To date, I've published over 13,400 Tweets and over 3500 blog posts. In the process, I've gotten probably more than my fair share of responses from hostile trolls, both on the left and the right. I'm fairly used to people disagreeing with me, and a number of trolls have replied disagreeably, in personal terms and/or political soundbites. I don't mind mini-debates, but when people simply ignore the points I'm making and respond with trite talking points, I don't suffer fools gladly.
I really started to write this post around 3 weeks back, when all of a sudden Twitter had a major trend going on FDR's "Four Freedom" speech. Now I was spoiling for a fight on FDR for some time. One left-fascist troll, a Bernie-kin, had recently countered my point that America has never elected a socialist President and never will that America elected FDR 4 times. This pissed me off for a number of reasons; if you go back to the 1932 election, you will find that FDR ran a campaign where the platforms were effectively switch: Hoover was pro-government, a tax-raiser and a tariff protectionist. FDR was talking fiscal conservatism while refusing to elaborate specifics on his "New Deal": FDR really won the election more because he was NOT Hoover, held responsible for nearly 23% unemployment without evidence that he had policies which could alleviate the seeming accelerating Depression. It's true as NY governor, FDR had championed some state anti-poverty programs. And make no mistake, even though the Democrats would win unprecedented majorities from 1932 through 1936, Southern Democrats had issues with FDR's liberal policies and curbed his economic agenda after 1936. This includes FDR's ambitious agenda to pass a second positive rights (things government must do for citizens) "Second Bill of Rights". However, this was a form of economic fascist, not so-called "democratic socialism" which has never fared well in US national politics.
There is little doubt that FDR benefited from being an incumbent and a war-time President, but after his first two elections where the GOP got at most 40% of the vote, they did considerably better during FDR's unprecedented last two Presidencies. Let us point out after FDR's first two terms in office and a super-majority in Congress, unemployment was 14%. In contrast, the highest Obama faced was 10%.
So when I wrote a tweet that went viral today on FDR's "Four Freedoms", I was spoiling for a fight; I pointed out FDR's final two "freedoms" were not individual ones, but pretexts for government intervention. The government does not fund programs out of magic pixie dust. It confiscates funding for its top-heavy, ineffectual, inefficient programs from the private economy, which is more more directly involved in improving the national standard of living. This confiscation totally ignores opportunity costs of what can be done with the same wealth deployed in the private economy, not to mention the nearly $2T drag on the economy caused by government regulation.
So the first response from the left-fascists were predictably shots about how GOP tax and deregulation was a political diatribe against the Koch brothers, the Mercers, etc. I'm just tired of hearing this crap. The Kochs are libertarians--one of them actually ran as the LP VP candidate years back. If the Kochs support the GOP, it's mostly because the GOP has market-friendly policies and there are no longer free market Democrats. They refused to support Trump's election. They support criminal justice reform, the elimination of government subsidies, and are more immigrant-friendly and fiscally conservative than Trump. These are not necessarily high-ranking GOP policies. There are a few Republicans who empathize with Koch positions, say, Amash, Massie, perhaps Ben Sasse and Rand Paul, but this idea that the Koch brothers are "buying" influence is absurd. The Kochs are supporting policies for principles, not self-enrichment at the expense of others, like unilateral tax breaks. Sure, they're for tax reform, but it's a policy that also helps their competitors and other American businesses.
This anti-corporate conspiracy attitude is equally economic illiterate and nauseating. No one has to buy from a corporation. I live in a small town in Maryland, and I've been contacted by at least 2 vendors who want my Internet business. Most local businesses have free WiFi for their customers (not to mention cellphone service). Corporations have different priorities which clash. For instance, the domestic sugar producers have enjoyed protection (which I oppose), which has food producers (say bakeries or candy companies) paying above world price. Those higher prices are a handicap, but yet Trump can't figure out why Nabisco might want to produce cookies in Mexico, where no such penalty exist.
Will corporations take advantage of federal policies? No doubt. They don't want their competitors to get breaks they don't get. They can also force smaller competitors to fund high regulatory costs over more limited sales.
The fact is if government policy was more general and limited, companies would have less reason to engage in lobbying. The size and scope of government resources and force attract corrupt sources who are willing to cut government deals for their own benefit. If and when we promote limited government, it is not for our benefit, but the benefit of markets, period, which is to the benefit of consumers, improves their standard of living. The fascists simply don't understand that the government's interventions make corruption possible, even likely.
What led to yet more general hysteria over "net neutrality". Basically the left-fascists have argued without government intervention, that ISP's will basically create self-enriching policies (e.g., broadband connections) to choke off their content provider competitors. Let's point out, e.g., Netflix accounts for a significant portion of bandwidth. The question is: what is fairest? Certainly that Netflix directly or indirectly pays its fair share of its distribution costs. If and when Netflix advocates government intervention net neutrality policy, it's really trying to shift some of its costs onto other policies; it's intrinsically corrupt. I don't tell hospital how to serve its patients. ISP's have the right to offer premium services, just like for a price, you can get bigger airline seats, preferred boarding, better amenities (food and drink), etc. ISPs have to manage throughput, and it needs revenues to fund necessary capacity. From the ISP's perspective, it's concerned about delivery of content and efficiency of its network, not this imaginary manipulation in favor of certain vendors. After all, discriminatory policies would alienate say Netflix users, plus their own content may be similarly treated elsewhere. Take as an example Comcast, which also owns NBC's networks. I haven't seen any issues viewing non-Comcast content on the Comcast network. I've been able to view, say, Amazon Videos on any ISP I've had.
To give another example, I found that doing online backups took forever back in Arizona, but for $10/month more, I could double the upload speed. And over my years as a cable customer, I've constantly gotten notices about improved speed, etc., at no extra charge. (It's amazing, for instance, how companies improved their services when Google enters a marketplace.) My current provider, for example, offered me a no-contract month-to-month plan. Even if I had a contract termination fee, there are some competitors willing to pay it off. So my provider has every incentive to provide/maintain good service.
And, as I explained in a tweet, I want no government foothold into the Internet marketplace. I do not trust government access or control over my private data, my freedom of expression, or data sources.
And, quite frankly, after all the bad things happened from the government, I have no clue why allegedly "intelligent" left-fascists trust government over their fellow citizens. If you maintain that the private sector business is staffed by greedy, self-serving thieves who don't care about return sales, what makes you think that government bureaucrats, who essentially have jobs for life and no accountability as in the private sector, are vested in your personal benefit?
