John Hayward Profile picture
6 Apr, 19 tweets, 3 min read
For decades we argued about the fictitious "wall of separation between church and state," when we should have been building a higher and thicker wall of separation between corporations and state.
What was the point of all that "wall between church and state" stuff? In theory, it's about separating elections and government from not religious FAITH, but religious ORGANIZATIONS. You can't order individuals not to vote based on their deep personal religious convictions.
The fear was that religious organizations would exercise power over the elected government, imposing their beliefs on everyone. The image of medieval popes manipulating European kings was constantly invoked. We supposedly had to be on guard against Bible pages becoming law.
In truth, Islamic caliphates and sharia law would have been better and more current examples, but the Western Left in the 60s and 70s had absolutely no interest in turning a critical eye against non-European cultures, governments, or traditions.
And in even grimmer truth, we should have understood all along that corporate power harnessed to politics is a greater threat to liberty in the modern West than the political influence of religion. It's not even a close call, as woke corporations are eagerly demonstrating today.
Today's woke corporations are every bit of the threat yesterday's Left claimed organized religion could be. A few powerful members of the corporate clergy make political decisions, and their vast payroll congregations are immediately mobilized to implement them.
It's worse than yesterday's fantasies about popes imposing their ideology on secular government, because paid corporate employees implement political decisions that run against their personal beliefs, or have no influence over what the company does with the wealth they create.
And as we're seeing today, politicized corporations can bring huge amounts of compulsive force to bear against voters who resist their ideology. They don't give a damn about the rights of minorities in a democracy, or even if the majority strongly opposes their ideology.
With woke corporations, you obey their commands or you will be punished. No organized religion in the modern U.S. ever had comparable power to punish individual people for refusing to vote the way they demanded. None had the same level of dominance over media and even speech.
There you have one of the big problems with the fusion of corporate muscle and political power: there are no restraints, no safe havens, no way for individuals to escape punishment for refusing to obey. Corporate enforcers can act where the Constitution restrains the State.
All too often in modern America, we see rights that have become inalienable only in THEORY. In practice, corporate ideological enforcers can make it prohibitively expensive, or outright impossible, for you to actually exercise those rights.
When corporate muscle is combined with an aggressive political agenda under a party like the Democrats that is very comfortable with using totalitarian methods to achieve what it sees as virtuous ends, the result is a massive increase in the level of compulsion against citizens
Politicized religion can make all kinds of mistakes, but it was never a threat to liberty and democracy on the scale of woke corporations in the U.S. It never could have brought so much compulsive force to bear against individuals outside of our constitutional system.
The saddest thing about where we are today is that we KNEW the wall of separation between corporations and state was important. We knew the fusion of politics and industry - distinct but linked, with politicians in total control of privately owned capital - was dangerous.
We knew this because we had just fought and won a devastating world war against the system where totalitarian political parties use privately-owned capital as an instrument to achieve ideological ends and discipline their populations.
But my parents' generation, and mine, were tricked into seeing only the hideous superficial characteristics of that supposedly defeated system, not its true inner nature, not what really made it dangerous. And now it's back, and becoming the dominant ideology of the entire world.
Everything we could do to separate corporate power and money from the State would improve our republic and increase individual liberty. We should once again restrict compulsive force to elected officials who are restrained tightly by the Constitution. We should reduce corruption.
But you can't do that without taking the crucial step that our powerful entrenched system will never let us take: reducing the size of the State. You can only build walls of separation so high. They are useless when the State and its corporate partners tower far above them.
As long as the State is so huge, corporate power will gravitate to it, buying its influence and profiting from the public treasury. And as long as the State is so ambitious, it will desire corporate partners to help it circumvent the legal restrictions on its power. /end

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh

Keep Current with John Hayward

John Hayward Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!


Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @Doc_0

8 Apr
Debates over big spending bills like "infrastructure" absurdly proceed as if the U.S. government is tiny and underfunded, and this is the first time it has asked the American people for vast sums of money to tackle the problem under discussion.
In truth, the government is floating in a vast sea of money, and billions of it just vanish into thin air - absorbed by staggering bureaucratic costs, stolen by fraudsters, poured into political slush funds. A great deal of that money is weaponized against the American people.
There is absolutely ZERO reason to believe the current administration and federal bureaucracy can be trusted with billions of dollars to build infrastructure. Everything about their track record argues to the contrary. The American people would be fools to trust them.
Read 24 tweets
7 Apr
American culture and politics are largely based on assuming the worst intentions and motivations for everything individuals say and do. Imagine where we could go if we flipped that script and assumed the best: trusting each other, showing patience and forgiveness.
There would be mistakes and debacles, of course. People are not always worthy of trust. They don't always respond to goodwill in kind. Sometimes it's a mistake to assume good intentions. People don't always take the second chance offered by forgiveness.
We wouldn't want to become utterly naive or dangerously ignorant, of course, but in our conversations and culture, we've grown dangerously short of goodwill, and that is a vital resource for a functioning civil society, a nation of sovereign individuals who value liberty.
Read 18 tweets
5 Apr
This should be an existential crisis for "60 Minutes," and maybe for the entire CBS News division.

Lucky for them, our "news" media has degenerated into such a gruesome circus of political propaganda that it probably won't even get anyone reprimanded.
The crude and fraudulent DeSantis hit piece is on par with Rathergate, but this time there probably won't be any pretense of an internal investigation or heads rolling. The media learned from 2004 that it should never admit wrongdoing, or even simulate accountability.
The media's takeaway from Rathergate and the rise of blogging and alternative media wasn't "tell the truth and don't let political partisans invent phony news stories." It wasn't even "try not to get caught lying." It was "do not admit error or seek accountability."
Read 8 tweets
1 Apr
At the same time the Left was sneering at ordinary people for being too obsessed with money and materialism, they were using gigantic amounts of money - much of it pilfered from us through taxes and gov't spending - to destroy our society and remake it in their image.
For all their pious sermons about the Evil Dollar and rising above material concerns to achieve spiritual fulfillment, leftists are the most money-grubbing people in the world. Their "movement" is fueled by mountains of cold hard cash, not popular appeal.
One suspects the decades of leftist sermons against the sins of money and materialism were largely intended to make gullible middle-class people stop valuing their income and assets, making it easier for the Left to seize them. And seize they did, on a staggering scale.
Read 17 tweets
31 Mar
A coldly rational and impartial observer, comparing the outcomes between states and counties, would have no choice but to conclude that masks make the coronavirus pandemic WORSE.…
Another possibility is that masks have very minimal benefits, which are completely overwhelmed by other factors in different locations - but in comparisons were other factors seem nearly identical, states with strict mask mandates and high compliance tend to fare worse.
This seems like an awfully important point to resolve, doesn't it? Shouldn't we be urgently digging into this "mask paradox" with every scientific tool at our disposal? We are not just urged, but often FORCED to wear them. We should determine if they're worse than useless.
Read 12 tweets
31 Mar
"Universal basic income," under any label, means you work for the State and the State owns you. Politicians have no reason to fear voters who depend on them for food.
The idealistic model for universal income is a small, homogenous country with a very modest government and a small political class. In THEORY, such a state could implement UBI as the ONLY government welfare program. It would still be dangerous, but the danger would be limited.
Why is a homogenous population important? Because the lack of serious internal conflicts means the State would be less inclined to use UBI as political weapon. Why is a small population important? Because big governments are INEVITABLY more corrupt.
Read 17 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!

This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Too expensive? Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal Become our Patreon

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!