By ROBERT CAPEHERT
Beilstein’s earlier piece, The Government Verses The State, interacted with Jonah Goldberg’s review of Kevin D. Williamson’s new book, The End is Near and it’s Going To Be Awesome, published in the June 17 issue of National Review (on dead trees).
Beilstein peek-a-booed at National Review writers Williamson and Goldberg’s insightful ideas on the differences between government—as articulated by Albert Jay Nock—and the idea of the State, antithetical to American constitutionalism.
Personally, what interests this author is Williamson’s clarification of how individual liberty and freedom spawn continuous and exemplar innovation of products and services Americans need and desire.
Williamson then explains why politics creates an opposite, and stagnate antipode. The failure of our tyrannical political system, says Williamson, both fiscally and structurally, cannot be maintained. Hence the notion of ‘the end being near.’ The result, says Williamson, will be a rebirth of private sector innovation and liberty, because of the implosion of State-controlled life in America.
How many Americans are pulled down in the slipstream of economic impecuniosity, following a collapse—at least to my thinking—is problematic, and worrisome. But Williamson’s thesis is empirical and thoughtful.
Goldberg’s review quotes Williamson, who writes,
“The problem of politics is that it does not know how to get less wrong.”
From this, Goldberg surmises,
“While new iPhones regularly burst forth like gifts from the gods, politics plods along. “Other than Social Security, there are very few vintage products still in use,” he [Williamson] writes.”
Further, quoting Williamson: “Resistance to innovation is apart of the deep structure of politics.”
The effect of a fiscal collapse on the American media is what interests this author. In our current times, the advertising structure of journalism is falling apart—and a viable revenue stream has yet to be invented.
Some, like schizoid blogger Andrew Sullivan, have gone to an Internet yearly pay model (as have some big newspapers)—but “the next” thing still seems a distant shore away.
Whoever discovers a profitable model will garner a fortune. Needless to say, it is interesting to speculate what Williamson’s thesis would portend, then, for big media. Will there be a big media?
Eh, who knows. One can hope… or pray, whatever rises from the ashes will be the kind of journalism that reports the news and is not a strident cheer leading section of a given ideological and political partisanship.
Right now, it seems a new model is afoot (without a viable revenue model) where the Mainstream Media is a thing of the past—yesterday’s three big networks—in favour of lots of different ideological perspectives, a throwback to journalistic news gathering of 100 years ago.
Back in the day, cities had leftist newspapers and conservative newspapers, all competing for readership. This allowed, in most cases, the best product to gain the widest readership. Scouring Internet news sites, this is the model which appears to be developing now; one which has been devastating to MSM monopoly on political news and punditry.
Mr Williamson’s book is a welcome addition to conservative/libertarian ideas; a hopeful classically liberal polemic; one expositing individual freedom’s natural creation of innovation, which coupled together, creates expanded human flourishing and ethical human conservation, free of coercion from the State.
In his slyly written reality check, Williamson successfully announces, ultimately, the failure of the State as monolithic planner and overseer of men and women, who as individuals—at violent odds with progressive ideology—are not herds of cattle, but in the eyes of constitutional civil authority, uniquely always, and ever should be, in our secular age, sovereign individuals.