I’m “setting the table” for the series to come on deconstructing the misinformation embedded in Levin’s Liberty and Tyranny.  In the last entry I provided a recap on misinformation that will provide the foundation of the deconstruction.  In this entry I provide my political perspective that will use Levin’s “Conservative Manifesto” as a foil.

I am neither Democrat nor Republican, neither conservative nor liberal.  For the sake of people who need a brand as much as construction workers need coffee in the morning, I am a Grassroots Empiricist.  That means I am in favor of as much local autonomy as possible, with different pockets of people drawing from their own collective experiences and wisdom to come up with their own unique solutions.  Some communities may come up with “liberal” solutions, some may come up with “conservative” solutions.  That is all to the well and good, since humans are the most diverse species on the planet if we truly are allowed our natural independence.  Where local autonomy is simply not a good idea, I believe we should come to that conclusion through federation, communities coming together to work out problems at a higher level, rather than trust in the top-down governance of a political party or ideology.

Some have thought I have shown a liberal bias in my constant criticisms of “free market libertarians.”  They forget that my main focus is not ideology; my focus is misinformation.  That focus readily explains why institutions like the U. S. Chamber of Commerce, The Heritage Foundation and Fox News get the brunt of my criticisms.

The liberals that make news either in politics, news media or the blogosphere tend to favor paternal solutions by government.  In my opinion they tend to say what they mean, I just don’t agree with them.  The same thing goes for social conservatives, who tend to favor paternal solutions based on their faith.  Since both say what they mean I have no beef with either.  They can go their way and I, being an independent grassroots empiricist, will go my way.  In fact, I rather not critique them because I rather not draw attention to their views.

Ah, but those “conservatives” or “Republicans” that align themselves with “free market libertarians” I have a big problem with.  They do not say what they mean, which by definition means they are misinforming us.  Both the pursuits of “free market” and “liberty,” if those concepts are to be honored for their true meaning, would lead to decentralized autonomy.  “Free market libertarians” do not want that.  Some even point out that the middle class needs to be saved from ourselves, in true Hobbesian (or Friedman) fashion.  Their bitching about government directly is but a cover for the paternalism they seek, which is massive government influence indirectly through the form of a corporate economy.  For make no mistake, outside of taxes corporations are the most government dependent institution out there.  You could form a militia independently of national or even state government easier than you could form a viable corporation.

I agree with what “free market libertarians” say, but not with what they mean.  If they meant what they said I would agree with them and perhaps be echoing their views.  If they said what they meant I would disagree with their paternal inclinations, similar to my disagreement with liberals and social conservatives, but would not be accusing them of misinforming the public.  Since they are misinforming the public with the ample resources available from their corporate benefactors they need to be exposed.  Their misinformation is a bigger threat to federated democracy than the information from either liberals or social conservatives.

I will continue to “set the table” next week with basic models of what free markets and liberty are all about, two concepts promoted in Levin’s work.

Tags: