
Chomsky Wants You to Wake Up from the American Dream - PersonalDay
http://davidswanson.org/node/5057
======
api
One of the elements of typical libertarian ideology that now strikes me as a
fantasy is the idea that one can truly separate economy and state and that
wealth and political power (a.k.a. force) are not the same thing.

In _abstract theory_ wealth is not force and is not political power. It's easy
to write that statement down and believe it. But firewalling these two in the
real world is something that I regard as politically impossible. The only
scenario I can imagine is one where we have some kind of AI programmed to
maintain a democratic libertarian state and that is above economics,
invulnerable to persuasion, and lacks any human needs or wants that can be
influenced through money.

Given that wealth can easily buy power (a.k.a. ability to wield force), then a
sufficiently large concentration of wealth in the hands of a few easily leads
to that few having the power to arbitrarily wield force. Even if the
plutocrats are initially idealistic, over time this will erode... especially
if social change or market forces threaten their wealth. At that point the
choice is between adapting (hard) or using force (easy). People usually take
the easy path.

~~~
merpnderp
Jeb Bush has raised far more MO ey than the other republican presidential
candidates and got the nod from the party of elites and yet he's in near last
place with the party's second pick in distant third and two outsiders, which
the party can't decide which it hates more, vying for first and second.

Money is even barely buying Hillary first place.

~~~
gremlinsinc
That's because of Bernie and to some extent Trump -- There's a good Article by
Benjamin Studebaker(I think) that basically states that Neolibs have taken
over both parties, as long as corporate interests are taken care of--which
both do, then they're given everything they need to stay in power. But Tea
Party and Bernie democrats are throwing a wrench in their plans -- People are
now waking up and they are MAD - some just don't know where to direct that
anger, but the NeoLibs are out and it's either going to be the Tea Party or
Progressive Wing of the Democrats that win -- and no Hillary is not, nor has
she ever been Progressive, she is too much part of the corporate power machine
to be part of the progressives. This election scares the shit out of the
corporations, and honestly, I'd rather see Trump than Hillary win, if just to
send a message to Wallstreet that the establishment isn't welcome any longer.

~~~
merpnderp
I'm completely with you. It makes me grin every morning to realize I live in a
world where hundreds of millions have been spent to elect corporate shills,
and they're either barely hanging on, or out of the race.

But populism has historically been a negative thing. When people get angry
they're willing to do some bad stuff.

------
mark_l_watson
Great article. I am forwarding a link to that to a few friends and family who
have open minds about such things.

It annoys me when people rail against the incompetence of the ruling elite.
They seem all too competent to me, and processes like manufacturing consent,
etc. are too obvious to ignore for people paying attention. The middle and
lower classes have lost the game.

------
icomefromreddit
> The smart way to keep people passive and obedient is to strictly limit the
> spectrum of acceptable opinion, but allow very lively debate within that
> spectrum. gg

------
funkonaut
No thanks. The reason we're in this mess is because of the progressive
movement. Before income tax, before regulation, before welfare, the country
experienced unparalleled growth decade after decade.

