The Left and the Right are No Different

politics, left vs right, news

There is no difference between the left and the right when it comes to the establishment. Regardless of political stance, the establishment is for corporate welfare, starting and continuing wars, and maintaining the status quo. There may be a few differences when it comes to implementing such and such policy, but the resounding fact is that they are both for increasing the powers of the government, which in turn, only serves to increase their own power, influence, and wealth.

In this time where we have immediate access to the internet and media information, people have become even more polarized – friendships, families, relationships are torn apart due to political and cultural differences – due to the heightened media coverage of politics, cultural events, and the demonization of the other, which has seeped into the minds and sentiments of the general public.

The left and the right both disparage each other. The left calls the right Nazis, white supremacists, careless killers, conservatards, while the right calls the left commies, socialists, snowflakes, and libtards. They both scapegoat the other and blame them for our problems, but most people on both the left and the right do not want to see the world end in ruin. Most people do not want the worst for humanity. Most people do not want us to live in a worse society. Most people don’t want people to die, to struggle, to suffer. People in general wish good for people – a better society with less poverty, fewer problems, less worry, less danger, more happiness, more joy, more prosperity. 

If we both want the same ends, why are we so divided? It’s due to the differences in cultural and ideological worldviews, and the corporate press and prominent cultural figures make matters worse by sensationalizing these differences when specific political and cultural events take place, driving groups further and further away from each other. They always make it a left vs right issue, a white vs black issue, when in reality, it’s almost always a State vs the people issue, and both those on the left and the right mistakenly continue to give more power to the State to address these issues via their own respective means. And when both the left and the right fail to achieve their desired outcomes, they blame these outcomes on different problems. 

The left thinks that our problems come from the rich, the 1%, and the conservatives while the right thinks that our problems come from terrorists, immigrants, and the liberals. The left cares deeply about the environment and the climate, poor and victimized minorities, more social freedom, free healthcare and education, and equity. The right cares deeply about jobs, the preservation of culture and tradition, more economic freedom, the family unit, and the rule of law and order. All of these problems do exist – these issues are important – but the questions are: 

1. What is the underlying problem that both the left and the right seem to misidentify? and

2. How do we best resolve these issues?

To answer the first question, if we remove the State from the equation and allowed a just and voluntary, unregulated marketplace of goods, services, and ideas, most of these problems would be resolved. 

Removing the State ends corporate welfare, removes the bailing out of the banks, allows big business to be competed against, prevents big business from controlling the market via policy and regulations, and holds big business accountable for their damages. The 1% and the rich would not be much of a problem because they now could not cheat their way to maintain their wealth – they would have to continue meeting the demands of their consumers to maintain their wealth just like everyone else.

Removing the State also mitigates the growth of terrorism given that the State has been an imperialist empire that has developed terrorism throughout the world due to the drone bombing of hundreds of thousands of innocent children, mothers, and fathers, the occupation of tens of countries all over the world, the incessant involvement in the politics of other countries and funding and arming regime changes, and the relentless support and funding of powerful allies that engage in genocidal attacks on defenseless groups of people. 

Removing the State removes the welfare state, which removes the negative incentive for immigrants to leech off of government programs. Removing the State makes it easier and safer for immigrants to travel into these areas in search of work and a better opportunity for their families. Removing the State allows for a voluntary movement of people between areas and property belonging to consenting parties. Removing the State promotes self-reliance on oneself, one’s family, and one’s community and encourages consenting individuals to make exchanges that benefit both of them. Most problems are due to the State or made much worse due to State intervention.

Now, to answer the second question, we must resolve these issues carefully. We must not do anything immoral – the ends do not ever justify the means, and we must also be efficient. We must not waste and misallocate resources. A simple analysis of the State is that the State is immoral. What people need to understand is that the State is a mafia. It’s a mafia disguised as a human rights organization. You can’t vote out the mafia; you can’t join a mafia and change it from within. The mafia is immoral and should be regarded as such. The State is immoral because it uses violence to enforce its authority – stealing from people to subsidize its programs and infrastructure and threatening peaceful people at gunpoint to follow the State’s creed – no matter how foolish and unjust it is.

For those of you that believe that the State is a necessary evil, the State is also inefficient, ruling it, in actuality, both evil and unnecessary. The State is inefficient because it has no competition. For this reason, the State misallocates resources, provides goods and services for inflated prices, provides goods and services for sub-par quality, has no incentivization to provide higher quality goods and services, cannot go out of business, is not held accountable for environmental, psychological, and health harms – the State usually scathes scot-free, and when some actors are convicted for their aggressions, they are given lenient sentences with special privileges. 

So, if the State is both immoral and inefficient, why do the left and the right advocate for using the State as a means to achieve their mutual ideal ends?

There are two answers. The first is propaganda. We are propagandized by schools, the corporate press, and the State to believe in so-called democracy – to believe in the power of one’s vote – to believe in the use of the State to organize society. We are sold a carefully constructed narrative of our founding fathers, the Constitution, and our rights that the State so-called protects. We are sold this idea that the State is a virtuous body that takes care of the people and protects their rights when in actuality, it does the exact opposite. 

The second answer is that it really comes down to the lack of principles. The left and the right tend to not be principled – they are not consistent with their views. They simply want to see their means implemented as long as it doesn’t interfere with their other valued means. 

The left will advocate for the right to murder unborn black babies via abortion but will be loud and vocal when black lives are brutalized by the police. 

The right will advocate for the abolition of the murder of unborn babies via abortion but will be loud and vocal to fund the murder of foreign babies overseas. 

The left will advocate for the stealing of the majority of the wealth of the 1% and the rich but will be in a fervorous rage about the stealing of people’s property via civil asset forfeiture, evictions for failure to pay rent, and housing foreclosures.

The right will advocate for fiscal economic policy yet they will be all for increasing spending and printing more money and bailing out the banks as long as it funds the policies they care for.

We must be consistent and be against all forms of aggression – all initiations of force – regardless of the demographics, politics, and cultures of the victims. When it comes to rape and slavery, people are consistent. Just as it’s immoral to rape a woman, it’s immoral to rape a man or a child. Just as it’s immoral to enslave a black family, it’s immoral to enslave a white family or an Asian family. But, when it comes to the State, it’s not seen in that manner. The common denominator between rape, slavery, and the State’s aggressions is the unjust use of force. The just use of force is self-defense – any use of force outside of that is immoral – no matter how virtuous your end is. And, that’s the inherent nature of the State – it initiates the use of force onto peaceful people that violate victimless laws.

The issues that both the left and the right care about and are concerned about can be both addressed morally and efficiently if we remove the obstacle that is the State. Decades ago, we were wrong for using DDT as a means for pesticides which led to the increase in polio and childhood death, we were wrong for drowning women condemned as witches during the Salem witch trials, we were wrong about performing lobotomies on people – what if, for ages now, we have also been wrong about the State?

The following two tabs change content below.

Eric Barajas

Eric Barajas has a BA in psychology and a minor in education studies from UCLA. He has participated in a teaching program through Teach for America, which enabled him to work as a salaried teacher at any one of their affiliated K-12 public schools as an intern-credentialed teacher. He worked as a resource specialist teacher/special education teacher. He is an anarchocapitalist and seeks to become involved in the self-directed learning movement.