1 A patronage system is a Chicago tradition.  This is Tammany Hall writ large.

2 Except Tammany Hall was New York.  Oops.

3 Which is why they should repeal the part of his shithole deathcare that gives him the right to grant waivers.

4 We've been calling it 'crony capitalism' for a while, but, since it's not really capitalism to have the government picking the winners and losers, maybe 'feudalism' is really more apt.

5 Everybody's gone serfin', serfin' USA.

6 "I think, when you spread the wealth around, it's good for everybody."

    - Barack Hussein Obama

7 I always get a kick out of people at Renaissance Fairs and the like. If it was the 1200's 99% of them would be slaves to a landowner and covered in shit.

Yeah, but some of em look pretty good with their boobs all pushed together and up like that........

8 Resistance is Feudal

9 I've been thinking the same thing--these waivers are unconstitutional. Laws are supposed to be universally applicable. You can't pass a law that says everyone can drive 65 mph on the freeway but people born on a Tuesday can drive 75. That's favoritism and wouldn't pass constitutional muster. These waivers essentially create two Americas, where one group has to follow onerous laws passed for the common good and another group gets exempt. That exempted group is suspiciously overly populated with Obama donors and supporters.

The feudal model works. Another model is the communist states of eastern Europe which were ruled by a tiny elite which regularly exempted themselves from the burdensome regulations they placed on others.

Finally, can you imagine the hellfire and brimstone we'd be getting from the media if George W. Bush had taken donations from companies like Halliburton, then routinely provided them exemptions from laws everyone else had to obey? How is GE any different?

10 This is actually why I'd prefer the GOP in the House and the Senate focus on repealing the authority for HHS to waive the health care rules.

The full repeal isn't going to pass with Obama in the White House. That's just fact. We made our point now move on. If we push repeal for 2 years Dems will keep talking about stuff people like. (no pre-existing conditions for example).

Let's make them defend gifts for their friends at the expense of everyone else for the next 2 years.

11 This is The High Speed Rail to Serfdom.

12 Come and see the violence inherent in the system. Help! Help! I'm being repressed!

13

Yeah, but some of em look pretty good with their boobs all pushed together and up like that........

A shame that motorboats wouldn't be invented for another 400 years.

14 It's interesting, or funny, how GWB was absolutely tarred and feathered over his 'crony capitalism' and now that we've got someone in the White House that actually prides himself on it and is not ashamed of it by any means, we have nothing but *crickets*.........

15 Hayek also discusses this issue in The Road To Serfdom. His emphasis is similar to your last couple of paragraphs, where he points out that for a healthy and non-discriminatory (and therefore rule-of-law based) private market, government regulation should be aimed at promoting competition, rather than rewarding those specific interests and/or businesses which have access to the governmental insiders, be they lawmakers or regulatory bureaucrats.

16

It's interesting how during the Bush years the liberals were screaming pretty loudly abou this sort of thing, the fat cat corporations in collusion with the government and getting special treatment, and yet now curiously when this kind of behavior is a magnitude worse than it ever was under Bush, they take it as the way things work.

Why is it OK to essentially be a serf under a Democratic President? Do they all think that somehow, because of their very liberalness, they have a shot at becoming one of the "royals"?

17 How is GE any different?

Well, GE owns a media company that has been Obama's biggest water-carrier. Not that that makes it better, but it does make it worse: GE's bought favored-company status by providing propaganda value shrouding itself in the First Amendment.

18

A shame that motorboats wouldn't be invented for another 400 years.

Posted by: Cicero at February 03, 2011 03:14 PM (QKKT0)

There HAD to be ye olde name for it, but my imagination is frozen........

19 We don't have feudalism and we don't have corporatism. Those are cop-out words because people who write for the big-city magazines are afraid to print what we really have. 

Currently that is a mixture:

About 50% socialism
About 30% fascism
About 10% pure communism
About 5% pure corruption in government
About 5% capitalism and that is rapidly disappearing

20 Why not introduce a law making a waiver automatic for anyone who asks for it? Make the Dems explain why the waivers are good for their friends and donors but bad for everyone else.

After that, move on to granting waivers for anyone who wants out of Social Security.

21 Violence...System...Inherit...

22 So now that we have a black President you teabaggers want to view yourselves as second class citizens being held down by the man? Sheesh give me a break.

23 We have a tendency to think that we have evolved way beyond folks in the Middle Ages, and that what they did is simply incomprehensible.  In fact, we haven't changed at all and are just like them. 

Someone really smart should write a document, a blueprint for governing, that recognizes that while styles and technology may change, people really don't.  This document would incorporate some basic rules that restrict the government from doing the things which it always, inevitably wants to do to the ruled.  We could call it a compact, or a charter, or wait, wait, a CONSTITUTION. 

24 8 I always get a kick out of people at Renaissance Fairs and the like. If it was the 1200's 99% of them would be slaves to a landowner and covered in shit.

Yeah, but some of em look pretty good with their boobs all pushed together and up like that........

That's because one of the few ways they could get ahead in the world would be to attract some feudal baron or earl and bear his bastard child.

25 Which is why they should repeal the part of his shithole deathcare that gives him the right to grant waivers.

Agreed.  The best way to get rid of bad laws is to enforce them vigorously.

26 About 50% socialism
About 30% fascism
About 10% pure communism
About 5% pure corruption in government
About 5% capitalism and that is rapidly disappearing

May I rearrange?

About 50% socialism
About 30% pure corruption in government
About 10% fascism
About 5% pure communism
About 5% capitalism and that is rapidly disappearing

27 This kind of esoteric thinking is non-conducive to my limited brain power.

28 >>> So now that we have a black President you teabaggers want to view yourselves as second class citizens being held down by the man? Sheesh give me a break. Kelly, I'm going to have sex with your pets.

29 Didn't Kelly out himself as Mr. Pink yesterday, and not a real troll?

30 Why is it OK to essentially be a serf under a Democratic President? Do they all think that somehow, because of their very liberalness, they have a shot at becoming one of the "royals"?

The people who agitate for communism always envision themselves as ending up as a member of the politburo.

31 The real systemic risk that you create is having five major banks which amongst them have $10 trillion worth of assets floating around in their coffers.

All of which are special members of the Federal Reserve Bank.  And were saved in bailouts with your money.  And have cronies in the Treasury Dept, Commerce Dept and Congress.

And by saved, I mean made whole, profited and continue to profit from a collapse of their making.  Its almost as if it were planned.

32 In the middle ages,  if you lived in a village you were unlikely to be bothered by the king and his representatives except times of war when they would come around and conscript all the males, and when the tax collector came. governement was a lot smaller and less intrusive evven if it could be a lot less just. So even if you were a serf you were probably a lot freer than we are today when the government is so far up our asses that they make our underwear manufacturers use indestructable lables just so you have an annoying itch in the small of your back all day long to remind you that you are a slave and DC is your master.

Yes, i am in a lousy mood.

33

This all stems from a different problem however.

When the Government is not held to the same laws as the people, then this is almost inevitable.

A Policeman can lie to a citizen, but a citizen cannot lie to a Policeman.

If the Government makes a mistake on your taxes, there is no penalty, but if YOU make one you can end up in Jail.

Congress constantly exempts itself from laws.

You cannot sue the Government for NOT doing its job... and cannot sue individual members of said Government, but THEY can sue you.

This started an Oligarchy made up of Government people, above the very laws they pass (I think of them as Mandarins).

Now, they have figured out that they can write Laws so that these very same Oligarchs, can provide those benefits to Companies, who then fill their Campaign coffers, or give Jobs to them or their minions (or family)... all legally.

The Oligarchy, led to a Bankocracy... and now we're pretty much boned.

34 And yes i had on a stupid sock

35 Kelly, go tend to your uninsured deadbeat friends that you gave STDs to.

36 The people who agitate for communism always envision themselves as ending up as a member of the politburo.

And are always surprised when they are put up against the wall.

37 I thought the original Kelly had more //'s in her hash.....

38

Why is it OK to essentially be a serf under a Democratic President? Do they all think that somehow, because of their very liberalness, they have a shot at becoming one of the "royals"?

Posted by: ParanoidThursdayInSeattle at February 03, 2011 03:15 PM (RZ8pf)

Yes, yes they do. Courtesans is actually the word--and it fits perfectly. They fancy that because they backed the right "team" they'll get all the spoils, invited to the parties. etc. It never dawns on them that the communists and socialists they so dearly love who have come to power are nothing more than another, more brutal and oppressive tyrants.

39 30 yeah its me I couldn't help it. My bad erg I probably stole your thunder minus the word knucklehead.

40 I'm going to have sex with your pets.

Vid in sidebar, please.

41 Welcome aboard mate!

I am depressed that this was a revelation to you.

42

Hey, hey, hey! Enough with the math already.

We're already fucked as it is.

43 23 So now that we have a black President you teabaggers want to view yourselves as second class citizens being held down by the man? Sheesh give me a break.

Posted by: Kelly at February 03, 2011 03:17 PM (e+nfw)

How to deal with the threat of oppressive, corrupt governments has been the great issue of the last three centuries. The Founders fought and died over it, and eventually gained the victory. Our soldiers shed their blood on the fields of Europe and the atolls of the Pacific to fight tyranny. We fought and won the Cold War which was waged over this exact issue.

Keeping the government fair and within its proper bounds is a necessary part of maintaining our hard-won freedom, and yes, we are still debating it to this day, even in the age of Obama. It has nothing to do with race and everything to do with personal liberty and constitutionalism.

44 The better model is the reenserfment of the Polish peasants. As the Later Rennaissance began to yield burgeoning export opportunities and the development of an artisian and merchant class the Polish Lords realized that they could make the most money, personally, if they focused solely on grain export to the growing populations around them.  In order to do that they had to maximize the number of people working their lands.  To do this they made restrictions which effectively destroyed the "middle class". 

They forbade any export of locally manufactured items.  They made restrictions on production that ended private ownership of iron factories. In the late 16th century they made it impossible to get the raw material needed to operate the foundries.  When the owners of the foundries failed to pay taxes, because they couldn't produce anything, the Polish rulers seized them and them operated them using corvee labor.

By the 17th century there was only a narrow range of middle class craftsmen.  They were the ones that catered to the needs of the nobles.  Goldsmiths, furniture makers and skilled builders.

45 19

A shame that motorboats wouldn't be invented for another 400 years.

Posted by: Cicero at February 03, 2011 03:14 PM (QKKT0)

There HAD to be ye olde name for it, but my imagination is frozen........

Posted by: Sponge © at February 03, 2011 03:15 PM (UK9cE)

Trimerenes... and slaves...

Slow speed.... Med speed... Battle speed... Ramming speed... Capt. wants to waterski speed (OH SHIT! say the slaves at the oars...)

46 We can argue about labels all day long, but the solution is always the same--

SMALLER GOVERNMENT

47 But but but...Boooosssshhhhhhh did something, right? Whatever Boossshhhh did makes Obama's creation of the democrat socialist party of America's Allied Workers to exist. Basically, we're fucked.

48 Ace, just a quick question, you have read Road to Serfdom, right?

If not let me know, I'll send you a copy.

49 Ach, punked by Mr Pink.  I should've known that his version of Kelly sounded too literate.

50 I bow to me!

51 And the best part of the liberal psychosis is that the project corporatism on to conservatives.

52 A system of waivers from the basic law is no different than a system of legal burdens being legislated against specific named persons.

A 70,000 page tax code for example, only benefits the politically connected.

You want to stop alot of the feudalism, pass a flat tax.

53 Cap-n-trade, EPA and so forth are the tools of the Polish Nobility

54 Ordered Anarchy!

55 Keeping with the feudal theme, I guess Obama would-be considered the Black Plague.

56 I see that most commenters here haven't bothered to see what the (real) Left has been saying about this guy. I don't mean those boneslurpers on TV. I mean people like Noami Klein and Barbara Ehrenreich. (Not sure if Taibbi counts as Left, but he used to.) They're saying what Ace is saying.

57 Yes but one of the parts of the New feudalism includes the judges.  How many laws are passed which liberals know are flat out unconstitutional but they back anyway because they know it won't ever be abused, only used for good, and won't ever be applied to them anyway?
How many law are pushed through Congress to "get ahead of the courts" based on opinions by liberal judges designed specifically to do that even though nobody thinks will actually stand up on appeal?

58 With the waivers, the non-enforcement of laws to liberal criminals like Geitner, the over-prosecution of political foes like Delay, and Waiver+Bailout nation, how can we not see that we've created a party style government similar to USSR? Thanks, McCain. and smooches to all the GOP assholes who rolled over since Reagan left office. So, what will the new glorious party be called? The American Democratic Allied Workers Party?

59 50 I was the origanl too when I couldn't load the page on my Droid all day cause of the annoying vids. So basically I could poop with one kelly comment and laugh at the responses. My fav was someone with the name Dick Cheney's Warcock I think telling me to describe how my friends were suffering so he could finish spanking.

60 This actually has a strong historical parallel. Leading up to the French Revolution, France was deeply in debt. The solution was to raise taxes on the peasants. The Catholic Church was exempted from taxation as were the aristocracy. Economic advisers to the king suggested revising the tax code and require the aristocracy to pay taxes. The king could never get the aristocracy to concede even a little on the taxation question as it was their "baronial" privilege and not to be abrogated. Of course, they held this position at their own peril. When the monarchy was overthrown, the property of the church was confiscated and the sale of church property was used to reduce the deficit by the revolutionary republic. Many in the aristocracy were executed and many more had their property seized. When the monarchy was briefly restored after Napoleon, the aristocracy that remained were reinstated but they did have to start paying taxes.

Exemption from the law for some will only breed resentment among those who have to live under said laws. While the elite and favored constituencies are exempted from Obamacare and EPA regulation, the rest of us will be participating in the regularly scheduled revolution also known as "elections".

61

Posted by: joeindc44 at February 03, 2011 03:28 PM (QxSug)

Good point... Timmy Geithner is the poster child for the Bankocracy.

Lets put a Banker, in charge of watching Banks... yeah, the same Tax Cheat who is now in charge of collecting Taxes!

62 57 I see that most commenters here haven't bothered to see what the (real) Left has been saying about this guy. I don't mean those boneslurpers on TV. I mean people like Noami Klein and Barbara Ehrenreich. (Not sure if Taibbi counts as Left, but he used to.) They're saying what Ace is saying.

Posted by: Zimriel at February 03, 2011 03:26 PM (3Z8hd)

The Bakuninist list I get has been saying this from the beginning, now you see it on Trotskyite lists as well. They're calling him "Stalinist" and "usurping the People's Vanguard".  Stalin did the same thing as Hitler with the difference that he gave his supporters factories instead of his supporters already owning them.

63 60 Well played

64 That NYT's columnist must love how Mandarin Obama has become.

65

The term "feudal" is, I am thinking, fairly commonly used in libertarian circles. I don't read libertarians very often, though, so to me the term is novel.

The Road to Serfdom would be closely related, I think.

66 the Democratic Union of Diversity and Sustainability (the DUDS party)

67 I am (belatedly) reading Atlas Shrugged, and it almost perfectly describes this system of feudalism/favoritism/command-and-control economy.  I'm probably one of the last morons around here to have read it, but it really is a fascinating read.

68

One of the things those who emigrated from communist countries always marveled at were grocery stores...all that wonderful food on display and available for purchase.  They would invariably think they were in a "special store for party members" and were about to be arrested.

The Obama Democrats have set up a system of "special stores" and special favors that the rest of us cannot access but must pay for in the form of higher taxes.

It is feudalism.  It's the road to serfdom.

69

You want to stop alot of the feudalism, pass a flat tax.

While we're at it, we can purge progressives from our politics. Whether they pose as Republicans or Dimocrats, the result is the same: bigger, more intrusive government that tramples on our rights, ignores the Constitutional limits of power and generally thinks it owns you.

Just like a feudal lord.

IMHO, we're dealing with a formal institution that has succumbed to the worst human failing possible, the urge to control another human for no good reason. We're watching the corruption of power play out in front of our eyes, and we're all suffering from the ill effects. It's codified insanity. Our leaders have ignored the single unwritten rule of our form of government: we're free to do anything unless there is a law specifically against it. Our last Congress was hailed as the most productive in our history for the depth, breadth, and number of new laws enacted. This sad fact should be mourned, not celebrated.

With each new law comes a reduction of our freedom, but go try to find anyone in Washington today who believes that principle.

70

"In that context, I'm wondering at what point a system of waivers becomes actually unconstitutional -- because anyone not granted a waiver is being burdened by a restrictive and possibly punitive law that others aren't. Isn't he?"

Yes. So, so obvious, but no one (to my knowledge) has really put this dirty little secret into these words yet.

And what are the objective criteria for a waiver? Is it something anyone who has a problem with the law could get? Or is it just for mega corporations who don't like the law? Is it a requirement to be a Democrat? An Obama supporter? What if you are a Democrat but you support Hilary?

This is the thing that undercuts their whole theory of governance. I know unfettered capitalism can be ugly at times. But at least the "decisions" of the market are objective selections made by "the people". Success is based on merit rather than by political connections. I'll buy that you need a certain amount of regulation to keep someone from deciding that it's OK to slash costs on food preparation because it's cheaper to settle wrongful death lawsuits than keep your food clean, or keep gas tanks on cars from exploding, or selling ponzi scheme retirement plans, whatever.

But the other way, when the baronial elite are the "deciders" of who has to obey what laws and which regulations - you are headed for the abyss.

 

71 THe waivers, the waivers . . . it's funny because today that's what I was thinking about too. We have to HAMMER this point. The Rs should be right now and don't stop. Embarrass those getting the OCare and EPA waivers. NOT RIGHT. No American would agree to this!

72 Do they all think that somehow, because of their very liberalness, they have a shot at becoming one of the "royals"?

Every two-bit two-years-of-state-kollij lefty I know thinks they're going to be the ones sitting on the porch sipping a julep. Gonna be a rude awakening when they find themselves in the fields next to us.

73 Just think, they got all this power because Tina Fey impersonated Sarah Palin on SNL. I tell you, media presentation matters. We can't ever apologize for or accept the left's hate-filled, derisive premises. Reagan had some useful advice, don't care who takes credit for doing good, and never speak ill of another republican.

74 This is all an elaborate setup for Harry Reid to get jus primae noctis rights over Leighton Meester.

75 **This is all an elaborate setup for Harry Reid to get jus primae noctis rights over Leighton Meester.** ok, for that, I would switch to be the regime's bagman.

76

Posted by: new jersey at February 03, 2011 03:21 PM (DHNp4)

This is true - what we are going toward is in some respects worse than feudalism.  Not only was there bottom-up obligation, but also top-down.  In theory, at least, those at the top were supposed to be using their power to look out for those below.  We're setting up a system where those at the top see those of us below them as nothing more than disposable resource generators.  We're less than slaves to them - we don't have to be maintained in good shape to maximize an investment - we can just be replaced as we die off.  The Libtards would burn us like cord wood if it suited their selfish desires and they had the power to make it happen. 

77

Feudalism, cronyism, good-ole-boy network, they're all the same thing.  It was either in the thread or the main post that said our problems really started when the government started exempting itself from the law.  Just the latest addition to this is Dear Leader and his regime rejecting the Ocare ruling in FL by a federal judge.  And to really make things hard to swallow; we've allowed them to do it.

 

78 I don't see the term used all that often by libertarians anymore, because not many people know what feudalism is anymore, so decrying its reinstatement or continuation doesn't work anymore.

Recognizing the sameness of feudalism, fascism, socialism, the thing called liberalism that's really socialism, the thing called conservatism that's really Toryism, Toryism, what-Marx-called-capitalism, what-Marxists-actually-do, etc., is the fundamental thing that libertarianism gets, and the terms are mostly juggled based on rhetorical convenience.

Good luck on your adventure, if you're actually starting one. Self-described libertarians mostly aren't, so you might get put off the good stuff before you find it, and the good stuff is so right, you might get purified by its touch. Shields up.

79 Sheppy's on one of his little bitch rolls.

80

Feudalism involved a fief, a parcel of land granted in exchange for military service, as distinct from allodial land which was held outright. So no, it is not "feudalism." Feudalism didn't exist for a large part of the middle ages.

81 Speaking of aristocrats exempt from the rules they make for the rest of us...<a href=http://onmilwaukee.com/sports/articles/barrettsuperbowl.html>the White House Super Bowl party is having sausage.</a>

82 Can we push for a constitutional amendment that states something along the lines of "No officer of the United States government shall have the power to grant special dispensation or exemption from law or regulation"?  Or does that create too many problems in implementation?

83 Well said Ace.

84 Sheppy's on one of his little bitch rolls.

This calls for a "situation normal" alert.

85

In that context, I'm wondering at what point a system of waivers becomes actually unconstitutional -- because anyone not granted a waiver is being burdened by a restrictive and possibly punitive law that others aren't. Isn't he?

You're more right than you know. A system of waivers nullifies a system based on law. If there are rules, and there are institutionalized exceptions to these rules, then you really don't have rules at all.

Example: You want to paint your house orange, but you can't because a local ordinance says you can't. I live in the same town and I want to paint my house orange, but I can because I got a waiver.

What, then, is the local law for our town?

Trick question! There really is no law regarding orange houses, despite what's in the city's code. It's all up to the guy or committee handing out the waivers.

So, Ace, you ask "at what point?" I say immediately.

86
Speaking of aristocrats exempt from the rules they make for the rest of us...<a href=http://onmilwaukee.com/sports/articles/barrettsuperbowl.html>the White House Super Bowl party is having sausage.</a>



Do you think that JugEars will pressure JLo's hubby to pay his damned taxes?

87 By the by, great post, Ace. For what it's worth, I haven't come across the term feudal either, but Milton Friedman warned us of this very thing.

88 I've been thinking the same thing lately but more in regard to bureaucracies than waivers and so forth. Each bureaucracy is like it's own feudal state with the bureaucrats as nobility. They "tend to the needs of the surfs" and jockey and maneuver to expand their power and authority. There is also a sort of rule by divine right in that if you criticize a bureaucracy then you hate the people that the bureaucracy is meant to take care of - only the bureaucracy can take care of these down-trodden victims. Think the Department of Education is unnecessary and indeed harmful? Well you hate the children, poor people and minorities and would rather see children working in factories and mines that getting a 'good education'.

89

Yes, yes they do. Courtesans is actually the word--and it fits perfectly. They fancy that because they backed the right "team" they'll get all the spoils, invited to the parties. etc. It never dawns on them that the communists and socialists they so dearly love who have come to power are nothing more than another, more brutal and oppressive tyrants.

Posted by: Jimmuy at February 03, 2011 03:23 PM (8RfPc)

Actually the word you want is Courtier. Courtesans were clever whores.

PS Sorry for repeating the Hayek reference. I searched the page for serf and didn't find any somehow.

90 Unfortunatelly, we really can't do anything about it until after 2012.  Even then, the wheels of government turn slowly, especially if it means changing things for the good of the nation.  I'm not saying that it can't be done, but we are terrifyingly close to that point.  Remember, leftists/statists/communists need chaos and/or collapse in order to totally succeed. 

91 We don't need any new laws or amendments forbidding "special exemptions". We already have those laws. They are called bribery and corruption.

What we need is someone to actually enforce them. We also need to some voters who actually care more about their government than just another check in the mail.

But we are not going to get either one of those.

92 Ace - This lens of a new feudalism gives me a new understanding of what is going on with Obama's waivers on health care for all his bestest baronial buddies and Obama's very special waiver for very, very powerful baron GE as regards global warming rules.

And the Tea Party is another Jacksonian electoral revolution against the now-apparent hereditary elite.

Now, who will be our Andrew Jackson? -   Mitt? Huntsman? Thune? Huckabee? Pawlenty?  Daniels?

Or will it be Sarah Palin, who is hated by the Ruling Class with the heat of a thousand suns?

One thing is for sure, Ace, now knowing what a LOT of us have known for years, you have an explanation for the intensity of Palin's supporters.  It is not a cult of personality - it is a demand for a leader who will protect and defend the Constitution, so that we may remain a nation of laws, not of men.

93 For future reference, the tag of our beloved pinata, Kelly, is /OTDU

94

Oh, I thought you meant Feudal as in the Hatfields and McCoys popping caps in each others' asses across the treeline seperating their properties.

This makes much more sense when I think of Kings and stuff, instead.

95 In my experience the feudal pejorative isn't an everyday thing, but has been around a while.

After Hayek, serfdom itself is another word occasionally kicked around.  Medieval serfs owed service of around one third of their weekly labor on their lord's land.  Take the federal income tax rate alone, or the combined federal and state income tax rate in some states and you're looking at an equal or greater percentage of labor demanded by the government.  Serfdom by taxation.  (And withholding was an evilly brilliant PR ploy.)

You can argue the income tax hurts less when the bare necessities of life are so cheap and it's largely coming out of discretionary income, but then that's only the case as long as the economy stays prosperous.  What we're looking at now is a tax and regulatory regime that keeps people of ordinary talents from ever getting ahead.  A Bill Gates can still make his fortune, but an average worker gets to live hand to mouth all his life until he's ready for the trailer park and social security.  And it's not evil capitalists keeping him down, it's the do-gooders in Congress and the bureaucracy taking anything beyond a minimum income to redistribute to the "needy."

96

Spot on Ace.

97

#81:  Feudalism is close enough:

Military service = Campaign Donations

Fief = Government Favors

98 The last example Ace gives, of all oil companies punished for the bad behavior of one is really a different problem. That is an example of one size fits all, and can also be seen when a 6 year old is suspended for bringing a plastic knife to school. Or when a US Marine has his fingernail clippers confiscated on a commercial flight.
 
This is the thinking that broader rules, harsher rules, can solve a specific problem. Plus it gives the appearance of doing something, which the very reason for a bureaucrat's existence (in their minds).
 
Somehow we need a government Hippocratic Oath to first do no harm. We are 180^o from there right now.

99 Haven't read the comments yet, but looking at the passing of the healthcare bill is as instructive as looking at the ramifications afterwards.  Many examples, but to me the best one is how easily they bought silence from the drug manufacturers. 

100

Ace, you don't need to use my pets for that . . .

101 reason: Is it politically plausible to expect Congress or the president to actually act that way and say, “Look, the bailout stops here”?

This is why the original bailouts, which were just plain un-Constitutional, were stupid on top of that. 

The bigger problem, though, was seen as the feral government started claiming that it had the right to be dictating all sorts of policies to these institutions that got bailed out - where we saw retro-active decisions about bonuses and the like.  That was the truly dangerous aspect of the federal government having mucked around buying and bailing out private companies and why the federal government is Constitutionally restricted from taking those sorts of actions.

This became all too apparent as we heard the arguments that the feral government would offer.  They would say, as they decided that they should be controlling these corporations (retro-actively, again, as there were no real strings on the bailout money as it was doled out), "they asked us for the money ... therefore we have the right and the responsibility to make these insane dictats over the operation of these companies."  It doesn't matter if the companies begged the feral government for help.  The feral government wasn't allowed to help them in that way, because of this exact problem - we now need to exercise control, since we have "invested" government money in them.

The initial idea of TARP was within the powers of Congress (as argued, not as written), as Congress certainly is charged with maintaining the integrity of the dollar, but TARP never even served to do that (as was clear by everyone arguing over the ECONOMIC situation, and not the MONETARY situation) and ended up being nothing short of a blatantly un-Constitutional expansion of the federal government.  From there, they were just off to the races, and now, there is no end in sight.  We even went so far as to use monies authorized in order to save our monetary system, in order to buy car companies and "save the economy", which was bullshit and un-Constitutional itself - though our judiciary (all the way up to the SCOTUS) was happy to give its seal of approval to this savage behavior.

But, once the law is broken like this, there is no real stopping of it.  This is part of basic logic: all theorems are provable in an inconsistent logical theorem.  But, sadly, American lawyers and judges know nothing about logic.  That would be okay if they would, at least, hold the Constitution in some respect - but we don't even have anything close to that.

102 Aren't titles of nobility illegal under the Constitution? And at the time of the Founding, didn't the legal status of a noble title in Europe and England boil down to
-tax exempt status, and
-special deference in criminal trials.
In which case, the entire New Deal state can be challenged under the (completely?) dormant Nobility clause...if the Supreme Court would recognize anybody anywhere with standing to file suit....which they won't.

103

I'll buy that you need a certain amount of regulation to keep someone from deciding that it's OK to slash costs on food preparation because it's cheaper to settle wrongful death lawsuits than keep your food clean, or keep gas tanks on cars from exploding, or selling ponzi scheme retirement plans, whatever.

No, you don't.

The people who'd follow the regulation wouldn't do that anyway. The people who wouldn't, wouldn't anyway.

When someone sells you poison and calls it food, you  charge them with criminal fraud. Or alternately, reckless endangerment, criminal negligence, manslaughter, murder, whatever.

There's no sense to thinking Congress can prevent this by letting a gaggle of lawyers personally control the content of all foodstuffs via regulation.

104

I see that most commenters here haven't bothered to see what the (real) Left has been saying about this guy. I don't mean those boneslurpers on TV. I mean people like Noami Klein and Barbara Ehrenreich. (Not sure if Taibbi counts as Left, but he used to.) They're saying what Ace is saying.

Sure, but they're no better. He's of them. Put any one of them in a position of actual power and responsibility and they will fair no better.

It's like Animal Farm.

They think Stalin usurped their system. Stalin is the fucking product of their system.

Their philosophies do not work - they do not comply with reality. When attempting to impliment them, at some juncture you must confront this, and then - you either give up, or decide to force the matter.

105 wow  Ace  I guess that whole blueblood  thing went over your head.

106 We have a perfectly good word for what is happening in our government. It is plutocracy, not feudalism. Feudalism was actually a system that got the West through some very hard years (years of repeated barbarian invasions). It also gave rise to ideas such as a dispersion of the powers of government, and a formal social compact, such as Magna Carta, that are the provenance of the government that was forged by the Founding Fathers. Ignorant distain for those who went before us used to be an attribute of progressives, not conservatives.

107 "Do they all think that somehow, because of their very liberalness, they have a shot at becoming one of the 'royals'?"

Not all of them, but a lot, although for many of them I think their ambition does not rise above, say, political commissar for the block they live on.

Another important factor is their desire to be taken care of. It's a big, scary world out there, full of things like science and killer robots made by Dell and Apple. Some of them (with college degrees even) are unable to use a cell phone or connect a VCR to a TV.  But Big Brother will save comfort and protect them. No more hard decisions to make. No more thinking that makes the head hurt. No more responsibility.

In fact, there are a lot of "renaissance faire" type people who really do long for the good old days when there were no machines and your local Lord took care of you. Morons yes, but morons who vote.

108 57 I see that most commenters here haven't bothered to see what the (real) Left has been saying about this guy. I don't mean those boneslurpers on TV. I mean people like Noami Klein and Barbara Ehrenreich. (Not sure if Taibbi counts as Left, but he used to.) They're saying what Ace is saying.

Posted by: Zimriel at February 03, 2011 03:26 PM (3Z8hd)

So the fuck what? Seriously, what does it matter? Why do we care?

They're not really saying the same thing Ace is saying, anyway. They're not criticizing Obama for inhibiting freedom in the market or abusing individual rights or OVERtaxing and regulating unfairly.

Why does it even enter the discussion that the far left also thinks Obama is a corrupt skeeze? What, you think they're going to team up with us to get Obama out and replace him with someone... oh, we run into a problem there, don't we?

109

What, you think they're going to team up with us to get Obama out and replace him with someone... oh, we run into a problem there, don't we?

"Do they all think that somehow, because of their very liberalness, they have a shot at becoming one of the 'royals'?"

Basically, it breaks down like this:

I am (belatedly) reading Atlas Shrugged, and it almost perfectly describes this system of feudalism/favoritism/command-and-control economy.

Basically, they would destroy the very things that sustain them, and then die screaming.

Oh sure, they hate Stalin. They still keep making Stalins. And then die screaming.

110 Serfs.

wage slaves and political elites (lords) round out the American feudal system.

Epstein brings it home.

111 You should read more libertarians.

As the guy upthread said, though, don't let the awful stuff turn you off from the good stuff. Epstein's among the best.

112 I'm very largely libertarian. I read a lot of libertarian commentary and analysis. I've never heard feudalism brought up as a contemporary criticism, so for what it's worth (since this is so long after the post you'll likely never read it), feudalism is NOT a common critique of modern policy in libertarian circles.

113 Richard Epstein is God.

114 altın çilek - fx15 - leke kremi - yudali - maurers - ozon yağı