The real reason why Republicans oppose gun regulation

n-GUN-FLAG-628x314

As always in America, gun violence continues and all republicans offer are their thoughts and prayers, as well as disinformation. There’s no way more gun regulation will work they say. The best way to stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun.

Oddly enough in a recent shooting (just before Christmas) there was a “good guy” with a gun present who stood by and did nothing until after 40 people got shot. This is in line with the experience of military veterans and what psychologist say is the normal human reaction to a crisis situation. Basically, 80% of people will stand there with a stupid look on their face (even if they have a gun), aim high, or pretend to be doing something else (tending to the wounded for example). This has been demonstrated in numerous studies and interviews of soldiers going into combat for the first time, all the way back to world war 2 (with historical evidence to suggest it has been a constant in warfare since the dawn of time).

This is “good guy” gambit is merely one example of how the right will try to muddy the waters, coming up with contrarian arguments to try and avoid the inevitable conclusions. Take this example from PragerU. Its theme seems to be regulation won’t work and will be a slippery slope to a total gun ban. Or in other words “the dems are coming for your guns”.

The thing is that gun regulation DOES work. We know this because several European countries, and Canada allow the ownership of firearms, but apply strict gun regulations.

I think the problem here is that many Americans assume that the UK = Europe and yes the UK has some very strict gun controls, some of the toughest in the world. And the end result is we have some of the lowest gun related crime rates in the world.

By contrast some of our European neighbours are much more flexible on gun ownership, most notably Switzerland and Finland. And there are cultural reasons for this policy. Finland found itself fighting both sides (at different times) during world war 2 and Switzerland found itself surrounded by the nazi’s. Hence a central plank of both nations self defence policy is that every male (and quite a few of the women) has a gun under the bed. And speaking of the Germans, I highlighted before a vlog post from Joerg Sprave about gun regulations in Germany and how they aren’t quite as strict as the NRA would have you believe.

The exact laws vary country to country, but in general terms gun ownership is allowed, but owners have to go through extensive background checks. You need a license and the gun must be registered on a firearms database (linked to the licensee). Regulations are usually very strict in terms of how the gun may be stored (generally locked away in a gun safe, with the ammunition stored separately in another location) and how both gun and ammo are transported (almost no chance of anyone getting a concealed carry permit, unless you work as a body guard or something). Some countries also take ballistic data from guns (so if you use it in a crime the police will very quickly know whose door to come knocking on).

And there’s also a level of bullet control. In most European countries you can’t just walk into a store and buy ammo. You’ll need to show ID and a record will be kept of the sale (meaning any attempt to stockpile ammo in advance of a spree shooting has a good chance of being detected, prompting a visit from the police). And generally the more dangerous the gun or ammo, the stricter the regulation. So while yes the average Swiss man might have an assault rifle under the bed, he might not have any ammo to feed into it . And if he’s one of the few who does, it will be in a shrink wrapped package….and the cops are known to carry out random inspections of those from time to time.

Finally, there is no real automatic right to bear arms in Europe. Owning a gun is seen as a privilege granted to law abiding citizens who have some valid reason to own a gun. And this privilege is conditional that you stick to the rules. Break the rules or start acting like an asshole (e.g. the Trump supporters showing up to political rallies and trying to intimidate people with guns) and the cops will have you’re guns off you so fast your head will spin.

Now all of that said, the rate of gun related violence and deaths in countries like Switzerland and Finland (or Germany) is certainly higher than in the UK. No matter how well you regulate, more guns = more deaths. But its a fraction of the rates we see in the US (10.54 per 100,000 in the US, against 3 in Switzerland, 1.97 in Canada, 1 in Germany and 0.23 in the UK).

So it would seem logical that if you want to vastly reduce the level of gun violence in the US, why not try regulating guns first? Well this is the crux of the point I’m trying to make. Republicans fears isn’t that gun regulations won’t work. Their fear is that they WILL work.

Let’s imagine a scenario where the US imposes strict gun regulation, much like in Canada or Europe. And let’s assume that the rate of gun deaths drops to the same levels as in those countries, which would mean a reduction of between 70-80%. What happens next?

Well no longer can the GOP use the rallying cry “the dems are comin for you’re guns” to get a few million votes each election. Guns will no longer be such a political hot potato, the dem’s will have no reason to ban them. After all I don’t see Trudeau north of the border planning on banning guns or sending the Mounties door to door to disarm people (as the GOP will have you believe would happen if the slightest gun regulation were passed). Yes, he might tighten up a few reg’s the Harper Adm. repealed, but that’s about the worst he’ll do. Of course, this also means that GOP candidates, particularly in “rust belt” swing states will now be much more vulnerable to defeat by democrats. And they won’t be getting a few billion a year from the gun lobby anymore. So all in all hardly good news for them.

But more worryingly, in response to this drop in gun deaths, Americans might say to themselves, well gee that was easy, we just passed a few reg’s and the problem largely took care of itself. Maybe we should like try that with something else. Like healthcare? Or regulating the banks a bit more closely? Blink and next thing you know they’ve turned the US into the United States of Europe. Suddenly billionaires have to pay this thing called “tax” and can’t act like total dick’s anymore and expect to get away with it.

This is the real reason why republicans and conservatives will fight gun regulations. Because they don’t want to face a scenario where regulations are shown to work. That’s actually the slippery slope they are really worried about. So when Republicans offer their “thoughts and prayerswhat they actually mean is that they see those killed in these shootings as collateral damage, human sacrifices on the altar of their neo-liberal ideology.

And gun owners need to realise that they are being used and they will be discarded should the political winds change. Its worth pointing out that many of the strict gun laws in the UK (or Australia) were enacted not by leaf eating liberals but by conservative right wing governments. Because faced with the choice between regulating guns or banning them completely, most neo-liberal politicians will opt for the total ban option and toss the gun lobby under the bus, once they’ve outlived their usefulness.

So NRA members need to understand that should the public mood in the US ever shift, they are in serious trouble. They GOP will discard them just as easily as they dismiss the tens of thousands killed by guns annually. They will push for a total ban, as they will not want to run the risk of gun regulations being shown to work.

And of course the same applies to any other lobby the GOP are currently backing, coal miners for example. If there’s one person you should never trust its a politician who will see bodies being carried out of a building and resolve to do nothing about it.

Advertisements

Rather a waste of time

TV anchor veteran, Dan Rather has come out of retirement and now has a show on the Young Turks network. I think its interesting he chose to do this via the new media of the internet rather than via the TV news. Then again, this highlights the problem with the media in the US. The mainstream news media, in particular the TV news is too formulaic and anxious to avoid addressing controversial topics. While Trump complains about “fake news” (which is more the product of his supporters) and “bias”, the truth is the mainstream media are simply not tackling him or his minions effectively, but instead they are giving his propagandist the oxygen they need to survive.

Of course the accusation against Dan Rather (or the TYT, or many other left wing media outlets online) is that he’s biased against the alt-right. Which is true, but you kind of have to be these days. There’s a big difference between being biased but sticking to the facts, compared to being biased and lying, distorting the truth or just plain making stuff up (like Breitbart or the Daily Mail). The motto of the Trump presidency, if the state of the union speech is anything to go by would be “it is in fact possible to polish a turd“.

The trouble with much of the mainstream media is that they will, in the interest of “balance” present both sides of an argument on issues where there is really no argument. e.g. on climate change. To draw an analogy, it would be like you going to the doctor, but then in the interest of “balance” we bring in some homeopathic woo pedaller and have him give his opinion, then make you flip a coin as to whose going to get to treat you.

And debating the alt-right is generally a pointless exercise. As this vlog post points out, the entire tactic of alt-right debate is to control the conversation and shutdown it down. They know the other side has facts on their side, so they’ll try to take the ball away and stop the game. In essence they aren’t fight fair because they don’t have to.

The right’s political philosophy is a fantasy, which is often self contradicting and openly hypocritical. It survives only on a suspension of disbelief. To draw an analogy, imagine you’re watching the latest star wars film and after the first hour we stop the film, bring on Neil deGrasse Tyson who proceeds to give a 2 hour lecture (during which you can’t leave nor look at your mobile phone) highlighting the scientific inaccuracies in the film, as well as giving away lots of spoilers to the 2nd half of the movie. Or we send Richard Dawkins into a kinder garden to read out the scientific proof that there is no Santa Claus. That’s how a liberal spouting “facts” sounds to someone on the alt-right. They will simply ignore you (and hate you for it), but will latch on to any myth or comforting lie the alt-right “debater” can squeeze in. That essentially is why debating them or giving them air time is a waste of time.

unpleasant-truths-vs-comforting-lies

Indeed, they’re doing a re-run of Babylon 5 right now on one of the UK TV back channels. For those unfamiliar with the series, its 3rd season covered the rise to power of a authoritarian regime on earth and its ere to see how for example they had a kellyanne conway type describe how to use “alternative facts“. Or how the B5 version of Trump gets implicated in a massive criminal conspiracy, but rather than accept the evidence, his supporters ignore it and suppress those trying to uncover the truth.

Thus its increasingly falling to the new news media to do the sort of investigative journalism that the TV channels used to do. For example, Vice news have an interesting piece out about North Korea’s rocket program. There’s been some disquiet among engineers about major advances the North Korean’s have made over the last year or so in their rocket program. As I mentioned in a prior post, space flight isn’t easy, it takes a lot of experience to be able to build a reliable rocket system. It is implausible to say the least that the North Koreans have made such advances without outside help.

Vice news highlights the fact that Ukraine’s rocket industry has suffered in recent years and cuts in a US program intended to keep rocket scientists employed (no doubt Trump keeping his bosses in Moscow happy) might have sent a number of unemployed rocket scientists Kim Jung-un’s way, although the Ukrainians perhaps rather predictably blame the Russians for helping North Korea. Either way, its an important story the mainstream media appear to have missed. And it suggests that the long held assumption that the North Koreans lack the capability to hit the mainland US with a missile might not be true anymore, or for much longer (and that Trump’s pro-Russia policy might be helping the north Koreans!).

Although, that said, any land based ICBM’s in North Korea are well within range of US and South Korean aircraft and could be destroyed on the ground long before they can prepare them for launch and fire them. This is the whole reason why the UK abandoned development of its land based ICBM’s in the 60’s as it was understood that they simply couldn’t protect such missiles from a sneak air or submarine launched cruise missile attack. So Kim is wasting his time developing a weapon system that’s of questionable strategic value.

On the other hand we see a resurgent old media in the form of some newspapers who appear to be rediscovering their history of investigative journalism. Case in point the President’s club debacle here in the UK, where a “charity” auction for rich members of the old boy’s club turned out to be grope fest for dirty old men. On the one hand, its not surprising. If you ever wonder why some “gentleman’s” clubs are men only, its because of what goes on inside those clubs is decidedly not a female friendly activity, as the Profumo affair revealed. So the only thing really surprising, is that they weren’t a little bit more discreet and actually got caught. But again, it highlights how we have to rely on the likes of the FT (hardly a bastion of liberal sentiment) to report on such things, as the TV news have simply ignored issues like this (or indeed issues such as gender pay equality).

Unfortunately, much of the new and old media are wasting their time. Many of the FT’s fat cat readers for example couldn’t understand what all the fuss was about. Given that most Trump supporters put Dan Rather and TYT into the “liberal media” box some time ago, nothing they say is going to change anyone’s mind about Trump. Until we can find some way for truth to trump lies and myths, its a case of the truth being out there, but nobody cares.

The sadopopulist agenda behind brexit

The EU looked on last week with incredulity and disbelief, as an agreement they’d thrashed out with Theresa May, which would have settled the first round of brexit talks was torpedoed at the eleventh hour, apparently by the DUP, a small fringe party in Northern Ireland. As I’ve mentioned in a prior post, the UK’s reputation is taking a battering from these brexit talks. To many in the EU it seems like the country is unable to make any sort of decision, even when you’ve got the PM in the room (remind me, when exactly did we elect Arlene Foster as PM?). As one German newspaper put it “Brexit is the biggest political nonsense since the Roman Emperor Caligula decided to appoint his favourite horse as consul”.

david-davis

The EU showed up for talks on day one with well thumbed piles of documents, the British have one notebook between three of them….

And meanwhile back in the UK we had a conclusion to a long running saga involving the brexit secretary Dave2, who has been charged with contempt of parliament, with calls for him to be locked in the tower. This may have gone under the radar of international news, but briefly for many months now MP’s have been asking Dave2 and his department for information on their planning on the impact of brexit on specific sectors of the economy. For example, I highlighted in a prior article how leaving the EU will mean the UK leaving the EU nuclear regulatory agency and open skies agreement (which technically means that as things stand, with no agreement with the EU, nuclear reactors might have to shut down and planes stop flying for several months after April 1st 2019).

But Dave2 kept giving evasive answers along the lines of, oh we’ve got lots of boffins working on this, don’t worry your pretty little working class heads, we all went to a posh boarding schools……and we smoke pipes. Naturally, this convinced many MP’s that these impact assessments might contain some very bad news, which the government was trying to cover up. So they pressed him further, calling for a parliamentary vote on the matter (requiring that the documents be handed over), which he lost. He then tried to stall for time, portraying the MP’s as 5th columnists working for the EU, which is kind of silly when one of those MP’s happens to Jacob Rees-Mogg (on the right of both the Tories and the brexiters).

Well finally this week MP’s managed to corner Dave2 and he revealed that actually he’d been lying there are no impact assessments. When he was stalling for time, it wasn’t to give him time to censor the reports and take out anything incriminating, instead it involved him and his staff rapidly cutting and pasting stuff off the internet to placate MP’s. Yes, a year and half after the brexit vote and the UK government still has no clue what the impact of it will be, nor how they are going to prepare for it. “Fu*ked if we know!” is the official government position on the impact of brexit.

Of course this shouldn’t be a huge surprise. Plenty of independent studies have been conducted into the impact of brexit, both before and since the referendum. Prior to the referendum the government commissioned its own studies, which were generally negative about the UK’s prospects post-brexit. Given that the circumstances haven’t changed much, its reasonable to assume that any impact assessments would show the same thing and it hardly helps the brexiters case for their own department to conclude they are cutting off their own nose to spite their face.

And there was worse to come. Philip Hammond, generally seen as the grown up in the room also revealed to MP’s that there had been no comprehensive discussions by the cabinet as to what the UK’s brexit strategy or final end state was going to be. It would appear the cabinet is split into two factions, with Phil and Amber in one corner rocking back and forward muttering OMG, while in at the other end of the room the brexiters have been jerking one another off as they watch the movie Dambusters over and over again as they dream of empire 2.0.

To say this is bad is an understatement. As the military say, its the Seven Ps of Planning: Proper Planning and Preparation Prevents Pis* Poor Performance. Yet it is now clear that the UK has entered into brexit talks without any sort of plan. All this poker talk about noting wanting to reveal their hand to the EU has been bunk, the EU (and anyone with half a brain) has known all along what’s going on, the UK has no cards to play, they don’t even know what they want. The UK government’s official negotiating strategy for brexit involves screaming Leeroy! and charging into the room.

And worse still, good politics is about compromise and trade off’s. In politics nobody ever gets to have their cake and eat it. You want to restrict immigration? okay, but you do realise that’s going to curtail economic growth (by creating labour shortages), push up taxes and mean longer NHS waiting times. What to re-nationalise the railways (as Corbyn wants)? Yep, we can do that. But its going to take some time to implement, will be legally difficult (as the train companies might be reluctant to simply hand over their franchise rights and might fight the government in court). And there’s no point in going down this road unless you are willing to put the sort of cash into the railways to bring them up to European standards (which means again, likely you are looking at putting up taxes).

DIicoPQXkAALyEU

The problem from the start with the brexiters has been they don’t even seem to be aware of the idea that such trade off’s are necessary. The situation with the Irish border being a case in point. Any kind of change to the customs arrangements will mean a hard border between the UK and EU. Such a hard border would open a huge can of worms and it would not be popular abroad, notably with Washington, where opposition to a hard border has bipartisan support in Congress.

Once you accept this reality it leaves only two options. The UK stays in the customs union and becomes an associate member of the EU (meaning it can’t negotiate separate trade deals, indeed it will have no say whatsoever as to the terms of the trade deals the EU negotiates….and will have to keep paying into the EU budget). Or we put the border at the Irish sea and tell the DUP, well if you don’t like it we can have a border poll, would you prefer that instead?

Pretty-accurate_2.jpg

Dumb and dumber, spot the difference

The brexiters don’t even seem to be aware, nor wish to even acknowledge, that such trade off’s exist, leads one to conclude that the Tory brexiters have to be the dumbest most incompetent bunch of clowns to ever be put in charge of a major government. I heard someone suggest the other day that they should do a brexit special addition of the thick of it. Actually, we are now at the stage where reality has outrun satire…..

Sadopopulism

……Or there is another explanation? The history professor Tim Snyder recently coined the term Sadopopulism to describe how the wealthy and the oligarch’s are dealing with the post-truth age.

Basically, the rich can’t rely any more on their traditional tactics of bullying centrist parties (via their control of the media) into adopting favourable policies. The deficiencies in those policies have been exposed, increasingly centrist parties are reluctant to play ball and they’ve lost a lot of support due to the blow back. The rich can’t rely on the extreme left (as they’d lock them up!), nor the extreme right. The fascists would shoot them all (then steal their stuff!) while libertarianism would likely lead to anarchy and possibly the rise of other oligarch’s who’d challenge them (then shoot them and steal their stuff!).

So instead, they rely on populism to target some easily identified scapegoats, the poor, migrants, ethnic minorities, Muslims, etc. They then undertake policies that are intentionally designed to cause harm (this were the “sado” element comes in). And to be clear this isn’t raising/lowering taxes kind of stuff, which makes everyone better off, other than a small minority (again, politics is about trade off’s). This is policies that will intentionally hurt more or less everyone (save the elites themselves of course!). They can then point out, ya you’ve got it bad, but its all the fault of poor people/migrants who are now even worse off. And after all some of those poor people did vote for Trump/brexit, so now they are being punished for that.

Its worth noting that this theory is backed up by studies into monkeys. In situations where other monkey’s were rewarded for effort that they put in, some actually opted not to reward, even those this decreased the changes of them being rewarded in turn. In other words they’d accept being worse off just to spite others.

So its possible, much like the recent tax cuts in the US, the answer here is the brexiters might be intentionally playing dumb. They know their negotiation strategy won’t work, they know they are committing an act of national self harm, that’s the whole point! Then while the country is reeling from the aftermath, they can slip through a few bills stripping workers of their rights and they’ll have the excuse to privatise the NHS (and sell it off to themselves). As the character Littlefinger on Game of Thrones put it, chaos is a ladder.

Shameless hypocrisy and the cult of fantasy

Well you do have to hand it to the republicans. If you are going to tell a lie or con someone, better to go for the big con. And so we have their tax plan, that will give billionaires a massive tax cut, yet put up the taxes on middle income Americans (after a brief interlude of 4 years). At the same time it will blow a massive hole in the US government budget, causing the deficit to skyrocket.

dfe79bd2-d709-11e7-bbec-65aecb903036-1536x1048

A pair of liberals (Jeff Sessions and some chicken little called Paul Ryan) spread fake news about the dangers of deficit spending

Exactly how much higher the US deficit will rise to is unclear, some say $1 trillion another report estimates $1.7 trillion (against a current deficit of $440 billion, so a doubling or quadrupling of the deficit). Suffice to say this makes a mockery of the GOP mantra throughout the Obama era. We were told, from the very first days of the tea party that their objection to Obama was because he was black because he was spending way too much money and threatening the health of America’s finances. Several times they threatened to shut down the federal government because they refused to raise the US debt ceiling. Now blink and they’re saying well bolix to that, my new Gulfstream ain’t going to buy itself.

1_debt_growth_percent_of_gdp_freakalytics

Of course, this is hardly a huge surprise. For Republicans the deficit has long been a political football. They’ll use it against the democrats when they are in power, then spend like a sailor on shore leave afterwards. The five most recent Republican presidents have all run deficits, generally worse than their democratic predecessor, with Reagan being the worst offender (although Trump/Pence will almost certainly now exceed him) and Bill Clinton being the only recent US president to return a significant budget surplus.

Obama did indeed run up some large deficits, which means he stands out from other recent democratic presidents (who ran much smaller deficits, or ran a surplus). But he was dealing with one of the worst recession in ninety years, a crisis which was the fault of the Republicans and their mismanagement of the banks. He certainly didn’t bring this deficit down nearly as quickly as he should have, that is true. But in his defence he did try to cut spending and proposed some tax increases, but the Republicans fought every step of the way.

Tax-Rates-GDP-Growth-5-YearAvg-110317

Tax cuts to the wealthy have consistently had the opposite effect republicans claim

Now the GOP will no doubt claim, oh but this will stimulate the economy and create loads of jobs, which will then increase tax revenue. Well firstly there is very little evidence to prove that these supply side economics actually works, indeed if anything the evidence suggests the opposite is true. The economy is like an orchestra. Lots of different factors come together to make it work. You need inward investment, a reliable energy source, a stable political system, an educated workforce, access to foreign markets, etc. Although one must note Trump’s proposed protectionist measures will likely impact on a number of these and could well restrict economic growth.

And when we say the economy is like an orchestra its perhaps better to look on it as more like a school band. It succeeds in battering out a tune, not because of the idiot in the back out of sync with the rest of the band, but despite him. But the GOP, like the parents of this spoilt little brat, filter out all of that and assume the band’s success is all down to their little darling’s ill timed and out of tune musical torture.

But even if we give the GOP the benefit of the doubt, the level of growth that would be necessary to reduce the deficit is pretty significant. Do the maths and you’ll see that US economy would have to grow by a rate of 30-50% over 5 years (6-10% per year!) to cancel out this deficit. That would require a level of economic growth equivalent to China or Ireland in the 2000’s, which is simply not going to happen. Especially when you factor in the impact of the baby boomer retirements, which will pull tens of millions of taxpayers out of the work force and then claiming their retirement benefits.

What about cutting spending? While the GOP don’t mention it in these tax plans, its almost certain when these colossal deficits become evident massive spending cuts will have to follow. Indeed, this might be the whole point of the tax cut, because it will give them the excuse to basically sell of the US federal government (to themselves!). Well the flaw in this plan is, like I said earlier, Obama tried that, but the only things with enough zeros behind them that could be cut and make a difference to the deficit are things like defence spending or retirement funding. And those are the very sacred cows the GOP won’t cut. Obamacare, for the record, was set up to be revenue neutral (it costs money but by making workers healthier and more productive it should cancel out its own impact on the deficit).

Cutting out whole government departments (as the GOP proposes) on the one hand, won’t cut the budget enough and secondly will leave key economic sectors effectively an unregulated wild west. The financial crisis, the collapse of ENRON and various other scandals of the G. W. Bush era showed the dangers of such deregulation (and again most of Obama’s deficit was run up repairing the damage from these crises). So budget cuts of this kind would cause more harm than help. Its the equivalent of setting your house on fire in the middle of a blizzard in order to keep warm.

CV5lPB8WcAAx5ba

But anyone looking to debate Republicans on this issue is wasting their time. We need to recognise the fact that American conservatives aren’t a political movement any more (they’d need these things called “policies” first!) they are basically a cult. A cult of angry people who’ve concluded that solving the problems that make them angry sounds like a lot of hard work, so instead they’ve placed the comforting lies of their demagogue leaders above facts and decided to go urinate in a ballot box. This is not strictly speaking a right wing phenomenon (Corbyn’s supporters in the UK, Sinn Fein in Ireland, etc.) but it has certainly taken over the political right to a much greater extend.

total-casino-stock-returns

Trump the brilliant business man managed to lose money in the one industry where the house always wins!

Indeed, so much so that it wouldn’t be accurate to call American conservatives Christians anymore either. Many even go so far as to suggest they’d believe the word of Trump over the words of Jesus. This is a cult that is openly anti-intellectual and hostile to facts of any kind.

Consider the fact that Trump now claims things he was caught on tape saying never occurred. There’s phenomenon with US shootings, going right back to Columbine High, where every time a shooting occurs, conspiracy theories flood the internet, often leading to the victims of said shootings and their families being harassed and threatened by pro-gun activists.

Now the problem with these fantasy cults is that they are entirely self destructive and self defeating. As the woes of the brexiters demonstrate the aren’t going to get to have their cake and eat it. They will almost certainly leave the UK worse off than it was prior to brexit. And longer term, the likely outcome will be either the UK rejoins the EU (on not nearly as generous terms as it now enjoys) or the UK probably breaks up. For anyone who voted for brexit as some sort of protest against the Tories, well firstly you’re an idiot and secondly for the next two decades the priority for the government (whether its labour or the Tories in power) will be brexit and dealing with the fallout afterwards. Meanwhile your local public services will wither and die, your local hospital will close….or be sold off to some American multinational. You essentially voted to be ignored even more than you were being ignored before.

And the second problem, as Trump demonstrates, is that while these demagogues can’t fulfil their outlandish promises, they can use their time in office to feather their own nests and do a few favours for those who helped them into power, as these tax cuts and a number of Trump’s political appointments demonstrates.

As with the brexiters, any angry Trump voters who voted for him so that those pricks in Washington will pay attention to the forgotten America. Well you’re a moron. And now you’ll be ignored and forgotten even more. And the likely outcome of your decision is national bankruptcy. Which given how massively dependant many mid-west (and generally Republican voting states) are on federal spending will spell disaster, as many in these states are reduced to penury.

2987025203_fc2c517522_o-748920

The only socialism in America, aside from tax cuts for billonaires, is liberal voting states propping the economies of republican voting states

In short, voting for “populists”, or the cult of fantasy as we should really call them, is the equivalent of the chickens voting to put the fox in charge of the hen house, just because he promised to built a wall around the hen house and make the wolves pay for it. This begs the question, what happens with this process runs its course and the lies of the cult of fantasy are exposed and the followers realise they’ve been had.

Well firstly don’t expect that to happen any time soon. I mean look what’s happened to many cults throughout history. Many literally go down in flames with their cult leader (blaming his enemies for forcing him into killing them all), long after it should be obvious they’ve been conned. It will take sometime for the penny to drop.

I guarantee you, a decade from now the line the Daily Mail will take is that the UK was forced out of the EU against its will. And its economic woes since then are all the fault of the EU and the handful of migrants that are still allowed into the country (who will presumably be forced to go around wearing little yellow stars). Whoever is the poor unfortunate sap of a democrat who has to clean up the massive deficit mess left behind by Trump and co. will be blamed by fox news for the very mess Trump is now creating. Why they will say with nostalgia can’t we go back to those glorious times when Trump was in charge. And why can’t we name some national landmarks after him (because you’ve already named everything after Reagan!).

Its possible that we could see the collapse of the mainstream parties and the rise of some sort of third way, as was seen in France recently. But the electoral system in both the US and UK are more or less designed to make it impossible for any alternatives to the two party system to emerge. So my guess is that the end result of the cult of fantasy is that governments will become ever more extreme, with lurching to the extremes of the right and then the left, getting more authoritarian with every iteration. Meanwhile nothing gets done, nothing changes and the problems build up until its possible the whole system of western style democracy might well collapse. Unfortunately I suspect Putin’s Russia is a template for what we can expect future governments to look like.

Brexit reality bites

20170211_BRD001_0

So before the referendum we were told that there would be no exit bill when the UK left the EU. We won’t be paying a penny. As Boris Johnson put it the EU would be told to “go whistle” for its money. We’d stare Fritz straight in the eye and say nien…..

…….of course what the brexiters didn’t mention is that we weren’t hearing them right. Rather than saying “nein” what they actually planned to say to the EU was “nine“, as in “is ninety billion euro’s ok?“.Once Britain’s rebate on EU assets is taken into account, this will result in a net payment by the UK of £50-60 billion, depending on the breaks…paid in euros btw!

We were told the PM could never agree to this. That there would be rioting in the streets, the tabloids would abandon her (what and throw their lot in with Corbyn?) and the cabinet would resign en-mass. And this morning…..nothing. Largely because the brexiters want the news cycle to move on. They were warned repeatedly that this day would come, before and after the referendum and I mean years before. The truth is most of them merely see brexit as a ladder to further their careers and they understand full well it is an act of national self harm. No matter what happens the UK will be worse off after brexit, that is the unescapable truth.

In these “talks” Brussels holds all the cards. The EU doesn’t have to be nasty about it. As Donald Tusk advised at the start of this process, the mere act of brexit will be punishment enough on Britain (a punishment that was self inflicted by the UK on itself). Sixty million do not dictate terms to a trade block of 500 million, especially when the leadership of said 60 million can’t even agree what it is that they want. Expect similar climb downs on the Irish border and the ECJ in the coming weeks.

And the EU was very clear that this money is not buying the UK a trade deal. What the UK is buying is a choice between a Norway plus model that will grant free access to EU markets, but at the expense of surrendering sovereignty to Brussels, paying about 90% of what the UK currently pays into the EU budget and only very limited changes to freedom of movement. Or a Canadian style arrangement, although that will be incompatible with an open border in Ireland, so some compromise will be needed here, likely by throwing the unionists under the bus.

Its worth nothing that there are two unionist parties in the Northern Ireland, the DUP and the UUP. The UUP campaigned for a remain vote, not because they are a bunch of hummus eating europhiles. But because, unlike the DUP, they aren’t moronically stupid. They understood all too well that Westminster will prioritise English interests over the interests of a couple of bigoted creationists in Northern Ireland. If that means effectively paving the way to a united Ireland, well so be it. So before Arelene Foster has a tissy, keep in mind she is in a mess of her making.

Now a word from the UK’s greatest ally

Indeed there were question marks about who tweeted those 3 racist videos to Trump. I’d guess that would be Trump’s British drinking buddy, Nigel Farage (who has well known associations with the UK far right). He correctly guessed that Trump would re-tweet them, burying the brexit divorce bill story and taking it off the front pages. However Trump’s outbursts and his rebuke to Theresa May should underline the other problem with brexit. In effect, if we follow through with the brexiters plan, the UK is trading sovereignty it shares with EU states and handing that sovereignty into the sweaty palms of Donald Trump. Its not so much a case of the UK becoming the 51st state (that would give the UK voting rights in US elections), its the UK becoming another Puerto Rico.

189457

Again as always, the brexiters are poor students of history. If they’d paid more attention, they’d know the period from the end of World War 2 to the UK joining the EU was a frustrating time for the UK. Time and again, the UK found its interests being trampled on by a now dominant US. The Suez crisis, numerous proxy wars fought out in commonwealth countries during the cold war and the Skybolt crisis to name a few. The Skybolt crisis did work out rather well for the UK in the end, but it so frustrated them that, according to De Gaulle, this was one of the reasons why the UK wanted to join the EU in the first place.

After the UK joined, the relationship improved, simply because the US needed an ally in the EU clubhouse. Now that the UK is leaving, that abusive relationship of the past is going to resume (much as I predicted would happen back in 2011). I mean can you imagine any past UK PM (assuming the UK voted remain) putting up with Donald Trump in the way Theresa May has had too? The UK has no choice now but to put up with whatever abuse they get from the US, regardless of who is in charge. Meanwhile the French are already positioning themselves to be America’s new best buddy inside the EU.

But we’re going to at least get a great trade deal off the US aren’t we? Well when Trump says it will be “great”, he means for the US. The UK, notably UK farmers and manufacturers are going to get screwed six ways.

So the can anyone who voted leave please explain to me how paying £50-60 billion to get the crap beaten out of us by both the EU and US, risking the peace of the good Friday agreement and ultimately becoming a vassal state of the US, is a good idea. I mean if the brexiters want to get robbed and beaten up that badly, just go to into any pub in Glasgow and tell em how great it is to be in jolly old England….

 

Trump the African Dictator

We were warned by Trevor Noah, prior to the election, that Trump sounded a lot like an African dictator. Unfortunately, every day he and his regime are becoming ever more like one. The constant posturing for the sake of his ego, the lavish personal spending, the inability to accept criticism and of course the massive levels of corruption.

_97476408_louiseandsteve

Your tax dollars hard at work….

Trump promised to “drain the swamp” but instead, he’s done the opposite, with his cronies and family members increasingly using the assets of state for as their personal play things, be it to go shopping in Europe, holidays, or business trips abroad. The Secret service is at risk of going bankrupt given the huge bill its run up guarding Trump during his trips to Florida every weekend (where the state pays the cost of putting him up in his own hotel) or protecting and providing transport for his relatives on business trips to sign deals abroad, something that is in clear violation of the constitution.

Again, this is all reminiscent of the sort of corruption African autocrats are famous for. However, there is another aspect of African autocracies that Trump demonstrates – his supporters. African dictators maintain their hold on power through violence and intimidation of voters (which least we forget, Trump supporters also engaged in last election), but that only goes so far. A key feature of their rule is the fact that they have a core group of supporters, typically 20-33% of the population who will back them no matter what.

Make no mistake, the supporters of African dictators such as Mugabe or Obiang Nguema are well aware of the corruption and abuse of power that goes on. But they back such dictators regardless of this, because they are a member of the same tribe. Indeed, some even see a silver lining to such corruption as they expect the dictator to “share the cake. They look the other way to him embezzling billions in state funds in the hope that a few crumbs fall from the table which they can scoop up. Indeed, a candidate who actually ran on a promise to “drain the swamp” would probably lose votes.

And this is the role many in the Republican party have now fallen into. Many still back Trump not because they are unaware of the corruption allegations, or because they don’t understand just how serious his abuse of office is. Actually quite the opposite. The GOP is now a tribe, a cargo cult and they see it as necessary that they back their leader regardless of how bad he gets or how big a cliff he dives the country off.

This in of itself suggests that the conventional wisdom, that we must merely wait for investigations against Trump to conclude and see him impeached, or wait for the next election and see the GOP devastated in polls, might not work. If he’s this bad now and a hard core of the GOP are still backing up, its not going to be that straight forward to unseat him. And don’t expect future elections in the US to be free and fair.

Instead, we need to start treating Trump the same way that any African autocrat is treated if he is to be removed from power. And that means recognising that the checks and balances aren’t going to work. It means refusing to recognise his office and refusing to do business with any firm that does business with him or his companies (a list here, TK Maxx and Amazon being the key ones in the UK, along with Uber of course).

Indeed a boycott of US industry as a whole (encouraging firms to re-register themselves abroad and thus threatening a collapse in tax revenue) is really the only way forward. Its exactly how they brought down the apartheid regime in South Africa.

The trouble with trade: Walmart

One has to worry about the consequences of a US/UK trade deal. As I’ve said before, getting a trade deal isn’t the problem, its the concession the UK will inevitably be forced to accept as part of that deal.

what-happens-to-small-businesses-when-walmart-moves-in-4-728.jpg

This week Liam Fox tried to argue that on the one hand they’d ban chlorinated chicken from the UK and in the same sentence so what if we do allow it. Well if you adopt the first position, banning US food products and cars (many of the larger SUV’s will fail current UK/EU environmental standards) the Americans will respond in kind and what exactly will we be trading with the US? On the other hand, if you allow Chlorinated chicken or steroids in beef, you’ll be cutting yourself off from the EU market.

A case in point of everything that is wrong with the US is Walmart. For those unfamiliar with Walmart they are a large supermarket chain known for engaging in fairly unethical practices. Quite often they’ll move into a town and quickly put all of the local business out of business very quickly, turning a once thriving high street into a ghetto. Walmart often offer a full comprehensive range of services. You can get groceries, firearms, fast food and have your car’s wheel’s balanced while you wait. So when I say all of the business in the high street goes, I mean all of it.

As the company is run and operated by a family of staunch neo-conservatives, they have been known to use their companies de-facto monopoly on sales to censor content of  books, CD’s or videos solid in their store. So while they’ll allow you to buy Die Hard with vengeance (despite is sex and violence), they’ll rate anything from Michael Moore as “non family friendly” and ban it from their shelves.

And they achieve their monopoly by vastly undercutting the competition, something they can do by squeezing their suppliers mercilessly. They squeeze their staff salaries so far that many are dependant on welfare. Of course this means indirectly Walmart are in receipt of subsidy from the state and they are often able to pressure counties and towns into offering them tax breaks or free highway construction in return for them setting up in an area (big government get off my back…accept when its propping up my monopoly). And they have a harsh anti-union policy. Any time a union has been successfully established in a Walmart, they’ve shut the store down.

But the problems with Walmart get worse when they decide to leave. After having milked a community dry, destroyed the town centre and devastated the local business community, they are known to just up and leave, often simply because of a slight drop in sales, usually because the local economy is struggling through some temporary problem.

Of course this means the largest employer in said town disappears overnight, making a bad situation much worse, while leaving locals with a long drive to the next town over to get basic groceries. In short it can lead a once vibrant town to basically die, all some very rich people with more money than they know what to do with, can get that little bit richer.

Now granted, the UK has its fare share of problems with aggressive supermarkets and town’s desperate for cash willing to bend over backwards to help them, even when they should really tell them to piss off. For example in Oxford they have a wonderful covered market, which the council (desperate for cash due to the austerity) has raised the rent on local traders by 50% …..twice….leading many to fear for its survival. Meanwhile they’ve been offering tax breaks to the likes of Starbucks to set up in town and paying for road infrastructure to the benefit of Tesco’s.

The difference in the UK is that there are laws limiting the size of supermarkets, protecting small business from monopolistic pressure and employees from union busting companies. Now, I would argue the trouble is that these laws don’t go far enough and are sometimes broken by the supermarkets (who know they can get away with a lack of enforcement). But post-brexit there is a very real risk that all of these protections will disappear as part of any trade deal. So we could well see ASDA (owned by Walmart) pursuing a Walmart like reign of destruction across many of the UK’s small market towns. So if you voted for brexit, congrats, because this, like so many things, this is what you voted for.

To shoot and terrorise

a67c914f6bd54af79eccae759674baaf

The shocking murder of a Australian women at the hands of US police last week has highlighted the massive problem that American gun culture has created. If being killed by one of the millions of people with guns in the country wasn’t enough of a risk, there’s also the risk of being killed by the cops who are supposed to be there to protect them. The statistics speak for themselves, you are 70 times more likely to be killed by the police in American than you are in the UK and 28 times more likely than in Germany.

Of course, was this story about someone who was black, or a migrant from Mexico rather than Australia, it probably won’t have attracted this much attention. But at least the cops in Minneapolis are being consistent in their cover up (equal opportunities incompetence). The body cameras were suspiciously turned off at the time (as was the dash cam on their car). They’re claiming they heard a loud noise, then they said they feared an ambush (from a blonde woman in her PJ’s?), which all sounds a bit like the excuses Oscar Pistorius was making after he murdered his girlfriend. Next thing you know they’ll claim the dog ate the evidence.

There is in essence a fatal flaw in the right to bare arms mantra of the the NRA. Ya, you’ve got the right to bare arms, but those rights also give the cops the right to blow you away (or anyone else who looks suspicious). Tell the cops they can take your gun from your cold dead hands and they’ll say, well suit yourself, bang!

Now this is not to say there haven’t been deaths at the hands of police in the UK. For example the death of Jean Charles de Menezes at the hands of British police (they thought the Brazilian was a suicide bomber) or the death of Ian Tomlinson (which they initially tried to blame on anti-capitalist protestors). But you’re talking a handful of incidents every now and then, compared to what is a daily event in the US.

And again this is only a fraction of the 33,636 total gun deaths in the US per year, nearly a hundred a day. As the BBC recently reported (in a documentary), in one weekend back in 2015 there was 184 shootings and 87 deaths.

bi-graphicsodds of dying

In the US a gun owner is statistically 5 times more likely to accidentally shoot himself or be killed by the cops than he is to be killed by a terrorist

In short the carnage on the streets of the US is many times worse than that inflicted by ISIS in recent attacks across Europe. It is to say the least deeply ironic how the NRA try to use the fear of terrorism to justify mass gun ownership. In truth, it is no wonder there’s not been many terrorist attacks in the US, because ISIS knows they’d struggle to kill any number significant enough to feature as more than a blip on the total US firearms related deaths per year or even per day.

Of course the reason why US cops are so jittery is precisely because of this high gun crime rate. They know full well that right to carry laws and lax gun controls means every little incident they get called out too, be it a drunk being rowdy, a domestic incident or a cat up a tree in the wrong part of town could result in them facing a stand off against an armed attacker. Every hobo, kid or any sudden movement could be someone with an AR-15 looking to blow them away.

By contrast, police are less jittery in Europe because its a lot less likely they’ll encounter someone armed with a gun. Now while it is true that some European countries have very strict gun laws, Ireland or the UK for example, this isn’t true across all of Europe. Joerg Sprave discusses German gun laws on his vlog and as he reveals you can buy quite a lot of firearms in Germany legally, even things like the MP5 (which is banned in many US states!). Switzerland too has fairly liberal gun laws. The difference between these countries and the US is that there is no 2nd amendment, you have no right to bare arms, the state may allow you to do so (but its at their discretion), if you can prove you have a legitimate reason to want to own one (and saying you want to shoot people or for self defence will generally mean instant disqualification) and you’re not a criminal or insane.

There’s also few carry laws in Europe and how firearm incidents are treated is very different. In short, if you bring a gun into any situation, regardless of the circumstances, e.g. you caught a burglar in you’re own home and he attacked you, you’ll be going to jail unless you can explain how it is you happened to be armed at the time and why you had no other choice (in Germany guns must be kept in a locked gun safe and the ammo in a separate location, so the cops would legitimately question how you could find and load the gun in advance).

And keep in mind, as Joerg also points out in another video, German self defence laws are anything but liberal, they give you quite a lot of leeway to defend yourself, family, property or even your honour. But the one thing they don’t give you the right to do, is act like an asshole and run around with a gun, while drunk or stoned mumbling about your 2nd amendment rights.

Now granted the situation isn’t universal across Europe. In the UK you catch a burglar in your house you are practically obliged to invite him downstairs for some tea and crumpets. But my point is that while there are guns in circulation in Europe, they are more strictly controlled.

So while police in Europe do need to be wary of the possibility of a gun appearing in any incident, it is a fairly rare event. Criminals in Europe, while they will have access to firearms, they will generally not carry them around on a routine basis because A) that would give the cops a reason to arrest them straight away and B) they can’t get a gun license (because, oddly enough, we don’t allow those with a criminal record to own a gun in Europe), so any firearm they acquire will be via the black market, which will be very expensive. Hence, the cops this side of the Atlantic aren’t as jittery as police in the US.

Yes, they will encounter the odd dump street punk who takes things too far (or a jihadi), but these are rare events. As a UK drug cop once told me, you can tell when your dealing with hardened criminals, because they will never get caught with anything incriminating, chill out straight away, not say a word (other than “where’s my lawyer?”) and co-operate fully. Its the angry young crack heads who start shouting and running their mouth (with the cop diligently writing it all down in their little notebook, while going ya, ya, sure mate as they searching him/his car/home and finding plenty to lock him up on) those are the ones you have to watch out for, as they can kick off at the drop of a hat.

So all in all, one has to conclude that the high rate of police deaths (if not gun deaths in general) in the US are clearly a result of America’s lax gun laws. And naturally incidents like this unfortunate event in Minneapolis simply breeds distrust in the cops and the authorities.

Worryingly, this might well be the entire intent of the extreme gun policy taken by Republicans. As this article discusses there’s been a long standing effort by some wealthy neo-liberals to destroy trust in US institutions, as this strengthens their hand. If nobody trusts the police, they’ll turn to vigilante’s and private armies, which means any billionaire becomes immune to prosecution, because there’s no way he can be arrested.

And Trump plays into this. His supporters, even though they are all too aware that he colluded with the Russians, is engaging in African dictator level corruption in the White house, simply don’t care, they’ll back him whatever happens. Which is exactly what the rich elites want. By undermining the office of the president, Trump ensures it will scarcely matter who is president in future, it could be Ralph Nader, Bernie Sanders or Jeb Bush, they will essentially be a toothless figure head.

And the thing gun advocates need to realise is that sooner or later a crack down is going to come (not least because once these lax gun laws have served their purpose the Republicans will turn against them). People will tire of the carnage and they’ll vote for parties who will change things.

Its worth remembering that while the 2nd amendment is quite old, how it is interpreted now is a relatively new phenomenon in the history of the US gun legislation, barely a decade or two old. Prior to this the situation was very different. So by wedding the 2nd amendment to this carnage, they are simply guaranteeing that if and when that crack down comes, it will be repealed, all of their gun rights will go and they will look on the “liberal” gun laws of Europe with envious eyes.

Comey Fired

James Comey fired_2.jpg

As you’ve probably heard Trump has fired FBI chief James Comey for the controversial manner in which he handled the investigations into Clinton’s emails. To be fair this is no real surprise, as I mentioned at the time, if anything Comey should have not only been fired, but prosecuted. His actions directly effected the outcome of the election. Recall that Hilary was well ahead in the polls prior to Comey announcing his new investigation (which then disappeared due to lack of any evidence a few days later), and recall that she won the popular vote and was only denied the presidency as a result of a few thousand votes in one or two states.

What is a cause for concern is how Trump went from praising Comey for this before the election, yet now he’s firing him for it! And given that Comey recently began asking for additional resources for his investigation of Trump’s connections to Russia, needless to say one is forced to put two and two together. Trump claims he’s acting on the advice of Jeff Sessions, his attorney general. However Sessions was also cheerleading Comey on prior to the election.

To say the least, it looks dodgy as hell. Now had Trump put together an independent panel to investigate Comey (and several others involved in this pre-election leak) and left it up to the courts and the house justice committee to sort out (this would probably have been Hilary’s response if she had won) then fair enough. But this sudden action is very suspicious. And for someone who is supposedly very good at firing people, Trump really screwed this one up. He fired Comey by e-mail. Apparently Comey only found out by watching a news report, which he initially thought of as a prank. One could scarcely think of a worse way to fire someone.

Ultimately, the real mistake Comey made (as did Putin) above all else, was trusting Trump. If there’s anything we’ve learnt since January is that Trump can’t be trusted, nor relied upon. Ask any of his former business partners and they’ll tell you how they got screwed over by this two faced, lying, megalomanic. I mean he spent half of Comey’s sacking letter talking about himself. The reality of the Trump administration is that there is no grand master plan. He’s literally winging it as he goes along and he has no thought for the consequences of his actions.

Of course, the real surprise, or maybe its not so much of a surprise, is the sound of silence from the GOP. While the democrats seem quite keen to launch an investigation (the first phase of a presidential impeachment), the Republican policy seems to be to stick their fingers in their ears and say nah, nah, nah not listening. Yet they were talking of impeaching Hilary in her ball gown!

1530b96737c2ad47dc721df1c90f89e7

The Republicans are such hypocrites. The truth is they don’t care about the possibility that we have a Russian agent in the White House, they don’t seem to mind the fact that Trump’s openly abusing his office for financial gain, nor that he’s a sex fiend whose had to pay out millions in compo (I mean religion’s clearly not that important to republicans!). And they completely ignored Comey’s violation of electoral laws, same as they ignored G.W. Bush and his illegal war built on lies. But Hilary sending a few emails from home or Bill engaging in some boorish behaviour (wrong yes, but mild compared to what we know Trump has gotten up too) are the worst crimes in world history.

The reality is that the Republicans simply see politics as some sort of sick twisted game. They don’t care about the long term consequences for the world or their country, they just want to win and win by whatever means necessary.

The libertarian slavery paradox

Nolan_chart

The Political compass as libertarians see it

I happened to be watching the remake of the TV series Roots recently (based on the Alex Haley novel) and it did occur to me how it creates a bit of a troubling problem for libertarians. They like to see themselves as the ultimate liberals at the opposite end of the political compass to nazi’s and authoritarians. However I would argue that logic would dictate that any libertarian society would inevitably eventually become a slave owning society.

Think about it, in a libertarian society if someone owes you money or compensation for something, how do you get them to pay? Let’s suppose someone did a shoddy job tiling your roof, or he ran over your 6 year old kid and she’s now paralysed for life and needs expensive treatment, or someone simply defaults on their loans to a bank without paying (which is bad news for savers, recall there will be no federal insurance on banks under libertarianism, if enough borrowers default the bank goes under). Without a government, in a libertarian society with lax law enforcement and little to no regulations means that courts will be toothless. And without some sort of authority to enforce the law people, in particular the wealthy with their vast fortunes and private armies, can simply ignore the law. And those at the very bottom, can simply shrug their shoulders and say, well I’m broke, I’ve got nothing to pay with, I own no property, so your screwed, now if you’ll excuse me I’m going to go get drunk, then drive to the park and fire my gun at squirrels near where your children play.

And the thing is that this wouldn’t only be allowed in a libertarian society, it would be considered a perfectly moral act. Libertarians often claim to follow the philosophy of Objectivism, which basically amounts to saying that its okay to be a selfish jerk and that being a kind and caring person who gives the slightest thought for others is morally wrong. In such a society, it would be considered okay to default on debts and basically screw everyone else over. This will be normal. But if everyone did that, society would quickly fall apart. Banks won’t lend money to anybody, even those with good credit. Doctors would refuse treatment without payment up front (and patients with any sense would refuse to pay until the treatment was completed). Without some sort of a system (let’s call it “a government”) to make sure people honour their obligations, the whole economy would unravel.

Now libertarians would say, oh but we’ll just have this code of honour whereby if anyone does something bad we’ll give them a terrible review on Facebook or something. Ya, and is that actually going to help? Donald Trump went bankrupt four times, you’d think after the 2nd time people would have learnt the lesson not to lend him money. You’d think nobody, least of all libertarians would have voted for him, but here we are. There are a host of well known scams around, many of them simply modern takes on old con tricks, yet thousands still fall for them every day.

They have this TV programme on UK TV called “Rogue Traders” where they set up a sting operation and catch various con-artists, dodgy used car salesmen, telemarketing fraudsters, cowboy builders and rogue tradesmen and then essentially name and shame them. Thing is, very few end up out of business. Some of them keep appearing in multiple episodes, sometimes under a new name or sometimes openly trading under the same name (one even put “as seen on rogue traders” on the side of his van!). Generally what’s stopped these people becoming season regulars is that the authorities eventually caught up with them and put them out of business.

But in a libertarian society there’s no authority and no social safety net. So how do you enforce any sort of law or civil suit? My guess is that what will happen is when the repo men arrive to cart away someone’s stuff, if they don’t find enough stuff to pay the debt, they’ll take away the debtor and his family and force them to work off the debt. This is pretty much how slavery worked in a number of society’s throughout history and how the practice of bonded labour works to this day.

Now libertarians will no doubt say, no we’ll outlaw slavery. But its going to be impossible to enforce that when the rich and the powerful have their own private goon squad. And unfortunately even in this day and age there’s several parts of the world where bonded labour is still practised, despite laws outlawing the practice. And it tends to occur in places where the government’s authority is weak or corrupt. For example in Somalia and Libya, countries with little in the way of government and lots of guns (as close to a libertarian society as you’ll find!) there are active slave markets.

And there’s the second problem for libertarians, democracy would collapse pretty quickly in a libertarian society. Taking objectivism to its logical conclusion, the easiest way to win an election is to bribe election officials and intimidate voters. e.g. the wealthy landowner threatens mass evictions, the billionaire says his goons will go on the rampage if they don’t win the election. This is how African dictators can win elections with margins of +90%. And even if the wealthy lose the election, they can simply ignore anything the government does that they don’t like, as they are essentially untouchable in a libertarian society.

In a society whereby the wealthy can grow their fortunes unchecked and utilise the power it gives them without any checks or balances, then it becomes essentially impossible to have a democratic and free society. Take for example Rockfeller or the other billionaire’s of the “robber baron” era. With no government to break up his monopoly (and an Objectivist philosophy that basically said it would be morally wrong for him to give anything away to charity) his fortune would have grown even larger, his descendants would now not only control 90% of the US oil supply, but probably 90% of the US energy supply as well as many public utilities (e.g. internet access, water, hospitals, police, fire services, etc.). At this point, they become the defacto ruling royal family of the US, emperors in all but name, with the role of US president essentially becoming “ass kisser in chief” (you can just see the debate with Hilary and Trump demonstrating their butt kissing techniques).

Now libertarians will say, oh that would never happen, we’d just boycott the business of those we don’t like (in which case you need to go look up the meaning of the word “monopoly” cos that’s sort of the problem, you can’t boycott a monopoly!). Or they’ll argue that sooner or later another billionaire will build up an even vaster fortune and take over. Oh great, so because one rich asshole is better at screwing us over than some other rich asshole, he gets to be emperor instead. Ya, that sound way better than our current system of government!

The sad fact is that libertarianism only works if you ignore the last thousand years of history. A libertarian society would quickly become a feudal society, where the rich will grow vast fortunes unchecked and abuse their power without limit. Where the poor, if they are unable to pay the vastly overinflated prices the rich with their monopolies charge, will be at risk of being sold into slavery. Where speaking out will be impossible, as the press and internet are controlled by the rich. And those who do a Robin hood and fight back will be derided as socialists and terrorists.

In truth, if there’s anything that libertarianism is at the oppose end of the political spectrum to it is democracy and free markets.