
Just a Good Ol' Boy
So.
I've been reading "Life", an autobiography by Keith Richards.
And being a bit of a music fanatic, I very much enjoy reading of the genesis of the Rolling Stones, and, in fact, Keith Richards' keen insight into the development of rock and roll generally.
But.
What I didn't expect is that this living and breathing rock and roll stereotype would have some lessons to give us as conservatives.
Firstly - on the issue of tax. As Keith Richards explains:
"The tax rate in the early 70's on the highest earners was 83 percent, and that went up to 98 percent for investments and so-called unearned income. So that's the same as being told to leave the country.Think about that, for a moment. That a government can actually increase taxes to a point where those earning income will take their income elsewhere. So. Instead of collecting 30 or 40%, you collect zero.
And I take my hat off to Rupert for figuring a way out of massive debt for us. It was Rupert's advice that we become nonresident-the only way we could ever get back on our feet financially.
The last thing I think the powers that be expected when they hit us with the super-super tax is that we'd say, fine, we'll leave. We'll be another one not paying tax to you. They just didn't factor that in. It made us bigger than ever, and it produced Exile on Main St., which was maybe the best thing we did They didn't believe we'd be able to continue as we were if we didn't live in England. And in all honestly, we were very doubtful too. We didn't know if we would make it, but if we didn't try, what would we do? Sit in England and they'd give us a penny out of every pound we earned? We had no desire to be closed down. And so we upped and went to France."
The second, more subtle lesson, however, has to do with "the man" if you will. The state and it's control over our lives.
As Richards describes the effort of the Rolling Stones to push against the confines of "ordered society", he describes his experience in dealing with, ostensibly, a charge of allowing people to smoke marijuana in his home:
"I'm a guitar player in a pop band and I'm being targeted by the British government and its vicious police force, all of which shows me how frightened they are. We won two world wars, and these people are shivering in their goddamn boots. "All of your children will be like this if you don't stop this right now." There was such ignorance on both sides. We didn't know we were doing anything that was going to bring the empire crashing to the floor, and they were searching in the sugar bowls not knowing what they were looking for."
Certainly, many hard-line social conservatives will say, "Bloody right, should have put them in jail and thrown away the key!"
And, yet.
How do we feel about Human Rights commissions telling us what jokes can and can't be told for fear of being prosecuted by the might of the state?
How do we feel about being told that the government should have the right to raise our children, and not their parents?
It all comes from the same place.
There is a line somewhere between the obligation of the government to provide order, preventing people from killing eachother and stealing eachother's goods - and the inclination of the government to meddle in our lives to assure THEIR version of proper order where our actions are benign except in some removed amorphous sense of "harming society".
And the sad thing, as I finish reading "Life" is that there was a moment, a brief period where the "man" was weakened and where something approaching real freedom existed. Maybe it was some point in the late 60's or early 70's - and then, like a tide, it washed back.
Now, oddly, we live in a time where we smile and hand our freedoms over to the state willingly and with great vigor. "Of course we can't have people openly discussing their prejudices and fears - those are too subversive to allow in public discourse, better that we all pretend to be "enlightened", even as we allow our own ignorance to flourish, like fungus in the cellar, away from public view.
Hunter Thompson saw the same thing, and in a passage from Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas, which I have quoted in this blog before, he expressed that same crushing defeat of "freedom":
Strange memories on this nervous night in Las Vegas. Five years later? Six? It seems like a lifetime, or at least a Main Era—the kind of peak that never comes again. San Francisco in the middle sixties was a very special time and place to be a part of. Maybe it meant something. Maybe not, in the long run ...but no explanation, no mix of words or music or memories can touch that sense of knowing that you were there and alive in that corner of time and the world. Whatever it meant ...Many conservatives will disagree with me.
History is hard to know, because of all the hired bullshit, but even without being sure of "history" it seems entirely reasonable to think that every now and then the energy of a whole generation comes to a head in a long fine flash, for reasons that nobody really understands at the time—and which never explain, in retrospect, what actually happened.
My central memory of that time seems to hang on one or five or maybe forty nights—or very early mornings—when I left the Fillmore half-crazy and, instead of going home, aimed the big 650 Lightning across the Bay Bridge at a hundred miles an hour wearing L. L. Bean shorts and a Butte sheepherder's jacket ...booming through the Treasure Island tunnel at the lights of Oakland and Berkeley and Richmond, not quite sure which turn-off to take when I got to the other end (always stalling at the toll-gate, too twisted to find neutral while I fumbled for change) ... but being absolutely certain that no matter which way I went I would come to a place where people were just as high and wild as I was: No doubt at all about that ...
There was madness in any direction, at any hour. If not across the Bay, then up the Golden Gate or down 101 to Los Altos or La Honda .... You could strike sparks anywhere. There was a fantastic universal sense that whatever we were doing was right, that we were winning ....
And that, I think, was the handle—that sense of inevitable victory over the forces of Old and Evil. Not in any mean or military sense; we didn’t need that. Our energy would simply prevail. There was no point in fighting—on our side or theirs. We had all the momentum; we were riding the crest of a high and beautiful wave ....
So now, less than five years later, you can go up on a steep hill in Las Vegas and look West, and with the right kind of eyes you can almost see the high-water mark —that place where the wave finally broke and rolled back.
They will attack the gun registry, but welcome with great vigor the building of new jails and imposition of manditory minimum sentences from our current government - none of which programs have any substantive evidence behind them to suggest they will make us safer.
They will wail and moan over the injustice of our arbitrary and largely unaccountable Human Rights police, yet fail to come to the aid of homosexuals and others who merely ask to be left alone to live their lives on their terms as long as they aren't harming anyone else.
We live in a time where "the man" has taken back the reigns. Except, in our time, they haven't done it at the point of a gun or with threats of jail. They have talked us into handing them over, willingly, and happily.
And, yet, there are some.. perhaps like Keith Richards, who can still provide us some glimpses of insight into our own folly.
Something to think about.
6 comments:
Good post. Flip it around and send it to progressives as well. The lesson is the same and hard ideologues are, in the end, the same on left or right: they want the power of government to force you to do what they want and think is good.
But I disagree with you on one fundamental point: that we have less freedom now than we did before. The kind of censorship the state had, all over the "free" world, up until the 1980s is unparalleled today, even with the Human Rights Commissions. Now (or at least under Bush), you might get fined $700,000 for showing a milisecond of a woman's breast from hundreds of metres away at a Super Bowl game; but there was a time when you would be thrown in jail for that. Reagan wanted to go back to that but the forces of freedom in the 1980s were too strong and still are.
Now, some conservatives are fighting school boards for teaching about sex in school. In the 1960s, health practitioners were threatened with fines and losing their license for talking about condoms and the pill with their own patients, and in the 1940s and 1950s some were thrown into jail for talking about condoms.
I don't mean to pick on conservative anti-freedom here. It just happens that in our past we were more conservative on such matters. We were also far more accepting of state decisions on our behalf and especially state censorship.
Thanks Ted,
And I agree.. there are far too many people who think they know what is good "for their neighbor", and maybe if they just took care of their own house, we'd have less government, lower taxes and a more responsible citizenry..
But I think you're going back too gar when you say, properly, that there was a time in the 50's when society here was pretty draconian.. I'm just suggesting that there was a glimpse of freedom - perhaps not "officially", but in the broader society in the laste 70's that we seem to have retreated from full force..
I wouldn't suggest you need to go back to the 50s to get that kind of state control over our lives.
There was a sense of a certain kind of freedom in the 1970s. Certainly if you were white and middle class there was.
But the rallying cry of the left since then was to take those easy slogans and turn them into transformative change.
But the rallying cry of today's conservatives has been to turn back the tide of the 1970s.
And yet I would still argue we have far more freedom today than in even the 1980s or 1990s. Especially when it comes to social issues like race, sexual orientation, labour mobility, speech (think about what wasn't allowed on TV in the 1980s and is now).
But there are dark clouds on the horizon and lots of wolves wearing sheeps clothing.
Ted..
Watch "All in the Family".. ran from 1971 to 1979.
I think there are, from a legislative point of view, some progressive (careful with that word) efforts that have improved the lot of many who didn't have the freedoms that they were entitled to, including women, minorities, homosexuals.. who asked for nothing but to be permitted an equal opportunity.
However, the might of the government in the 1970's was never leveled against the individual as it is now for simply speaking their mind.
And, perhaps I overstate somewhat the current state of affairs, but I fear the situation is getting worse, not better.
Children being sent home from school and suspended because they dared call another child "fat".
Really?
We're so quick in the last decade or so for patting ourselves on the back as we continue to narrow the bounds of "acceptable" conversation.
We pass laws allowing for arbitrary detention of citizens, without probable cause, so check if they are wearing their seatbelts.
We pass laws creating presumptions of guilt in impaired driving cases, allowing the state to curtail our freedoms by re-describing them as "privileges" before we even are allowed to appear in court and face our accuser.
We pass laws reducing our ability to cross-examine and question our accuser in sexual assault cases.
We authorize our government to hide cameras in unmarked cars and attached to light poles to catch us committing offenses and then pass other laws making the results of those photographs presumptive evidence of guilt with no burden on the state to give any evidence to substantiate it.
And as we do it, we smile and say, "but it's all for the best".
We pass laws allowing our government to share personal information with other countries without our knowledge and our consent to be used against us in any manner they see fit - without any controls on how the foreign agent may use that information.
These laws have all been created in the last 20 years.
These are not "remnants" of the days of McCarthy - they are the machinery of the great protector! The Government.
Yes - there has been some progress.
But at what price?
Lost a whole post because my computer froze. And it was so brilliant it would have convinced you completely!
But let me recap it.
You have provided all sorts of anecdotal evidence that is very worrisome indeed. One must always be vigilant of one's rights.
But even the notion of state vs individual rights is one that is fairly recent in Canada, and the constitutional authority that trumps the Crown was only brought in 25 years ago by that evil Trudeau dude. The unfettered Crown power was considered sacrosanct. So much so that even Trudeau's Charter had to include s.1 and the notwithstanding clause to placate the traditionalists.
You lament the partial reverse onus of presumption of guilt in drunk driving cases. First of all, the cases do not do this. But more importantly, before Trudeau's Charter that conservative rail against ceaselessly, this was a normal thing, ended only with the famous R. v. Oakes case.
Before Trudeau's Charter, you could be thrown in jail for trafficking if you were in mere possession of narcotics (Oakes changed that), if you opened your own business or sold your own goods on the Christian Sabbath (it was actually called the Lord's Day Act! and R. v. Edwards ended that). Before the Charter, the Crown could wait forever to bring charges against you; Askov ended that. Nothing stopped any government from allowing discrimination against gays until the Vriend decision. A woman and her doctor and nurses could be thrown into jail for terminating a pregnancy even if her health was at risk and even if the foetus was unviable until the Charter. Want to sell a magazine with nudity? You faced jail time and the loss of your property and shut down of your whole store until the late 1980s and until the late 1990s if it was gay nudity.
You worry about warrantless searches and arbitrary incarcerations. That was routine before the Charter and much better now.
However, you are right to worry.
I do think that the state is in fact far more curtailed now than prior to 1990. But as I said we must always remain vigilant.
Last year, Canada had its largest mass arrest in our history with almost all of the arrests groundless, random and arbitrary searches in the thousands. And Harper is set to re-introduce laws that will make the kind of police actions you worry about - warrantless searches and detentions without charges - legal. The 25th anniversary of the Charter came and went without even a press release from the government. The government has expressly stated that it will not enforce your human rights in another country.
There are indeed very dark clouds on the horizon. Power hungry leaders have a powerful hunger for your rights.
LOL.. sorry for the computer problems.
But.
The point remains.. and I think can be made out, that there is a sly sort of "smiley faced" facism that creeps up on us, almost without realizing it.
From either side of the political spectrum - and probably with the best of intentions.
But - it's still state intrusion into individual liberty.
And I fear that it's all the more insidious when it's well intentioned - as an overt effort to curtail our rights would be fought over. Much less likely that anyone raises a fuss when the effort is to combat drunk driving, or child pornography, or bigotry and the like.
I fear that we're not as diligent as we ought to be - and that includes our legal community and our judiciary.
Post a Comment