Bury The Mummy Spats

0
1949

As between spouses or longtime lovers, America–or its political parties, rather–really suffer only one Argument; all other disagreements in the relationship are but proxies for the Big One. Between lovers, the fights are about time, control, sex or money.

As between Pubs & Crats, the fight is about the right ratio of economic liberty to community responsibility. Most every stupid fight in our politics can be summed this way, and that’s as unfortunate as it is absolutely wrong.

This false dichotomy is bred of the old Hobbes and Locke argument–are people formed by fate, or is fate formed by people? This spat essentially is a product of egghead musings in Enlightenment Salons, of a kind with “how many angels can dance on the head of a pin?”

In many cases, science has exposed such either/or type questions as fallacies, and one would think all the research of the soft sciences combined with the experience of the human race for the past 150 years should shed some light on the silly split. In fact, upon reflection, it’s fairly clear the issue presented is settled, if by nothing more than reality.

The notion that individuals have any real means of non-democratic resistance to the will, or the expansion of, modern governments is absurd. Governments have a monopoly on force, and in the United States, where we enjoy tremendously advanced weaponry, the only hope of changing the will of those elected to power is that the army or the police will not fire. Government won.

But a queer phenomenon has overtaken “government;” this phenomenon is perhaps an eternally recurring one, but it is more pronounced in such a decadent time as ours. Resulting from our dysfunctional electoral funding system, and the influence of expensive television advertising requirements, our governments have been purchased–at deep discount, I might add–wholesale.

Let me ask you–who is more responsive to your concerns?–Tipp City’s or Monroe Township’s governments, or our “deregulated” cable provider, whose reduced costs from “increased competition” never materialized?

Because of the merger between corporate interest and government policy, the real argument in 2009 is whether we are to be ruled by ourselves, or an amalgamation of corporate boards of directors. As the latter is currently the case, we should consider how, instead of compounding the control corporations have over our daily lives, government might assume a mediative role between overweening corporate interests and actual, as opposed to artificial, humans.

Corporations and Limited Liability Companies cannot exist without the permission of the State, which confirms their existence and prevents personal liability from attaching to the investors in those entities. That power, akin to holding a scissors over the gossamer thread of corporate life–is at the heart of regulatory power. In essence, the people of Ohio are the ultimate authority, even higher than boards of directors & shareholders, over the corporate entities doing business in our State.

Our corporate citizens, if they insist on enjoying the privileges of personhood, should likewise be held to its responsibilities, and to concomitant obligations and risks. Actual equality before the law would be nice. I, for one, would love the option of destroy Time Warner’s credit rating when they overcharge, underperform, disregard contracts, and lobby for policies in our state-house that will result in bald restraint of trade.

If government functions as intended, I can vote a congressman into unemployment; only a corporation’s shareholders have any right to speak to its government.

Government’s extent of control is no longer a debatable proposition, the only unsettled question–and that question itself is unfortunately, for now, looking pretty damned settled–is for whom the Leviathan will work.

At least, this should be the discussion we’re having, rather than rehashing arguments two-hundred years gone.