Can’t Libertarians and Socialists Agree?

Can’t socialists and libertarians agree that we should not support that form of government sometimes called Plutocracy, or Fascism, where the state power and the major industries are intertwined in incest?

The libertarian will blench in horror at the sight of populist demagogues assuming the power to fire the CEO’s of private corporations, forcing mergers, reorganizing Boards of Directors, setting or vetoing compensation and bonuses, interfering with contracts, establishing lines of production, types of goods produced, and generally usurping the rights of the owners and stockholders, and, ultimately, usurping the free choice of the customers and consumers: as when General Motors morphed into Government Motors, and the President vowed that car warranties would henceforth by underwritten and guaranteed by the taxpayers (or "tax-sheep" as the shepherds who shear them call them, or slaughter them for mutton).

The socialist will recoil from the sight of major industries, even if they pretend to be under state scrutiny, determining the course of political events: as when banks like A.I.G. contribute funds to politicians in return for political favors, bailouts, and winning the coveted status of "being too big to fail" (which means, in effect, being a permanent state subsidy). The question here is one of undue influence. In socialist theory, the means of production of certain industries (in some cases, all industries) are to be state-run for the sake of the common good. When an organization is still run on a for-profit basis, so that only the losses are socialized, and the gains are pocketed (as with the A.I.G. salary bonuses), this offends socialist theory, or should.

I admit I don’t understand how socialists think but I would think that even they would recognize that once the government is running an industry, the industry ends up running the government, if for no other reason than to prevent the taxpayers (who are now stake-holders in the industry) from suffering a loss. It end ups not being a ruler-and-ruled relationship, but a marriage of convenience: the good old boys network. The same small cadre of highly placed individuals makes the decisions both for government and industry, and neither the common good of the voters nor the wishes of the consumers, make any difference. The incentives which lure Caesar into favoring the state-run industry over any private or foreign competition also act to lure Caesar to favor the state-run industry into favoring the industry over the workers or the consumers.

A cynic might note the difference between the Republican leaning CEO of GM, which was handed his walking papers, and the generous-at-donation-time CEOs of AIG or Citibank, poised to accept another flood of taxpayer largesse: and might note in which business our newly sovietized government has stock.

* * *

Oh, and in other news, the Obama Administration, with the cheers and lies of the main stream media behind them, are contemplating making newspapers tax-exempt; and to establish a uniformed youth-army of brownshirts, soon to be made a mandatory rather than voluntary force. (The bill creates a commission to investigate how "a workable, fair and reasonable mandatory service requirement for all able young people" can be implemented.)

It is a sad day when the most hopeful spin on the Obama Youth Brigade is that the administration may only use the instrument for peculation (to funnel tax-funds to supporters) rather than intimidation.

And in other news, a famed terror master (I cannot pronounce or remember his name) has vowed an attack against Washington D.C. that will astound the world. I have yet to see if the administration treats this as a matter of higher priority than the threat posed by Rush Limbaugh, radio entertainer.

And in yet other news, protestors are rioting in front of banks in London, protesting the meeting of the G-20 countries: at least some protestors are chanting that we should abolish money.

Now, here is my question: why is it that evil and stupid political movements, such as those who protest against the existence of money, find it easy to raise a crowd, whereas the unhidden and deliberate decimation of the rights and liberties of the United States, and the reduction of our once-great republic to an arbitrary dictatorship, takes place with hardly a murmur of dissent?