "Republicrats." Nearly every election has been like, should I vote for Tweedle Dumb or Tweedle Dee? Or perhaps, Tweedle Dumb or Tweedle Dumber? Which one would be the lesser evil? Because I know the people I REALLY like (e.g. libertarian Mary Ruwart, or maybe one of the Green candidates) don't have a chance in hell of ever getting elected. It's bad enough that the guys I have voted for over the years have rarely won anything and usually get, like, 0.004% of the vote. But what is even worse is that my own party - Libertarian - has now been largely taken over by Republicans, so that "our" candidate is no longer "my" candidate and I simply cannot bring myself to vote for them.
The last few elections, the "Libertarian" candidates have been anti-choice (?!) Republicans whose main objective seems to be allowing Wall Street and the multinational corporations to run amuck while ignoring the liberty of individual citizens - whom we may marry, whether, when and with whom we will choose to have children, what jobs we are allowed to have, or even what types of plants, medicines or foods we may ingest. That is what libertarianism used to be about a long time ago, when I was a teenager: the liberty of ordinary individuals to live their lives as they please, so long as they do not harm anyone else in so doing. It was a utopian dream of people living in freedom and harmony, voluntarily helping one another because it was in everybody's best interest to do so. The role of government was to protect the innocent from those who would use force or fraud, to prevent the powerful from taking advantage of the weak, and to otherwise interfere in peoples' private lives as little as possible.
Nowadays, however, "libertarian" has come to mean the liberty of corporations, including the insurance companies, to rip people off to the fullest extent possible, while the rich get richer, the poor get poorer and the middle class becomes poor. These faux "libertarians" want to "deregulate" the banks while continuing to regulate the living daylights out of ordinary (i.e. non-wealthy) people. Our lives have become more and more regulated and constrained - usually under the guise of "protecting" us or keeping us "safe" - to the point that we would not know what "liberty" was if it came up and bit us on the ass, while we are not actually any safer.
The politicians don't care what happens to us serfs so long as they can convince us to vote for them on the mistaken premise that they are going to somehow stand up for our individual rights and liberties, when in fact they have no intention of doing so, because they are in bed with the big corporations and they bow to the almighty dollar - just like all the other Republicrats. Please don't call this "libertarianism" because it really, really isn't. Just like the "Religious Right" is not really Christianity.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)