Combining a couple posts from the lockdown days as a follow-up to the post immediately below, (House Speaker-in-Waiting) "Jeffries Says Democrats to Meet Tuesday on AI Action: ABC News":
I've never read anything that Ayn Rand wrote.
At the age when many young people are either assigned or discover The Fountainhead or Atlas Shrugged
I was trying to absorb a fire hose of other information and didn't have
time. Then later, upon learning that former Fed head Alan Greenspan was
an acolyte of Rand's, and applying that earlier fire hose of
information, I didn't have an interest.
But I have studied power and was reminded of a Rand quote
when Governor Newsom was photographed at a political strategist's
birthday dinner, surrounded by donors and lobbyists with nary a mask or
social distance to be seen:
"To Newsom's right was Dustin Corcoran, CEO of the California Medical
Association (CMA).
To the governor's left was CMA lobbyist Janus Norman."
—
Reason Mag
The facile explanation is that this is just hypocrisy. But the Rand quote from Atlas Shrugged could just as well apply. The characters are Floyd Ferris, PhD and Hank Rearden (businessguy/industrialist):
“Did you really think that we want those
laws to be observed? said Dr. Ferris. We want them to be
broken. You better get it straight that it’s not a bunch of boy scouts
you’re up against then you’ll know that this is not the age for
beautiful gestures. We’re after power and we mean it.
You fellows were
pikers, but we know the real trick, and you’d better get wise to it.
There is no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has
is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren’t enough
criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime
that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws. Who
wants a nation of law abiding citizens? What’s there in that for anyone?
But just pass the kind of laws that can neither be observed nor
enforced nor objectively interpreted and you create a nation of
lawbreakers and then you cash in on the guilt. Now that’s the system,
Mr. Rearden, That’s the game, and once you understand it,
you’ll be much easier to deal with.”
CliffNotes describes: "Dr. Floyd Ferris The day-to-day head of the State Science
Institute, Dr. Floyd Ferris is a murderous bureaucrat with an
unquenchable lust for political power...."
Once everyone is a
criminal and law enforcement is arbitrary then it is just a hop, skip
and a jump to Kafkatrapping, the term being based on Kafka's story The Trial, where any attempt by the accused to defend himself was taken as agreement with the premise and proof of guilt.
On the other hand: "I Was Shitting You People - A Message From Ayn Rand" so who actually knows?
Which brings us to anarcho-tyranny:
“A
concept where the state is more interested in controlling citizens so
that they don’t oppose managerial class, rather than tending to real
criminals. Laws are argued to be enforced selectively depending on what
is beneficial to the ruling elite.”
One of the more astute bits of political analysis you are likely to read today.
From Chronicles Magazine, July 1994:
Anarcho-Tyranny, U.S.A. By Samuel Francis
On the morning of September 22, 1993, a
law-abiding citizen named B.W. Sanders was driving his car down the
street in Raleigh, North Carolina, when all of a sudden he found himself
flagged down by a policeman and presented with a ticket for $25, Mr.
Sanders, it turned out. had not been wearing his seat belt, and under a
new state law, that crime carries the penalty he received. But in this
case it was not just a traffic cop who flagged down Mr. Sanders. It was a
force of some six dozen police officers as well as the governor of
North Carolina himself, James B. Hunt. The governor was searching for a
photo-op with which to advertise both the new seat belt law and his own
personal devotion to law and order. Not only the 70 or more police
officers but also an innumerable supply of newspaper reporters and TV
newsmen were on the scene to record the governor's triumph over the
forces of lawlessness, and the next day Mr. Sanders' wicked ways were
recorded in the public press for his family, his employers, his
neighbors, and indeed posterity to gander at. To make doubly certain
that criminals like Mr. Sanders got the message loud and clear, Governor
Hunt held a news conference near the state capital and harangued a
crowd of some 150 police officers and state troopers, who were able to
take time off from the apprehension of public enemies like Mr. Sanders
to attend the governor's words. "I took an oath to protect the people of
North Carolina," intoned the Tar Heel State's answer to Dirty Harry,
"and this is one way we must do it. . . . Folks, we're serious. We mean
it. We're going to do this." And indeed, serious he is. As part of the
war on the unbuckled seat belt crisis, the Raleigh News and Observer
reported, "Law officers in all 100 counties [of the state] will
intensify their efforts to find and cite motorists not using their seat
belts. Agencies will compete against each other, winning cash for
turning in the best performance."
Governor Hunt's grandstanding might be harmless enough were it not for
certain other facts about certain other crimes in North Carolina that
also sometimes make the news. Only a week before the apprehension and
public humiliation of Mr. Sanders, the same newspaper reported on the
state's prison crisis. It seems that North Carolina has another new law
in addition to the one on seat belts. This other law, passed by the
General Assembly, imposes a cap on how many inmates can be incarcerated
in the state prison, and the crisis is that, under this cap, most of the
inmates now eligible for parole were imprisoned for violent and
assaultive crimes. Most of the less dangerous criminals have already
been turned loose, and now the prison system must release public enemies
even more dangerous than drivers who do not buckle their seat belts.
Since last June, no less than 14 parolees (including one of the men now
charged with the murder of Michael Jordan's father) have been arrested
and charged with murder, and another parolee, a veteran of the state's
death row, murdered his girlfriend and then committed suicide, thereby
unfairly depriving Governor Hunt of vet another photo-op. Last August
alone, North Carolina paroled 3,700 prison inmates. One might think that
if the governor of the state and the 150 police officers and state
troopers who took time out of their public jobs to listen to him slap
himself on the back for busting poor Mr. Sanders were really interested
in upholding their oaths of office, they might turn their attention to
the results of releasing hardened and violent criminals who have already
been caught, sentenced, and imprisoned.
But the saga of the Napoleon of Crime in the homely person of B.W.
Sanders is not an isolated incident. It is a representative tale that
illustrates what I take to be an entirely new form of government, one
that as far as I can tell is unique in human history and unknown to
political theory, ancient or modern. Probably no other society has
failed as dismally as the United States in the late 20th century to meet
the basic test of any civilization: to enforce simple order and protect
the lives and property of its members. History knows of many societies
that have succumbed to anarchy when the central government proved unable
to control warlords, rebels, and marauding invaders. But anarchy is not
quite the problem here.
In the United States today, the government performs many of its
functions more or less effectively. The mail is delivered (sometimes);
the population, or at least part of it, is counted (sort of); and taxes
are collected (you bet). You can accuse the federal leviathan of many
things—corruption, incompetence, waste, bureaucratic strangulation—but
mere anarchy, the lack of effective government, is not one of them. Yet
at the same time, the state does not perform effectively or justly its
basic duty of enforcing order and punishing criminals, and in this
respect its failures do bring the country or important parts of it close
to a state of anarchy. But that semblance of anarchy is coupled with
many of the characteristics of tyranny, under which innocent and
law-abiding citizens are punished by the state or suffer gross
violations of their rights and liberty at the hands of the state. The
result is what seems to be the first society in history in which
elements of both anarchy and tyranny pertain at the same time and seem
to be closely connected with each other and to constitute more or less
opposite sides of the same coin.
This condition, which in some of my columns I have called
"anarcho-tyranny," is essentially a kind of Hegelian synthesis of what
appear to be dialectical opposites, the combination of oppressive
government power against the innocent and the law-abiding and,
simultaneously, a grotesque paralysis of the ability or the will to use
that power to carry out basic public duties such as protection of public
safety. And it is characteristic of anarcho-tyranny that it not only
fails to punish criminals and enforce legitimate order but also
criminalizes the innocent, that at the same time the governor of North
Carolina grotesquely fails to uphold his famous oath to protect the
citizens of his state by keeping convicted felons in prison, he has no
problem finding the time to organize a massive waste of his time and the
taxpayers' money to hound and humiliate a perfectly innocent citizen
for the infraction of a trivial traffic law.
In fact, we criminalize the innocent all the time in the United States
today—through asset seizure laws that confiscate your property even
before you're convicted of possessing illegal drugs; through mandatory
brainwashing programs designed to reconstruct your mind with
"sensitivity training," "human relations," and rehabilitation if you
display politically incorrect ideas on certain occasions; through
prosecuting people like Bernhard Goetz who use guns to defend
themselves; and through gun control laws in general. Under
anarcho-tyranny, gun control laws do not usually target criminals who
use guns to commit their crimes. The usual suspects are noncriminals who
own, carry, or use guns against criminals—like the Korean store owners
in Los Angeles or like Mr. Goetz, who spent several months in jail after
picking off the three hoodlums who were making ready to liberate him
from life and limb.
Indeed, the government response to crime is by far the best
illustration of anarcho-tyranny. On the one hand, police forces are
better equipped, better trained, and more expensive than ever before in
history. Police routinely use computers, have access to nationwide
information banks, and carry weapons and communication gadgets that most
tyrants of the past would drool over. Yet the police seem utterly
baffled by the murder rate. None of their high-tech whiz-bang helps much
to catch serious criminals after they have struck, to stop them before
they strike, or to keep them off the streets after they are caught. But
while the police cannot do much about murderers, rapists, and robbers,
they are geniuses at nabbing less serious lawbreakers. They can crack
down on tax-dodgers and speeders, jaywalkers and pornography patrons,
seat belt nonbucklers and epithet-emitters, gun owners and
graffiti-scratchers.
Obviously, such desperate characters are
not the reason decent people are scared to walk the streets at night,
and no matter how many of them you put in the pokey, civilization and
the order it is based on will not survive unless you control the
streets. Under anarcho-tyranny, the goal is to avoid performing such
basic functions as stopping real crime and to think up purely fictitious
functions that will raise revenue, enhance the power of the police or
bureaucrats, and foster the illusion that the state is doing its job.
The victims of these new functions and laws are precisely otherwise
law-abiding and innocent citizens. It's easier and more profitable to
enforce the law against the marginal lawbreaker than against those
habitually committed to spreading mayhem.....
....MUCH MORE
...This condition, which in some of my columns I have called
"anarcho-tyranny," is essentially a kind of Hegelian synthesis of what
appear to be dialectical opposites, the combination of oppressive
government power against the innocent and the law-abiding and,
simultaneously, a grotesque paralysis of the ability or the will to use
that power to carry out basic public duties such as protection of public
safety....
