in reply to Joel S. Hirschhorn by Walt Thiessen
(libertarian)
Wednesday, February 24, 2010
Joel S. Hirschhorn wrote a poignant article yesterday on this site entitled, Pharmaceutical Pillage, in which he discussed the harm caused to consumers via a drug called Avandia. I agree with him that the makers of that drug should be held responsible for the harm they caused. Unlike Hirschhorn, however, I think the FDA and the huge federal government also should be held accountable. My biggest disagreement with Hirschhorn came in his last paragraph when he wrote, "The critical need is not for less government but for better government that really works in the public interest, especially protecting consumers from dastardly corporate powers."
In making this statement, he demonstrated, at best, his ignorance as to the nature of government and to the role of small government. At worst, he demonstrated an affinity for big government. Notice I take a long step beyond his phrase, "less government", because the issue isn't really less government as much as it's small government vs. big government.
If small government principles were in place, there would be no problem with this drug or any other, because instead of regulating drugs, the onus would be on actual harm done. Regulation, counter to the myth its supporters perpetuate, is not about reducing harm. Rather, regulation's primary (but unstated) purpose is to permit certain individuals (and companies) to harm others while simultaneously preventing others from engaging in the exact same behavior and while preventing the legalized harmers from being brought to any real justice. It's harm of the people, by the wealthy and powerful, and for the wealthy and powerful. Small government would not regulate. It would simply make actions which harm others illegal, and it would hold those who harm others accountable directly to their victims. Instead of protecting corporations through corporate law and regulation, it would bare them to direct liability to which individuals must constantly bow. The notion of "corporate rights" wouldn't exist. There would only be individual rights.
Small government would focus on protecting and defending individual rights because its attention wouldn't be distracted in a million different ways as modern, neo-totalitarian government is. Because its resources would be limited (rather than virtually unlimited as under big government), small government would have no choice but to set aside powers that are irrelevant to the cause of protecting and defending individual rights, simply because small government would be no longer granted access to the unlimited funds and powers necessary to involve itself beyond that sphere. Instead of being distracted from its true purpose in a million ways, it would be able to focus on that purpose.
Small government wouldn't support legalized fraud in the monetary and banking system, in the forms of issuance of fiat money, permitting banks to lend money that doesn't belong to them without the permission of the money's owners on a loan by loan basis, or making loans long-term using funds that are supposed to be returned to their owners in the short-term.
Small government wouldn't interfere in the affairs of other countries, acting as policeman to the world. It wouldn't assume the role of slayer of dictators or fighters of wars against non-countries, such as drugs or terrorism. Small government would necessarily recognize that such wars are counterproductive and make the problems much worse in the long run. Instead, the role of small government, in the words of Thomas Jefferson, is as follows: "Peace, commerce and honest friendship with all nations--entangling alliances with none, I deem [one of] the essential principles of our government, and consequently [one of] those which ought to shape its administration." Small government would treat terrorists as what they really are, criminals, rather than elevating them to the more lofty and espectable title of "enemy combatants", as if they were engaged in some kind of noble enterprise in defense of another country or countries that happen to oppose our own national interests. Making drugs illegal has been no less counterproductive than making alcohol unconstitutional was counterproductive in the 1920s.
Small government wouldn't dedicate itself to the perpetuation of a "social safety net" which greatly enhances the scope and power of government as a means to making scant restitution for the harm caused by its regulation of money, banking, and corporations. Let us not forget that the safety net wouldn't even be needed if not for the legalized frauds perpetrated by the government in defense of fiat money, fraud-based banking, principles, and corporate protection.
These are only a few examples of the way big government fails us and small government would be much better positioned to protect and defend us.
The truly ironic part of Hirschhorn's argument of misdirection is that he prefaces his buried comment by saying, "Put aside the anti-government rhetoric of the Tea Party movement." This is ironic because the tea party movement is in the process of being taken over by neo-conservative forces, led by the likes of Sarah Palin, who advocate the kind of big government control Hirschhorn so greatly admires. His anti-major-party rhetoric aside, Hirschhorn wants to help Palin redirect tea partiers who advocate small government into the role of supporting big, neo-conservative government, in the hope that neo-conservative elements will reassert their control of the Congress and the federal government by promising vain assurances that their victory will somehow prevent corporations from harming people. Hirschhorn is a great admirer of Palin, and has been since she hit the national scene in 2008. Now we know why. He believes that big government will protect us in ways that small government cannot, all real-world evidence to the contrary notwithstanding.
His anti-small-government argument also helps us to make sense of his pro-Article V Convention advocacy. He doesn't want an Article V convention in order to shrink the size and power of government. Instead, he wants such a convention in order to permanently ensconce in cement the powers of big government. He is truly advocating the work of wolves in sheep's clothing. It makes me wonder how many other Article V supporters like him are also secret supporters of big government who publicly hide behind the rhetoric of small government.
Did you like this article? If you did, Thumb It! 8
thumbs so far
The views expressed
in this article are those of Walt Thiessen only and
do not represent the views of Nolan Chart, LLC or its affiliates.
Walt Thiessen is solely responsible for the contents
of this article and is not an employee or otherwise affiliated
with Nolan Chart, LLC in his/her role as a columnist.
So I guess the writing is on the wall; the Democrats are going to get hammered on Election Day, right? I wouldn't be too sure about that. There are far too many monkey wrenches that are ready to be thrown into this engine. The most amusing thing to observe during the CPAC orgy last Thursday was their subtle attempt to disassociate themselves from the so-called "Tea Party Movement" without flatly rejecting it. What is going on here?
Here's what's going on: The cooler heads within the Republican National Committee know damned well that the Tea Partiers are a ticking time bomb just waiting to explode. It's not merely the fact that most of these people are dumber than doggy dung, it is also the ugly reality that so much (although not all) of that movement is based on the nasty philosophy that has embodied the white supremacist movement for decades. You could hear it in the remarks made by the protesters at the September 12, "March on Washington". You could see it in the signs they carried. Most of these twits refuse to even acknowledge the fact that the president of the United States is an American citizen!
Like Neville Chamberlain appeasing der fuhrer at the Munich conference in 1938, the RNC is frantically searching for a "peace in our time" moment. They have quite a dilemma before them to be sure. On the one hand they need to keep these jackasses "inside the tent pissing out" - so to speak. On the other hand they have to avoid alienating the moderates. Like the demented uncle living in the attic, they must do everything humanly possible to make sure that any contact with the neighborhood kids is limited if you know what I mean.
The Tea Party people are already claiming credit for Scott Brown's victory in Massachusetts a couple weeks ago. They are determined to steer the course of the GOP in November, come hell or high water. If they are allowed control of the party, their extremism will only turn off a huge segment of the voting population. If they are denied that opportunity, they will splinter off into third and even fourth party uprisings. Have you ever watched an elephant try to walk a tightrope? It's more fun than a barrel of donkeys.
Posted By: Joel S. Hirschhorn
Date: 2010-02-24 08:23:25
I think Walt has greatly and intentionally mischaracterized my thinking and objectives. In my books and hundreds of articles I have never, ever advocated for big government. He has created a false and misleading dichotomy: big versus small. For me the core and necessary argument must always be about making government, as it was intended, to work on behalf of the people, especially those that tend to be taken advantage of by big, powerful and corrupting corporate and other interests. As someone who worked in government, I can attest that there are huge numbers of government workers that really, really want to work on behalf of we the people. The problem is that the leadership of government represent special interests because of the corrupt two-party plutocracy. Walt keeps constructing false and misleading arguments to advance his own ideals.
Posted By: Jahfre Fire Eater
Date: 2010-02-24 19:15:23
Big versus small, more versus less, benovelent versus oppressive. . . all these comparative arguments miss the point. The word is LIMITED, limited government. Limited versus unlimited. More specifically, the farther from ones direct participation the more stringent the limits on government should be. The result is a system that fosters local diversity and restores individual participation. When it becomes known that the large central government will impose decisions regardless of how any particular community would otherwise choose there is little incentive for folks to participate at the local level. These are all big government progressive social manipulation tactics. It is hard to be effective when expending energy splitting hairs about irrelevant minutiae so the Pavlovian hair splitting response is strongly encouraged by advocates of unlimited government on both the left and the right.
Hopefully the Ron Paul example will shine through to enough folks to wrest the control of the GOP from the hands of the neocon empire builders. The hopelessly self-marginalized Independents and Libertarians will always remain so but signs are encouraging that a lot of people are choosing to end their self-imposed futility. The key lies in being able to understand the reasons for limiting government and the best means for doing so. Also implied is understanding the difference between limited government and no government.
The only folks I see on the path towards limited government are the Ron Paul Republicans. The only way a "better" government can be created as Joel desires is for it to be limited. Limits on government foster innovation and competition. Government skews the playing field. Centralized government fails for the same reason centralized economies do. The information/feedback loop breaks down, and then, politics steps in to inform decisions. The breakdown happens when the decision making is too far removed from the consequences.
Fiat currency funds unlimited government. Fiat energy would do the same. Very cheap energy has done so for a century.
Joel and the rest of the Article V gang believe they are capable of tinkering the Frankenstein monster into Sleeping Beauty. They make a tragically comic spectacle because there is no basis for their belief in an effective, efficient, benovelent government. There is no evidence that such a government is possible. This is a point of faith, not reason, no matter how meticulously they go about rationalizing, their fervency cannot conjure up fact from fiction.
Had Walt not strayed into the Article V issue, I would have left this column entirely alone. But as he did not, I will comment. When he brought that issue in, he changed the argument from "big" versus "small", "better" versus "poorer" to "republic" versus "dictatorship."
The argument is quite simple. Article V MANDATES an Article V Convention call. There is no advocacy involved in anyone's position and we are not a "crowd." The states have applied. That is a matter of public record. The government has refused to obey the Constitution and call a convention as mandated to do.
Those who still view this as some political question that can simply be dispensed and ignored because their side "won" fail to realize the question in hand is whether or not the government is obligated to obey the Constitution. Walt, Fire eater and his crowd obviously believe the government obeying the Constitution, AS WRITTEN (hence "as is") is an option on the part of the government. Thus, they are the ones who are in fact advocating the work of wolves.
For once the Constitution can be scrapped by the government IN FACT, not in political theory, not in some abstract way that everyone cannot agree on but in a concrete provable way such as showing the applications exist to cause a convention call but the government has the "right" to ignore them anyway then there is no question the Constitution no longer exists. This means the government is then free to do whatever to whomever whenever it wants.
And that is a dictatorship and at that point even the right to question the size of it without being arrested or shot ceases to exist. That is what our "crowd" already realizes and Walt and his "crowd" have yet to figure out.
Posted By: john de herrera
Date: 2010-02-25 08:26:02
walt, the forces behind the privatized, neo totalitarian government fear one thing: the people of this nation coming together to discuss things. not on the blogs, they like us yammering away on the blogs. no, they fear us coming together on the legal authority of the constitution.
what is astounding is that what you fear happening through a convention already is happening. it's as if we're clearly headed to a cliff, the article v gang is yelling from the back of the bus to turn. and you and fire eater are sitting next to the bus driver yelling not to turn because there might be another cliff.
can anything get any worse? our freedom is gone (transparent elections and a free society are one and the same--we no longer have either due to the advent of electronic voting). it's just a matter of time now. the article v convention is our last and best hope of redirecting the course.
Want to comment on
this article? Leave your comment
here. Your email address is required to track your
comment. However, we will neither publish your email
address nor distribute it to other organizations or
persons. The only reason we might use it would be if
we needed to contact you regarding your comment. All
comments are subject to our
terms of use policy.
