The Free Market: How we're paying for it

Conservatives love to talk about the "free market" and letting the market work unfettered. At the core of their philosophy is the idea that a free market is the only fair way to go. Re-distribution of wealth, of any kind, for any reason, is anathema to them. At least, that's what they say.

The truth is that conservatives manipulate the market to their advantage all the time--and if that's not redistribution of wealth, I don't know what is. At least when liberals say let's tax to pay for highways or healthcare, they're up front about what they're taking and what they plan to do with the money.

Conservatives, on the other hand, pay lobbyists to pressure Congress to do them favors, which the rest of us can't afford to do, and essentially buy themselves more democracy than we can get. When was the last time you paid several million dollars to somebody to tell Congress exactly what you wanted them to hear? And when was the last time your personal desires became legislation?

In fact, until the internet and organizations like MoveOn.org came about, the rest of us had virtually no influence on Congress. Finally, we have something at least resembling real democracy--at least now we can make our voices heard--even if they're still largely ignored. But Republicans have tried to discredit organizations like MoveOn.org. Pretty ironic, isn't it? It's okay to manipulate a take-over of K Street so lobbying concerns are almost entirely Republican, and it's okay to call for redistricting outside the normal process solely to force a Republican majority in Congress, but somehow it's bad to let people like you and me send in $20 a year to have a venue for making our own opinions heard? I can't help but laugh every time the likes of George W. Bush or Tom DeLay speak of "compassionate conservatism" "graciousness" or "morality." I honestly don't think they know what any of those words mean.

While the rest of us scramble to find a way to get reasonable healthcare, finance a home and pay for our education, large government-backed corporate interests are forcing our wages down by hiring illegal immigrants who are too frightened of exposure to demand reasonable pay and humane conditions.

Of course, that cat's out of the bag now, but all it means is that the politicians tied to corporate interests are frantically attempting to enact legislation that will make it okay for companies like Wal-Mart to hire illegals--that's pretty much what all this immigration law stuff is about. It's not about protecting Americans from terrorists or saving our jobs: it's about changing laws so big corporations and wealthy folks who've profited from illegal (see: slave) labor won't have to be accountable for their own lawlessness. It's much like what Bush and DeLay have done all their political lives: push the law to the edge, go over when necessary, then get lawyers to say it's okay. In other words, to hell with the intent of the law, if the laws don't give us permission to do what we want, we'll just rewrite them.

I used to think that we could prevent this kind of abuse of our legal system by sending important cases to the Supreme Court, where (presumably) greater minds and higher morals were at work. Now, I'm not so sure. Recently, I heard Jose Padilla was finally turned over to the court system, after years of detention without a trial. He sued. But instead of letting the case go to the Supreme Court, as it should, the administration finally gave in and decided to give him a trial after all. End of story. Now the Supreme Court won't hear the case because it's "moot."

But what about the next guy? This is clearly not the only time this situation will come up. Surely, the Court understands the importance of a ruling on this issue, so there is no ambiguity in the future? Apparently not.

The same thing happened with the issue of reporters and their confidentiality clauses. When Judith Miller went to jail, it brought a larger issue to the fore: should reporters be required, by law, to testify in spite of their oath to keep sources confidential, when a criminal case is involved? The Supreme Court refused to hear that case as well.

If there is ambiguity in the law, particularly in important cases like these, isn't it the Supreme Court's responsibility to deal with those ambiguities, so we can use their rulings to guide our actions in the future? Frankly, I'm beginning to think they want the law to remain ambiguous. As long as there is debate on these issues, those taking advantage of that ambiguity can pretend they didn't know what they were doing was wrong. (Another fine example of plausible deniability.)

And this brings us back to this so-called "free market." We're told we're free, but the circumstances under which we make our choices--where we work, where we live, what we buy--are manipulated by forces so much wealthier and, therefore, more powerful than ourselves, that while we may have the choice to say "yes" or "no," what we're saying "yes" or "no" to is completely out of our hands. In other words, unless you're part of the middle- or upper-class, you're free alright, free to eat shit or starve. That, is the essence of this "free market."

But that's all about to change. With the advent of the internet, people are now able, for the first time in history, to see what's really going on. This is why conservatives are so concerned about regulating the internet. If we are all able to communicate and share knowledge, the current power base in this country will shortly be on its way out. Thus far they have depended on legal ambiguities and an ignorant, uneducated populace to keep their power.

The freedom to share information among all classes, the ability to educate the poor and disenfranchised as well as the middle-classes and the elite as to what's really happening in government and around the world, is actually the only thing that will allow us to have a truly free market: one where both the circumstances that create our choices and the choices themselves are a natural by-product of ethical and moral behavior, monitored by a variety of groups providing a constant source of organic checks and balances. This is what a true democracy looks like. And it's scaring the pants off the likes of George W. Bush and Tom DeLay.