Posts Tagged ‘corruption’

When did it become wrong to believe in individual people and right to believe in collectivist governments?

I know many people don’t like Ayn Rand or her philosophy (which was partly too difficult for even her to live by), but she had the right idea: keep governments out of private business. That’s the way the country was run for a long time.

Cut to today. Now we have big corporations (not all, but some), lobbyists, & special interests that have politicians in their back pockets. Case in point: the NRA. They recently pledged support for a campaign finance reform bill after being awarded exemption from the new rules through a provision they authored (see my previous post: Special Interest & The Government).

Google & Verizon recently published what they believe should be the guidelines for regulating the internet…rules that would hinder their competitors. Even the FCC, which is in favor of internet regulation, came out against these guidelines, as did a huge swath of the internet community.

This may seem like a rant against business, but it’s not. It’s a rant against government & businesses getting too cozy. When the government picks the winners, the populace loses. Look at the current “Summer of Recovery”: 9.5% unemployment, 131,000 net jobs lost last month (though the private sector has decreasingly added jobs every month this year), GDP growth that gets revised downward more often than not, etc. And this is after the trillions of taxpayer dollars that were pumped into certain companies, banks, and government departments to stop the downward economic spiral.

So where’s the recovery? Most major downturns are followed by quick recoveries. Look at the depression of 1920-1921: tax cuts, spending cuts, and some other noninterventionist policies paved the way for the roaring 20s. By contrast, the Great Depression lasted over a decade despite (because of) government interference, and unemployment didn’t see a sharp decline until America got into WWII & the draft was instituted.

Empirical evidence shows the less government interferes, the faster & more sustainable the recovery. Governments picking winners & losers means everybody loses.

Got off on a tangent there. You’ll see that happens a lot. Anyway, my point is that anybody that believes in giving power to the individual to do what he wants, with the caveat that he harms no one other than himself, is now considered an extremist.

Belief that we are free to live our lives our way, again- harming no one other than ourselves, instead of the government proclaiming how we should live is a crackpot. Not giving us control over our own bodies, what goes in our bodies, what happens in our bedroom, who we take to our bedroom (consensually and both being of legal age), how we spend our money, what we buy…these are a few examples of how government interferes with our lives. And we’re crazy because we want to take responsibility for our own lives & not have that responsibility taken away by government?

Then call me crazy.

Advertisements

*Spoilers for BBC’s Robin Hood included*

Growing up, Robin Hood was one of my favorite stories. The evil, corrupt Prince usurping his brothers throne, partnered with a corrupt sheriff, against a noble, who returned from fighting by the King’s side in the Crusade to find his people mired in poverty, doing what they had to to survive, while the Prince & sheriff lived high on the hog, taking whatever they can from the poor. Good versus evil at its finest.

Robin Hood was never supposed to be about rich vs poor. Robin himself was a nobleman, Robin of Locksley. No, Robin Hood was supposed to be about good vs evil. The virtuous nobleman and his merry band of misfits fighting the corruption wrought by the King’s evil brother.

But over the years, Robin Hood’s mythos has been twisted and distorted until it’s almost unrecognizable. No longer is it about good vs evil. It has fallen prey to progressive influence. It is now more widely recognized to be about rich vs poor, no matter if the rich are corrupt or not.

Television and movies have played a large part in this paradigm shift, as well as newspapers and books. Take the TV show Leverage: a great show on TNT that follows the original Robin Hood ideology, except during the opening credits. Nate Ford, Timothy Hutton’s character, starts off by saying, “The rich and powerful take what they want. We steal it back for you”. Notice the lack of distinction between rich and corrupt. Otherwise, it follows the good vs evil path instead of rich vs poor.

You can imagine my surprise when the BBC of all channels reinvented Robin Hood a few years ago. When I say reinvented I’m speaking of taking the story back to its roots, i.e. good vs evil. For two years the story played out true to its roots (Marian was killed at the end of season two and they took Robin’s personal story in a new direction in season three, but stayed true to the good vs evil track). Even when they killed Robin in the final episode, ending the series, they made sure the spirit of Robin Hood lived on.

I write this in the hopes of keeping alive the true spirit of Robin Hood despite the reimagining progressives keep forcing upon us. Rich does not necessarily mean evil as poor does not mean virtuous. Please, please don’t let anyone fool you into thinking rich is evil.