The Party of No-longer?

Why should the Republican Party continue to exist?  It is already labeled "the  party of 'No!' " because it says 'No!' to the all of the ideas of Obama while having no ideas of its own for moving this nation forward. The Democratic National Committee announced a new website this weekend detailing what a DNC spokesman calls "the just-say-no approach of the Republican Party over the last 100 days" and comparing it to "the president's efforts to jump-start the economy, create jobs, and make important reforms to and investments in energy, healthcare, and education."

I'd like to go a step further. It is clear to me that the junta that has kidnapped the once-Grand Old Party has no intention of governing. It was clear that George Bush had no intention of governing and he proved that point with each passing day of his administration, from 9-11 through Katrina to the banking collapse. He appointed partisan gooks to fill important department heads and let them twiddle their thumbs rather than directing affairs. Even the 'war' effort was a farce until he and Cheney woke up and realized that this department needed real management. Bush's use of 'private contractors' rather than regular army personnel ought to have raised red flags among the citizenry, but then, the propaganda was so intense that the citizens were blinded by Patriotism during much of the affair.

Today's Republican Party leaders are a group of anarchists plain and simple. Their form of anarchism is anarcho-capitalism where free-markets rule and not much else. Thus I have to question the continuing existence of the GOP as a political party. After all, in an anarcho-capitalistic state, political parties do not exist. What does the current disarray of the GOP suggest? It is looking for a model to present to the public. I fear the shape of that new model; I think that many would support anarcho-capitalism even if they didn't understand the full implications of such a structure. But then, that has never stopped the duping of citizens.

Anarcho-capitalism requires no political parties and, in fact, no real government structure whatsoever. The anarcho-capitalists would like to dismantle government and allow complete laissez-faire in the economy. Its adherents propose that all public services be turned over to private entrepreneurs, even public spaces like town halls, streets and parks. Free market capitalism, they insist, is hindered not enhanced by the State.

That's pretty much their 'beliefs' in a NUT shell. Those goofy tea parties last week were the proverbial tip of the iceberg, yet it remains unclear if most of those 'protesting' even know what the core organizers of the event had in mind. Most, no doubt, thought they were protesting too much tax when, in reality, they were pawns in the game of anarcho-capitalism. The knights, rooks, bishops, queen and king had the inside information.

These anarcho-capitalists share Adam Smith's confidence that somehow private interest will translate itself into public good rather than public squalor. They are convinced that the 'natural laws' of economics can do without the support of positive man-made laws. The 'invisible hand' of the market will be enough to bring social order.

Well, round one of the Great Anarcho-Capitalist Experiment nearly brought on the collapse of our nation, banks leading the downward slide. Ronald Reagan wanted to be remembered for cutting taxation and for getting 'the government off peoples' backs' but I doubt if he ever thought of moving so far to the right as to dissolve government altogether. I also wonder if those who claim to be libertarians understand that there is a movement so radical as to work for the total elimination of 'public welfare?' I doubt it.

Paul Birch, British author, engineer and scientist wrote an article in 1997 which he called, A FATAL INSTABILITY IN ANARCHO-CAPITALISM? . Birch says:

"In an anarcho-capitalist society there is no state, and all the courts are private courts. There is no final court of appeal that all are obliged to recognise, and no uniform code of justice can be enforced. Laws are determined on the market. Everyone may choose which of the competing courts he will look to for protection; and he may alter his choice at will.

In a just anarcho-capitalist society the courts enforce the common law; but there is no guarantee that an anarcho-capitalist society will be just. It will be just only if the "hidden hand" of the market makes it so. Since a just society is economically efficient, there is reason to hope that the hidden hand will lead to justice, even (or especially) in the absence of the state. This is the hope of anarcho-capitalism.

Even if a just anarcho-capitalist society should exist, there is no guarantee that it would be stable. There are many conceivable sources of instability (and many possible ways in which the threat of such instabilities might be averted) but in this essay I am concerned with only one. That one may prove fatal."

And in an article in 1998, referencing this earlier piece, Birch says:

"..a common-law regime underlies the free market. It defends voluntary trade: it punishes coercion. It is economically efficient. Without its justice the villain will plunder the weak, the scoundrel will prey on the simple, and the wastrel will live off the industrious."

Villains, scoundrels and wastrels, he said. As in the mortgage-banking meltdown that nearly collapsed our economic structure 6 months ago.

Were the voices of the tea party folks not raised at that time, shouting, "Villains, scoundrels, wastrels!" Surely they were. However, were this nation an anarcho-capitalistic society, they could go to hell as far as any retribution would be concerned. Dog-eat-dog. Drink your tea and shut-up!

By the way, that new essay of Birch was entitled, ANARCHO-CAPITALISM DISSOLVES INTO CITY STATES. Is this why there is a movement in Texas by the tea-drinkers to secede? After all, Texas has been known for its frontier attitude from its inception.

I'd like to propose that we experiment with the anarcho-capitalistic system and incorporate Birch's city-state ideal. Give it a go, shall we, in some portion of that Lone Star State, say the scarlet red, rugged panhandle. The first 'job' would be to build a wall clear around it to keep 'them' out. Entrepreneurs would flock to the place, just hoping to make a fast buck [or whatever the currency]. Endless opportunities, a veritable 21-st century gold-rush.

If it works out well, solid-red Oklahoma would be next and on to Kansas. I wonder if they will shoot every 'villain, scoundrel and wastrel' dead on the spot because, of course, there will be no gun laws whatsoever. Every man for himself. But, will they drink tea or Kool-Aid?