Texas Secession movement warming up
On April 15, which in the United States is the day that yearly taxes must be filed, people of political persuasions closer to paleoconservatism held “Tea Parties” to protest rising tax rates levied against the upper half of the middle class. In Texas, some interesting results came out:
Texans are fed up with federal tax policies, and might get so fed up that they decide they want to secede from the union, Gov. Rick Perry told reporters today after he attended an anti-tax tea party rally in Austin.
“Texas is a unique place,” he said. “When we came into the union in 1845, one of the issues was that we would be able to leave if we decided to do that.
“My hope is that America and Washington in particular pays attention,” he said. “We’ve got a great union. There’s absolutely no reason to dissolve it. But if Washington continues to thumb their nose at the American people, you know, who knows what might come out of that. But Texas is a very unique place, and we’re a pretty independent lot to boot.â€
At a tea party rally in Austin City Hall, chants of “Secede” could be heard during speeches.
This shows exactly how much libertarian economic ideas have infiltrated the moderate right (if nationalists are the far-right, and neoconservatives are the near right, then paleconservatives are most likely the moderate right, although illiterates will call them the far right).
Plato predicts this, of course:
And there is another class in democratic States, of respectable, thriving individuals, who can be squeezed when the drones have need of their possessions; there is moreover a third class, who are the labourers and the artisans, and they make up the mass of the people.
When the people meet, they are omnipotent, but they cannot be brought together unless they are attracted by a little honey; and the rich are made to supply the honey, of which the demagogues keep the greater part themselves, giving a taste only to the mob.
Their victims attempt to resist; they are driven mad by the stings of the drones, and so become downright oligarchs in self-defence.
Then follow informers and convictions for treason.
Why does the right love libertarianism? Because it seems like it will defend them against this mob. The right is composed mostly of middle-class, suburban, Caucasian and East Asian voters. They want to be able to be responsible, earn money, and take most of it home.
The problem is that libertarianism, by enforcing de facto anarchy, will actually deplete their power by giving the masses the mandate toward “freedom” — which they will promptly use to organize themselves to crush the bourgeoisie/middle class. The masses want their freedom too, which takes the form of leaders who will continue to penalize the upper half of the middle class, as Barack Obama is, in order to appease its voters.
It happened in France, Russia, Greece and Rome, but in America it may take on a more civil form. After all, the masses have the numbers; they can simple vote themselves into power. As the moderate right complains about Barack Obama, I wonder how many of them have read history, and know what else is to come. Until they find some way of countering the power of this mass, they’re doomed.
Any philosophy like anarchy or libertarianism which tries to liberate us, as if by an invisible hand, from government, is oblivious to the consequences of lawlessness. With no goal except “freedom,” the tendency to form a crowd that beats up on the people with money or power is unchecked.
What I think will be interesting to observe here — and let me be honest: I’m an observer with my cash in offshore accounts — is how the Left responds as they watch this crowd take liberal ideals and turn them into lynch mob justice. As in France, the liberals who believe a revolution is deliverance are shocked to see the carnage, infighting, injustice and corruption that follows.
While the mob still thinks it cares about liberal ideals, leftist leaders can re-direct that mob toward more productive activities than retribution. I don’t think Dennis Kucinich and his ilk, who are starry-eyed dogmatists, can do that, but someone like Ralph Nader could.