[Image]
Ace of Spades is one of my favorite bloggers, but he is a bit late to the game on this one, isn't he?

Well yeah, but at least he admits it, and he is as articulate as usual on the subject?

From Ace:
The term "feudal" is, I am thinking, fairly commonly used in libertarian circles. I don't read libertarians very often, though, so to me the term is novel. (I hate admitting I'm way behind on knowing something I should have known long ago but that's the truth of it.)

Anyway, Reason magazine drops the f-bomb (feudal, I mean) so casually I have to think this is a common criticism. For me it's a bit of a (embarrassed to say) revelation, because I hadn't conceived of the socialist/corporatist model of Obamanomics as being, among other things, essentially feudal in nature, involving a raft of special privileges for baronial elites (and the reciprocal promise of those barons to support their liege in war).

But it's completely apt. It's spot-on.

This lens of a new feudalism gives me a new understanding of what is going on with Obama's waivers on health care for all his bestest baronial buddies and Obama's very special waiver for very, very powerful baron GE as regards global warming rules.

Reason puts the feudal system (personal favor-banking and influence peddling) as the opposite of a "republican" system, a system of laws not barons, where everyone stands equal under the law -- everyone subject to the punitive compulsions of law and no afforded special monarchial dispensation from the law.

In that context, I'm wondering at what point a system of waivers becomes actually unconstitutional -- because anyone not granted a waiver is being burdened by a restrictive and possibly punitive law that others aren't. Isn't he?

That is, there is no difference, effectively, between saying "All people are subject to 80% taxation rates, but a special category of Friends of Obama shall be waived from this general rule and only pay 35%" or directly making a law of specific persons (all conservatives) who will have to pay taxes at the 80% rate. The latter would be a clearly illegal, punitive law -- but the former would be allowed (or is being allowed now, at least) while accomplishing the exact same goal, penalizing some while privileging others.

A system of waivers from the basic law is no different than a system of legal burdens being legislated against specific named persons.