The Politics of Bailout
In an excellent ten minute video, Stefan Molyneux describes the political forces at work behind the defeat of the House of Representatives bailout bill. In case you were wondering, it has nothing to do with Congress caring about you. Simply put, your self-proclaimed representatives wanted some measure of control over the money.
This insight has deep implications that Molyneux does not cover in the video. When we are taught about the wonders of “a separation of powers,” the underlying assumption is that tyranny comes from one faction of government asserting control over the others, and that if branches of the government compete with each other then its power will be checked. However, to discover the reality of the situation we must look at what they are competing for.
The desire for power and influence is why people seek elected office. True, there may be noble aspirations concerning what to use power and influence for, but ultimately they are the ends of politicians. Competition between politicians means a contest over who has the most power over the most resources and people. Government separation of powers simply creates guidelines for this competition in a context that has little connection to the needs of the productive class.
The guidelines it creates may keep the nightmare scenario of George W. Cesar at bay, as the executive must deal with the other powerful interests in the political class. However, this does little good for restraining government power, as the rulers know they must cooperate often if they want to keep a hand on the reigns. So the country is run by a greater diversity of tyrants.
Looking at the situation through market anarchist analysis, we see other implications. The concept of competition has little effect on restraining government, as it is a legally-enforced monopoly that takes payment regardless of service and regardless of consent. Competition within takes the form of a bureaucratic power struggle in which the actors are largely insulated from the communicative restraint of the free market (the aggregate of voluntary exchanges). If you still believe that elections serve the function of choice and feedback, consider the obstacles placed before alternate parties, the re-election rate of incumbent congresscrooks, the local machines, and the fact that in the end the public is generally given two options who agree on fundamentals and lie and cheat, and everyone, regardless of their individual choice, is expected to accept their services and the services of those they appoint for the next few years.
However, in market anarchy there would be competition among defense services and social arrangements bound only by individual choices. Competition in this context means a true separation of powers. Community Militia A serves as an obstacle to the expansion of Defense Firm B. Arbitrator X is not necessarily employed by Accuser Y or Defense Agency Z, so she has less interest in ruling favorably to them. Communes must compete with firms, guilds, and independent contractors, so they are more likely to respect individual choice.
Anarchist separation of powers is clearly superior to republican separation of powers, which has succeeded only in setting boundaries within the political class, restricting their behavior against each other far more than it restricts their behavior against the productive class.
