For consistent libertarians, I have an honest question. I am pleading that anyone who responds pay attention to what I am actually going to claim, and not go off on rabbit trails.
Money is power. It isn't only power, but it is power. If I have 5 billion dollars, and civilization breaks down, I can hire a private army to protect myself, whereas someone who has little or no money would literally be unable. This would result in one person having a vast amount of power over all who are not wealthy, just based on their income.
So since libertarians are rightfully suspicious of a government that is too powerful, how do they deal with the fact that massive accumulations of money for a small percentage of the business population poses a risk of absolute power just as dangerous as an unchecked government?
Massive accumulations of money only works for as long as society remains intact. As soon as society breaks down, money would become worthless. In a society where there is no law, only chaos, people will just take what they want.
My hub on the Power of Money would agree with a part of the above statement.
Money itself has power. That power needs to be respected and understood. If you understand the power of money, then you will learn to respect it.
Money itself IS only a tool. It's a very powerful motivational tool. What motivation it provides? Well, it could be positive or negative, depending solely on the character of the individual.
A person of low character, will become corrupted by greed and not know it's happening, which will result in abusive use of power obtained from using the tool.
Every human being is susceptible to the trappings of power. The founders understood this, and that's why they divided the government into three separate branches.
It doesn't make someone a bad person, but too much concentrated power has a corrupting influence.
It's understood why there are 3 branches. This is not in doubt.
Again, that depends solely on the character of the individual. Every person is accountable for their own individual character. Actions will dictate what their character is/reveals.
Yes, if there is a concentration of people who have low character but are in positions of power, then these peoples' actions should be doing the talking.
If you want to apply that to the US government, then feel free. I'm not going to say anything about it, but agree. The government has been over-stepping it's authority for more than 20+ years, if not for 200 years.
Libertarians are the most imaginative in politics. But they don't seem capable of imagining that there are families more powerful than government. And or
they refuse to recognize class supremacy.
Money keeps some people out of trouble. Money gets some people in trouble.
And this concludes paradigmsearch's profound statement of the day.
Your question is: "So since libertarians are rightfully suspicious of a government that is too powerful, how do they deal with the fact that massive accumulations of money for a small percentage of the business population poses a risk of absolute power just as dangerous as an unchecked government?"
First, libertarians have to be aware that what you stated is a fact. In order to do that they have to be educated to that fact. For the sake of discussion let's call "the massive accumulations of money for a small percentage of business population."(moneyed interests).
Educating people to the facts is becoming increasingly more difficult, because those moneyed interest are producing very effective propaganda that makes people including libertarins to vote against their own best interests, thus giving the moneyed interests more control. The people and organizations that can see through the propaganda do not have the money or the resources to combat the moneyed interests.
As they say might is right and in this case might is the big moneyed interests. My point is they don't see anything wrong with it because the big moneyed interest have brain washed the populus into thinking there is a separation of government and the big moneyed interest when in fact, there is not. So the reason the government is unchecked is because of the big moneyed interests. It's almost circular reasoning.
You are correct that big business has engaged in very effective propaganda in order to persuade the populace that their billions are legitimate.
However, libertarians object on the grounds of liberty. They assert that people like you and me are literally stealing from the wealthy through a socially acceptable means; and this includes anyone's money, regardless of income, that is used on anything other than a small military, police, courts, and a very modest national government. I don't know if libertarians believe the taxes to pay for these items should be the same for all people or not though. You'd have to ask one of them.
I even read one libertarian who said that the Articles of Confederation was how things should be. According to him, the Constitution gave the government TOO much power. Interesting view no doubt. The fellow's name is Albert Jay Nock if you are interested.
I'm simply wondering whether the healthy skepticism they have of government power comes into play when business power is also substantial, and exactly what they would do to solve the problem.
by Doodlehead4 years ago
According to Lew Rockwell, Ron Paul has plans to lead the Liberty Caucus Republicanswhen he resigns in December. Lew says Dr. Paul has kept his typical low profileuntil he is out of Congress. ...
by Tony Lawrence5 years ago
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/12/2 … oesnt-WorkTruth. Why are so many of our young people so enthralled by this very dangerous idea?
by JeniferD7 years ago
I ask this because I would like some input from my fellow hubbers on this issue. Speaking for myself, I would start with cutting the office staff of our congressman and senators, then I would look at consolidating...
by silverstararrow5 years ago
Really? I had this huge debate with a friend who was stubborn in his view that money matters the most in the world, at least today. Agree or disagree?
by pennyofheaven4 years ago
Some might say that Jesus was the most influential person in religious history and I realize this is debatable. He still remains glorified by many.According to American thinker, Forbes magazine annointed Barack Obama as...
by fishskinfreak20087 years ago
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20100122/ts_nm/us_obama"Let me dispel this notion that we were somehow focused on that (healthcare) and so as a consequence not focused on the economy. First of all, all I think about is...
Copyright © 2017 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.