The Middle is Always Evil

I’m currently hanging around the Defending the American Dream Summit in Austin, Texas; I’ve been passing the time talking to a cute LP spokeswoman and checking out some of the other booths. It seems that there’s a lot of support for John McCain around here– that’s a bandwagon I cannot in good conscience jump on.

Don’t be deceived by the man’s hawkish patriotic stump speeches, he’s a liberal; there have been plenty of militaristic liberals in recent history (Castro, Mao, Stalin), so I don’t understand why this throws people off so much.

McCain-Feingold and McCain-Kennedy are two of the most leftist legislative moves that I can think of off the top of my head. Indeed, McCain is to the left of most Democrats on immigration and campaign finance reform. Not to mention his shameful stance on gun rights and welfare. The man is simply not a conservative. Its pitiful that we have him as our smaller-government alternative to Barack Obama.

Both these two men are Marxists; one of them is pretending not to be. Anybody who believes in public education is a Marxist; anyone who supports the existence of the IRS to any extent is a Marxist; anyone who supports the existence of the Federal Communications Commission, the Department of Labor, the Environmental Protection Agency, the Securities and Exchange Commission, etc. is a Marxist. Anyone who believes that the roads should be publicly owned is a Marxist. Period.

I cannot bring myself to support John McCain.

You hear a lot of complaining about lobbyists these days. But just what is a lobbyist? One who practices Lobbyism, of course!

A lobbyist is one who is in the practice of influencing legislators with money on the behalf of special interest groups that have a stake in an issue. This holds true for any issue that you could name: pro-gun lobbies, like the NRA, and anti-gun lobbies, like the Brady Campaign. With over 3,500 different lobbies in the United States, each representing a different issue, its no wonder that some people question the amount of influence the individual person has over their representative in congress.

Not Hillary Clinton:

This comment pissed a lot of people off, but is she right? Do lobbyists represent everyday Americans? Barack 0bama responded to her, saying that certain lobbies, like ones that push big pharmaceutical companies, have more money, and therefore an inordinate amount of influence over legislators.

Okay, so…

“Lobbyists contribute meaningfully to the democratic process by representing the interests of everyday Americans!”

vs.

“Lobbyists put an outrageous amount of power into the hands of corporations, and give them the ability to dictate public policy!”

As usual, people have completely missed the point. Lobbies are entirely superfluous and unnecessary because their existence is based on the premise that whoever has the most influence wins. This is a hopelessly pragmatic way of looking at politics, reducing it to nothing more than gang warfare. It isn’t about who has the most influence, its about whats right and wrong. So how do we eliminate this kind of biggest-gang-wins mentality from Washington politics? By going after government, of course!

If we reduce the power of government itself, there will be no need for lobbies at all. For example: instead of worrying about lobbyists because we’re afraid that corporations will use them to pressure legislators into giving them corporate welfare, how about we eliminate congress’ power to grant corporate welfare in the first place? Worried about tariff lobbyists pushing Congress into imposing heavy duties on imports? Take away the government’s ability to regulate tariffs, and that concern disappears.

The same could apply for campaign finance reform. There should be no limit at all on how much an individual (or group of individuals) can give to a political campaign. Its their money, they earned it; let them give it to whomever they choose for whatever reason they choose. But first, take away the power of politicians to regulate or interfere with the economy. Corporations will then have no incentive to donate exorbitant amounts of money to a politician.

Everything that is now regulated by the government can be regulated more effectively and cheaper by the market; or as an Objectivist might call it: the facts of reality.

How about this:

Congress shall make no law restricting the freedom of trade or association between individuals.

Something like that.