It is both sad and frustrating to me that some who are eager to take certain portions of Scripture at face value – like the commands to turn the other cheek, or the teachings regarding the Kingdom of Heaven will at the same time completely ignore the other parts, about mammon and the nature of the world and worldliness.
Because their model is subverted, there is a tendency among
the Libertarian set to blame other forces and to see conspiracies of control
hiding around every rock and tree. This too is frustrating because there are
conspiracies and wicked men plot and attempt to manipulate events. The historical
record on this is clear. But there is no overarching comprehensive conspiracy
that manages everything. Rather there are a series of dynamics, overlapping
circles and factions vying against one another. For this reason some deny the
reality of conspiracy and instead simply point to the nature of things and the
way political and social forces compete. The conspiracy is in many ways open
and fully visible. And yet that's insufficient as there are those who subvert
the rules. There are powerful Mandarins who can transcend procedures,
manipulate, and create illusions. And they collaborate sometimes. And then
there are those we might call Praetorians who sit atop these power structures
and who often straddle more than one at a time. They collaborate and scheme
against one another. They rise and fall. And yet as they conspire they also
betray one another.
The kind of orchestration some conspiracists appeal to does
not exist and while powerful people are connected, and the circles shrink they
higher you go – it doesn't mean they're all working in accord. There are open
conspiracies to be sure and some would rightly appeal to groups like the
Council on Foreign Relations or Bilderberg. And yet it would be folly to think
these groups are able to micromanage everything. They push and promote and certainly
have influence – especially at certain choice moments and in certain contexts,
but the individual members will also work against one another and it's evident
that plans fail – sometimes badly, and people fall out of favour and fade away.
Just by way of example one might look to the events surrounding US policy post-9/11
in places like Iraq or Central Asia, or the opening of China back in the early
1970's, or broadly speaking, US strategy in the aftermath of the Soviet
Collapse. Big plans were made and powerful men were at work shaping these
events and yet in some cases there were sharp disagreements that were not able
to be smoothed over. In other cases, the plans failed in the long term
demonstrating a lack or loss of control.
And conspiracies have to make sense – they have to fit with
the world as it exists. Conspiracies frequently rely on a coherence theory of
truth but a quick study in philosophy would reveal that you can create all
kinds of coherent systems and frameworks but it doesn't mean they're true. They
can make sense in isolation by being coherent and yet that doesn't mean that
they are coherent when interacting with the real world. The same is often true
of certain ideologies – they seem sound on paper or in the lab (as it were) but
fail spectacularly when put into a real-world context.
Likewise as Christians we don't believe the world to be
merely governed by chance or chaos. There are forces at work – there are
conspiracies on the celestial level we might say. In other words, it's all
rather complicated, and yet one common problem with conspiracies is the
tendency to oversimplify.
Many who fall prey to false or exaggerated conspiracies have
a paltry understanding of the world and how things work – and they fail to
grasp the complexity of motivations that govern the actions of men.
There are conspiracies but for some conspiracies become a
worldview in itself and over the years I've seen not a few Libertarian-types
fall prey to this. Their economic theories fail – it must be a conspiracy. Why
does a capitalist society go wrong and fall prey to powerful interests that
ultimately undermine not only democracy but capitalism itself? It must be a
conspiracy. Why do capitalist societies turn into militarist empires? It must
be a conspiracy.
There are conspiracies at work when it comes to economics and
power but in some cases what they're calling conspiracy is simply the
outworking of these ideals – or as I sometimes put it, these ideologies run
their course or go to seed and are past the point of utility.
Capitalism like other competing ideologies reaches a
transcendent phase – it moves beyond its initial frameworks and even
ideological commitments. Is it no longer capitalism? The libertarian would say
so, but the billionaire capitalist would not. They would simply say these
ideologues think in small terms. Or (as suggested) in many cases they operate
on an ivory tower level and don't understand what happens to their academic theories
when they interact with the real world.
Limited resources, growing populations, competition on a
macro-scale and the intensity and tempo of modern markets have transformed the
way we live and the calculus of power. The Libertarians (who think we can still
live on the eighteenth century frontier) don't like it. Neither do I, but
that's the world we live in.
And so, when Wall Street policies lead to instability, social
crisis, political crisis, and war – you can't say that's not an outworking or
outcome of capitalism. When you praise the likes of Wal-Mart but don't
understand what Wal-Mart means in other parts of the world and the upheaval it
generates, then your understanding of capitalism is too small. When you divorce
social health and cohesion from the concerns of the bottom line, then not only
do you have an impoverished and reductionist view of society and social life,
you fail to understand that the collapse of Main Street has serious social
ramifications – that in turn have economic ramifications – which lead to more
social ramifications. They completely miss the complex dynamics of this and the
circularity. And not to over-complicate the discussion, the question of freedom
and freedom of choice (or lack thereof) has to be raised and explored in the
context of economic desperation and the collapse of the family which are
related questions to the aforementioned dynamic.
Advocates of the free market don't like regulation and yet
fail to understand the monopolies actually want regulation to a point – they
want to have boundaries within which to work. They need legal frameworks in
order to secure their interests. The Wild West is not a safe bet. They can't
see all the variables and contingencies in such a scenario.
A quick example or parallel – Pennsylvania regulates
homeschooling and this has led many homeschoolers to find living in this state
to be less than appealing. They like states with no regulation at all and no
reporting. The idea is certainly nice but there are other laws and interests –
child welfare and truancy issues for example. A social worker or law
enforcement official if motivated can pursue these avenues and put a lot of
pressure on a homeschooling family.
"Why are your kids home?"
"We homeschool."
"What's that? Where's the law? Prove that's what you're
doing."
In some states this is impossible. Without any statute it is
simply the parent's word but it doesn't rest on anything apart from open ended
theories about parental rights. Homeschooling (legally) doesn't exist.
I will grant a lawyer can usually resolve these issues and
get the authorities to back off but there's a lot of stress and uncertainty –
and potential costs that are not easily calculated.
In Pennsylvania we received a letter every year from the
superintendent acknowledging our homeschool programme. We had to turn in an
affidavit and so forth – slight inconveniences in the grand scheme of things.
But here's the thing – if anyone ever showed up at our door
and asked us what we're doing with our kids, we could simply produce the letter
from the superintendent and say – take it up with him. There was a legal
framework and basis for what we were doing and with that comes a kind of
security.
Maybe it's not the best analogy but some will see the point
I'm trying to make and understand that for some interests, regulation can be a
good thing.
The fact that this goes a step further and the corporation
becomes part of the regulatory process itself – as it becomes inseparable from
the state is an obvious result. And when the state is committed to privatisation
of public functions, that's effectively an invitation for the corporate sector
to intertwine itself with the state. The state likes the stability of
monopolies and as we have seen will ultimately prop them up – the monopolies do
own the politicians after all. And the monopolies want the state to protect
their interests in terms of the courts and markets – and this plays out
internationally as well.
More could be said about how certain economic sectors become
strategic and thus it is preferred that they are either state entities or owned
by monopolies. This is certainly true of utilities. The Praetorians are not
going to let the electric grid fall prey to the whims of the market and put the
country and all their investments at risk. On the contrary, they're going to
make sure the grid is secure and in the capitalist model is in privatised but
regulated hands – in which the state can intervene if need be to make sure the
institution doesn't fail.
The same is true of the finance sector as recent years
testify. When you look at the panic and the level of crisis that emerged in
2008 - one understands that this isn't just about people losing money or
companies going bankrupt. The crisis was much bigger and its implications were
such that the economy could collapse – the US Empire could have collapsed. They
were willing to go to extremes to keep it functioning.
This is also why I reject the Libertarian narrative about how
figures like Pelosi and Biden are trying to take down the US economy or that
lockdowns (and later vaccines) were some kind of conspiracy to take control. On
the contrary this was (once again) an extreme reaction to a dangerous
situation. Short terms losses were to be endured in order to keep the system
afloat. Had Covid run amok, it might have destroyed the US economy and thus the
US system. These Mandarins and Praetorians that have given their lives to
upholding this model and upon which they rest all their power and wealth were
not deliberately trying to destroy it. On the contrary, they were desperate to
resolve the crisis and get people back to work. The contradictory mess that
ensued is worth examining but this doesn't change the fundamental nature of the
response.