It’s customary for op-ed columns to hang themselves on “news hooks” — the things you’re already reading about that just happened, are happening, or may be about to happen. The closest thing I to a “news hook” I could up with for this piece is that my friend Lloyd Sloan supports the presidential candidacy of Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.  So now, if you cared, you know.

You’ve probably heard of RFK Jr. You may not have heard of Lloyd Sloan, who calls himself an “Upper-Left Whig,” and who I call an eccentric libertarian (but I repeat myself), but I really think you SHOULD hear about — and think hard about — his two-question political quiz.

Question #1: Is government too big?

Question #2: Is wealth too unequal?

There are four possible combinations of answers to the two questions, which can be plotted on an up-down, left-right grid, and the positions of the two major parties cover three of the four.

Republicans tend to think government is too big but wealth isn’t too unequal (that’s the “upper right” position).

Democrats tend to think wealth is too unequal but government isn’t too big (the “lower left” position).

But some of each “major party” persuasion answer no to both questions (the “lower right”) position.

Most “third” parties likewise fall into one of those three quadrants.

The “upper left” position — which Sloan dubs the “whig” position — is that yes, government is too big, and yes, wealth is too unequal.

I happen to agree.  Whether RFK Jr. agrees is an interesting question, as is what to do about it, but in this column I’d like to propose that the questions answer each other, and that the affirmative answers to both questions explain the big problem in American politics.

Why is government too big? Because wealth is too unequal. Wealth is power, and the powerful get the government they want at the expense of the rest of us.

Why is wealth too unequal? Because government is too big. It wields sufficient power to redistribute wealth and, contrary to what you may have been led to believe,  it generally does so in an upward rather than downward direction.

While Marxists are wrong about many things, one of their old saws cuts right to the heart of the matter: The state is the executive committee of the ruling class.

That ruling class is defined by its wealth, and the whole point of its rule is to preserve and increase that wealth both through, and as, political power.

What can we do about that, short of abandoning political government altogether (my preferred solution)? I don’t know.

Sloan proposes three starting policy initiatives: Taxing only the rich, freezing government spending, and leaving NATO.

While I’m opposed to taxation, government spending, and foreign military adventurism on principle,, I have to admit that any or all of those proposals would be a start.

We won’t get any of those three from Donald Trump or Joe Biden. So if you envision positive change through voting, consider looking elsewhere.

Thomas L. Knapp (Twitter: @thomaslknapp) is director and senior news analyst at the William Lloyd Garrison Center for Libertarian Advocacy Journalism (thegarrisoncenter.org). He lives and works in north central Florida.

PUBLICATION/CITATION HISTORY

In December, Reuters reports,  India’s “digital rupee” crossed the milestone of more than one million transactions per day. Meanwhile, in early January,  the European Union’s central bank published a rulebook for, and Spain’s central bank  selected “partners” in a pilot/test program for, their own central bank digital currencies (CBDCs). In the US, CBDCs remain at the debate stage.

Governments around the world don’t like “cryptocurrency” very much, but they do like two things about it.

First, they like that Bitcoin, Ether, and other cryptocurrencies have popularized the “next step” of taking money into a completely digital paradigm … not just debit cards linked to bank accounts, in turn linked to theoretical dollars, euros, etc., but doing away with “cash money” (paper bills and metal coins) entirely.

Secondly, they like the idea that the average Joe may assume that CBDCs are just another kind of cryptocurrency, tied to secure/immutable blockchains and with at least some privacy baked into transactions.

To put it as succinctly as possible, no, CBDCs aren’t cryptocurrencies. They’re the digital opposite of cryptocurrencies in important respects. In fact, their main function is to serve as instruments of control over you, your activities, and your finances.

Less succinctly:

If you hold Bitcoin in a “non-custodial wallet” — that is, a wallet that you and no one else holds the cryptographic keys to — your account balance is secure, the transactions you enter into are irreversible, and anyone wanting to know who owns that wallet has to have more than the wallet address to find out. Bitcoin is not inherently anonymous in commerce (if you buy something that has to be delivered with your Bitcoin, for example, SOMEONE will know who you are and where you live), but it’s not immediately transparent to any centralized/authoritative third party.

A CBDC will be operated by a government or government proxy, and every last red cent you receive or spend will be instantly traceable to you … and, more importantly, instantly takeable FROM you.

Suppose, for example, that you’re a mechanic and accept CBDC “dollars” to work on someone’s Corvette. If the government decides that your customer is a drug dealer and resolves to confiscate everything he’s ever touched in an “asset forfeiture” action, the money you received can be instantly seized from your account.

Or suppose you say something in public that the government dislikes and it decides to “freeze your assets” while it investigates you for (to grab a current news hook) “material support of Hamas.” It’s a lot easier to “freeze” CBDC funds — with, pretty much literally, a computer keystroke — than to get hold of the coffee can full of gold Krugerrands you buried at your secret spot in Mark Twain National Forest.

Central banks are not your friends and their CBDC schemes are intended to increase their power over you, not enhance yourability to earn, save, and spend money.  At the political level, register your resistance as best you can. At the financial level, consider moving your finances into areas beyond their control.

Thomas L. Knapp (Twitter: @thomaslknapp) is director and senior news analyst at the William Lloyd Garrison Center for Libertarian Advocacy Journalism (thegarrisoncenter.org). He lives and works in north central Florida.

PUBLICATION/CITATION HISTORY

In late December, US Representative Lauren Boebert (R-CO) packed her carpet bag and moved her 2024 re-election campaign. After supposedly representing her state’s 3rd district for two terms, she’s now seeking to supposedly represent the 4th.

Why? Well, it’s all about safety.

Not her constituents’ safety, her district’s safety, her state’s safety, her party’s safety, or even her personal safety, but the safety of her career climbing the ladder of the American political class.

After eking out re-election by about 500 votes in 2022, she’s not sure she can do it again … at least not where she is. The Democratic opponent she barely beat last time is back for Round 2, this time with a lot more money, a lot more name recognition, and several more public embarrassments under Boebert’s belt to eat away at that tiny margin of victory.

Naturally, Boebert blames “dark money that is directed at destroying me personally,” rather than anything she’s done or failed to do, for her situation.

Meanwhile, fellow Republican Ken Buck has announced his retirement, after five terms, from a “safe GOP” seat that Donald Trump carried by 16 points in 2020.

Sure, there are Republicans who actually live in the 4th District and are interested in replacing Buck, but for Lauren Boebert it’s all about Lauren Boebert.

While the particulars of her move are unusual, the general idea isn’t. It’s often the case that budding politicians will “shop” for, then move to, the districts or states they consider most likely to help launch successful careers.

Then there’s former US Senator Joe Lieberman.

In 2006, Lieberman lost the Democratic primary in his quest for a third term supposedly representing Connecticut. In response, he launched a “third party” campaign and ended up winning the general election with a plurality.

His choice of party name was telling. Most politicians would have gone with “Lieberman for Connecticut,” but in a refreshing fit of honesty he chose “Connecticut for Lieberman,” thus tacitly confessing that, in his view, the state of Connecticut existed for the sole purpose of providing  him with a Senate seat for as long as he darn well felt like sitting in one.

Which is pretty much what Boebert’s telling Coloradoans with her own House district move. And it just may work. Not for them, necessarily, but for her.

These people don’t work for you. They work for themselves. You’re just there to fund their paychecks and benefits. Don’t forget that.

Thomas L. Knapp (Twitter: @thomaslknapp) is director and senior news analyst at the William Lloyd Garrison Center for Libertarian Advocacy Journalism (thegarrisoncenter.org). He lives and works in north central Florida.

PUBLICATION/CITATION HISTORY