MSNBC airs a series of propaganda pieces defending a powerful State starring Maddow, Matthews, Sharpton, Schultz, Hayes, and the rest. Today I saw one by Matthews which tips the hand of those who wish to dominate. Matthews says in his propaganda piece that the political realm is split between those who wish to deny liberty and violate rights and those who are fighting for liberty and rights, then he goes to explain that the rights he's talking about are gay rights, minority rights and women's rights, implying that the Right wants to violate the rights of these special interests and that the Left wants to ensure the rights of the special interests he listed.
This is obscurantism that's rampant on the Left, but as the title states, let's transcend Right and Left, because historically both Right and Left have sought to dominate through an interventionist government. Only government has the monopoly on coercion to violate the rights of the groups Matthews champions. A limited government that's prevented from intervening in the economy or in social issues doesn't block the progress of any individual and, in fact, protects the rights of all individuals. Matthews is talking about positive rights which an interventionist government will enforce through coercion, but he doesn' explain what should be done. I'm sure Matthews thinks that women should receive equal pay for equal work with equal qualifications, and so does just about everyone in the US, including most CEOs. In Matthews' world of State domination, companies would be forced to pay women equal salaries to men regardless of the differences between the individual men and women as long as they have the same job, and this is where interventionist government creates unintended consequences and violates the rights of one group, the owners, to establish positive rights for its favored group, in this case women. But this is just one example of obscurantism on the part of those wish to dominate.
The battle between domination and liberty is nothing new -- it's been around at least since the beginning of history. Alexander Rustow wrote on the subject years ago following WWII. Ever so often freedom fighters make progress moving beyond the control of the elite few in positions of power, then the forces of domination react and squash the freedom movements. The idea of America was the idea of liberty, but some of the Founders had different views regarding freedom than others, and the elite few won, thus creating a merchant state that allowed more freedom than before, certainly, but not as much freedom as many wanted. It seems that the few always wind up dominating the many, even when relative freedom is increased.
It was established by Locke and other philosophers of freedom that some government is necessary to protect the rights of life, liberty the pursuit of happiness, including the right to own property, of individuals. With the loopholes in the Constitution, though, such as the general welfare clause and interstate commerce clause, the proponents of elite domination have moved closer and closer to total statist management and control of the economy and practically every area of human concern. I propose the new division is between those who support freedom from interventionist government and those who support domination through an interventionist government. On the side of liberty, this allows alliances without accepting the full worldview of, or having conflict with, those to which one would ally. I might be a libertarian and someone else might be a conservative, but if we both believe that government should be limited to rights protections and resolving disputes in court and providing national security from foreign invasions, then we can resist domination without having to agree on abortion, drug use, homosexuality, etc. We can disagree on social or economic issues, yet agree that an interventionist government has no business interfering in the disagreements. We can disagree and yet agree to debate the issues and use persuasion to make our case.
On the other side, though, are the alliances of domination, and they are made up of special interests who want government to enforce their worldviews. There's little room for debate on this side, except the debate between the competing interests regarding which groups will coerce which other groups to establish their preferences. This side is rife with political divisions as groups fight to have their way, because any time one group successfuly intervenes and forces their preferences, it violates the preferences of some other group. Environmentalists might have their way in regulating some type of energy production out of existence, but it will likely cut the jobs of union members working in that particular field of energy production. An interventionist government is always deciding intentionally or unintentionally who wins and who loses, so the battle for control of decisions grows more fierce, and the most powerful end up winning, exactly the outcome that statists incorrectly project onto a free market.
In a free market, ideas, products and services compete with one another, and a limited government protects individuals as they enter the market and compete to the best of their ability. In a free market in which no power above is deciding winners and losers, everyone can find a place, because many will be needed as the economy and social space expands in dynamism. In an open and free society inspired by innovation and creativity many avenues will open for people to express themselves in their own creative ways, or just find a niche in which they are comfortable. This is doesn't mean that society will have no problems, it just means that in a open and free society people can respond more flexibly to the problems and find solutions more easily.
This division between the keepers of liberty and those who promote domination will transcend the petty politics of Right and Left, because the world is growing in sophistication and knowledge -- our dreams and the scope of our visions are getting bigger. Government becomes more petty, controlling, deceitful and corrupt -- the keepers of liberty won't be cramped in a statist system with unlimited powers that constantly attempt to limit our power.