Simpletons

Government

Conservatives hate it, and a lot of other people dislike or distrust it. Yet, at the same time, conservatives love it, while liberals have mixed feelings. (Surprise! The Left is not in love with government per se.)

There are vastly different notions of government, notions which have developed from our earliest history. One root notion is that government is the will of a master. This is probably the oldest idea, amounting to might makes right, originating in the primeval jungles of our existence. Without reason or knowledge, there is nothing but might. All tyrannies, of whatever form, rest on this principle, even if derivatively. For example, monarchy is supposedly based on lineage, but at an earlier time the reigning family was founded by a dictator, general, or usurper. Lineage is a justification, a rationalization, aimed at avoiding the direct recognition of the fundamental truth of monarchical legitimacy; viz., might. The Feudal system, based on swearing of loyalty oaths, was another cloak of the raw truth, for those oaths were dispensible as soon as coup d'etat was feasible. The contradiction of feudalism was assuming honor in and among men, while at the same time permitting them to do dishonorable things (e.g., kill offspring, droit de Seigneur, crusades, witch hunts).

There are lots of disguises for the followers of 'might makes right,' because most people resent having been beaten into submission. The disguises are intended to prevent revolt and disobedience when the opportunity presents itself. The Great White Bandit and his neo-conservative apologizers believe might makes right, but they do not say so directly. In Iraq, for example, that gang has put forward any number of (mostly false) excuses for the Conquest. They have not stated their true reason: simply that they could get away with it. America is strong and Iraq was weak.
 

I call ideas of government based on might 'Samurai' theories. That's because such governments operate in the interest of the Samurai (warrior) class. In societies ruled by Samurai, there is always a master, usually decided by force of arms or other contest of determination and strength. Sometimes, as in ancient Sparta, there is agreement among a few of the most vicious to rule as an oligarchy. It is, however, rare for troikas, juntas or oligarchies to last long, as the lust for power usually undoes them. The Triumvirate following Caesar's murder was quickly reduced during the Civil War with Brutus and the aristocrats. In the end, there was just Octavian and Marc Anthony, and then there was only Augustus.
 

Most American conservatives believe in Samurai government. This is a government devoted to military and police purposes, as the Libertarians would have it. The Samurai model can be thought of as government by and for a special interest or narrow group of special interests: the military, what Eisenhower called "the military-industrial complex.." In their view, the principal reason for government is organizing might to keep the peace. Thomas Hobbes, in Leviathan, founded this view of the State in modern times. Excepting those functions supporting the military, the American version of Samurai government believes everything else illegitmate; e.g., Social Security, Medicare, Education, Health, Welfare, etc & c.
 

Oddly enough, in Europe, Russia, China and Japan, 20^th century Samurai governments took over everything else because everything else is required to support a modern military. Somehow American conservatives don't understand that. But, for present purposes, it is sufficient that the seemingly simple 'might makes right' may lead to very complex implementations.
 

The American Libertarian wish for a small government primarilly devoted to police and military powers is a Samurai's dream. It attracts people who like to simplify things, who want clear-cut solutions to every problem. It also attracts simpletons who cannot fathom the further, undemocratic consequences of Samurai goverance, many of which are apparent in the Great White Bandit's Administration.
 

Those who hold the Samurai view of government generally prefer to see history in military terms. That is, for them, history is military history; the stories of battles and wars, heroes and villains, attacks and defenses. Samurai either cannot see, or do not care about, other histories, such as that of social institutions, economics, art, science or medicine. For those not trapped in the military way of life, it should be clear that being a Samurai is just one possible career among many. It is perfectly natural for a (real or imagined) Samurai to be wrapped up in his own history, and to propose a government that works according to his codes. But,
 

There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio,
Than are dreamt of in your philosophy. Hamlet. ACT I Scene 5.

 

Taxes
 

Another bugaboo of the simple-minded is taxes. While people who hate taxes are usually willing to pay for the other goods and services they obtain from others, they are unwilling to pay for almost anything provided by the government (except, as noted above, the police and military). Some anti-taxers even oppose police and military expenses. These latter are usually anarchists, but some of them are theocrats. (Theocrats have a difficult case to make, because they believe priestly goverance is not government. Their case rests on a distinction about the will of their god not being the will of man, and, further, that the priestly interpretation of the gods is always right.)

Taxation is essentially a modern invention. While ancient rulers imposed taxes, they were more in the way of tribute than a regular payment to the State. Moreover, until modern times, tax collection was usually privatized; contracted out to favorites or high bidders. Thus, taxes were usually unfair and arbitrary, depending on the character of the authorities responsible for their collection.

Modern taxation depends on other, thoroughly modern concepts. First of all, there is the modern invention of the Nation-State. Modern States operate by codified laws, not by the will of a tyrant. Second, the modern concept of law involves rules and codes visible to all, uniformly enforced. Thus, anyone can calculate what taxes are owed by himself and others. Third, modern States are generally republics or similar bodies, in which sovereignty resides in the people in fact (even if, as in constitutional monarchies, the monarch is supposedly sovereign). Today, taxes are set by and owed to the State under specified conditions, not to a person or arbitrary authority. All this is meant by 'no taxation without representation.'

Another characteristic of modern taxation is the idea that money may only be appropriated and spent lawfully. Thus we have the budget, line items and defined responsibilities. Most of us moderns detest slush funds, midnight bills, black boxes, payola, special exemptions, special interests, and pork barrels. We want to know how our government's money was gotten and how it was spent, by whom and with what authority. Those who violate these concerns are likely to find themselves behind bars, sooner or later. Even the most distinguished and powerful officials have met ignominous fates when it was discovered that they were, indeed, crooks.

Most of the revenue collected by modern States goes to clearly notable and worthy causes. For example, we spend hundreds of billions on education, health care, medical and scientific research, roads and highways, sustenance of the poor, sick and disabled, as well as the emergency needs of millions of people. All this, in addition to basic police and fire protection, water, sanitary sewer and the other utilities. Most of the comfort in the lives we lead is the result of publically built and maintained infrastructure.

The thing I notice most, here in California, is our freeways. We have some damn good highways, now much better than when I first travelled them 40 years ago. It took me about 3 days of hellish driving to go from San Francisco to Seattle on old US99 in 1962. Now, its I-5, straight and mostly 65-70 mph all the way. Ambitious youngsters can make the 900 mile trip within a day, but I take a day and a morning because I need to stop at rest areas a lot. Along the way, I notice that wherever the freeway goes, so went business and a better life. I visited a logging camp in 1962 that seemed held over from the long lost pioneer days; all that is gone now. Like everyone else, I am nostalgic about bygones, but I don't regret the appearance of flush toilets and comfortable beds everywhere en route. All that was made possible by taxes.

Now, to hear conservatives talk, one would think we lived in a world ruled by the Evil One. According to conservatives, all these things the government has done with tax money would have been better done privately. But, what those folks cannot explain is why Californians (and most other Western people) heartilly approve their freeways and don't approve toll roads. In fact, I and most people here think toll roads would be an inefficient nuisance, even if Back East they have a lot of them. It's also true that Back East they don't travel as much, as far or as often. I think the truth is, had it been left to private capital, we would have very few major highways connecting Western cities and towns. We would be a lot poorer without them.

Why no private roads? Probably because you cannot make a quick profit out of it. Remember the Donner Pass railroad route, from Roseville to Truckee, that was built at great cost with Chinese labor? It's still a modern marvel. Most people don't know that the railroad capitalists (Stanford, Crocker et al) were given huge forest estates and other lands - the Oregon and California lands - by the States of Oregon and California to pay for that and other construction. It wasn't done for free; it was done at huge expense by State governments. The West Coast is not the monument to private enterprise most people think. It is the result of government planning and co-ordination, and millions paid in taxes by everyone. The railroads made a lot of people rich, and some richer than ever. They really opened the American West in a way nothing else did. They began the West Coast's ascent to economic leadership, and created a gateway to Asia and the Pacific Rim. All that was done by taxes.

Are taxes evil? Is Medicare inefficient? Are freeways bad? I don't think so. Does that mean we should always tax and spend? Hell, no!

There are times to do things publically, and times not. In reality, our society works best when there are clearly understood and regulated public-private partnerships. That is how rural areas got electricity and the telephone. It seems to me the airlines worked a lot better under the old Civilian Aeronatutics Board than they do now. Airlines were not going bankrupt all the time, destroying the savings and pensions of thousands of airline employees and shareholders. All that, too, was supported by tax money.

The anti-tax people, almost all conservatives, have a very simplistic and backward - almost Medieval - attitude about our society. They just don't know how things are put together. But, ignoring all that, the worst thing about simpletons is that they are wreckers. That is why, in the 25 years since their man, Ronald Reagan, got elected, things have got worse for lots of ordinary people. Real incomes have not risen. There's (at least 3.8) millions of hidden unemployed not counted among the official 5.4% unemployed. The less taxes we have, the richer the rich get, the worse things get. for everyone else.

Just Plain Dumb

The foregoing and more is why I consider most conservatives either lacking intelligence or knowledge. They are either simpletons or simplistic. I don't which is worse. I do know it is very difficult to convince you - the people - to disregard their false messages that make everything seem so easy. Conservative solutions are like the lose-fat ads on TV. If you think about it, you know that TV stuff cannot work. If it did, we wouldn't have an obesity problem. But, they are there and lots of people are gullible. They wish.

I do too. I wish this were a perfect world in which everything is done for me the way I want it, without payment of any tax or price. Consider this: we call payments to the government taxes, but what I give for my groceries is a price. Aren't they really all the same thing?

One other thing: how about a price roll back on a privately-made prescription drug I use? It's gone up 20% in just 3 months. How about that for inflation! I feel I'm being priced and taxed way too much!

I'm ready to join the anti-tax movement just as soon as they abolish all the prices at the store as well as my taxes.