Their diagnosis makes sense: government uses force to pay off corporations. Their prescription, however, is bizarre: much more of the disease. I don't get it. The state is violence, force, and the misuse of power. Sometimes there's no other way. But in general we want less, not more.
9 comments:
For someone who wet the bed over the libertarian-house-fire comic, you're awfully quick to pee on someone else's glass house (how's that for a strained metaphor?).
Except for the anarcho-lunatic fringe, nobody wants zero government. They want the right government. Even you libertarians. As per your Noaln Chart, liberals want the guvmint outta of their grow lamp bedroom and into the boardrooms. This is because (and I quote you, substituting 'corporations' for 'state') - "The corporations are violence, force, and misuse of power."
Last time I checked, corporations weren't throwing me in jail because I refused to buy their products. Wish it worked like that for taxes. Careful though, we don't want to give them any ideas ...
Libertarians want a strong judicial system to preserve liberty. Right now we have activist judges throwing people in jail for victim-less nonviolent crimes such as drug possession.
The true irony is that OWS complains that corporations control the government and calling on government to regulate the banks/corporations/etc. If corporations control government, why would you trust government to regulate corporations? They complain that the market cannot force corporations to self-regulate, yet a government bought and sold by corporations can successfully regulate? WTF?
What's to understand? They're for government force, as long as they're the beneficiaries.
What's to understand? They're for government force, as long as they're the beneficiaries.
THIS.
I had the most amazing discussion the other day with a liberal opponent of the recent Citizens United Supreme Court decision, who claimed this was a horrible precedent, etc. without any real supporting argumentation (besides citing a friend who was a Federal district court judge who said the same). When I pointed out that a Constitutional reading that allowed for Congressional regulation of corporate speech would not only muzzle the Wall Street Journal but the New York Times and even your friendly neighborhood ISP (corporations, all), all I got back was a blank, "I don't think so."
As though that would work in court.
The left in this country sincerely believes in the power of government, and equally, they believe in writing laws so as to give themselves maximum power, without a thought to the idea that someone opposed to them might one day get their hands on those same levers.
Ahem...WSJ, and the NYT are protected by the freedom of press clause of the 1st amendment.
(Dear Capthcha, are you really asking me to type an umlaut? Or is that two 'i's crammed together?)
=v= When someone like this cartoonist has to resort to putting words in the mouth of a character who never said those words, "don't understand" is definitely the phrase to use.
If understanding is actually a goal, it helps to stick with what someone's actually trying to communicate, not a dogmatic reframing.
Jym...so, cartoons should only be...graphically illustrated news articles? Sorta like those old court illustrations before cameras were allowed?
There's a common assumption in parts of the Left: The amount of government is approximately constant. As a result, political controversies can never be about the amount of government but only about who gets to be in charge.
Post a Comment