Hypocritical Libertarians

Is a legitimate response to corrupt government to have less of it?
We cannot understate the degree to which corporations and politicians scratch each other's backs today in western politics.
Unfortunately an idealistic ideology has been increasingly used as a medium for corruption, that I must repeatedly bring up in this chapter. There are genuinely good, consistent, authentic people in this ideology but they are indifferent to those who are inconsistent and lie, all because of a scared label. I write of course, about libertarianism.

Do not rush to judge me, libertarians, or feel insulted that I've described you as idealistic. I describe myself as such, I only imagine libertarians would feel insulted because they typically imagine themselves as being down-to-earth. I will explain myself, but beforehand I will discuss how twisted libertarianism as become a medium for corruption. Fredrick Von Hayek and Milton Friedman would be turning in their graves after hearing about some politicians twisting the name of libertarianism.

First and foremost would be private competition. Fair competition in the free market is at the heart of monetarist libertarianism. It is not at the heart of the Koch brothers, who have long used twisted libertarianism to influence politics with their millions. They use their resources not to increase competition as would make Friedman proud, but to reduce competition more than necessary in favor of corporations already big.

What is more infuriating is the corruption of academia by twisted libertarians. They provide huge checks to 'educational institutions' claiming to be grassroots and independent, yet supply a selection of eager twisted libertarians. These people then write essays and books that do convince people, under the guise of true libertarianism, that huge oligopolies are no threat to the free market. This is wrong. There are academic papers typed by brilliant writers who are also paid brilliantly. These try with academic precision to convince you that small businesses can take on an oligopoly on a level playing field. This is no overstatement, for within libertarianism academic writers may be hired to write papers supporting your specific view. Many of these organizations claim to be grassroots when they are in fact paid for by ten or eleven very rich people.

My biggest problem with ideal libertarianism is its potential to produce hypocritical, twisted libertarians. True libertarians seem to be indifferent to their presence because they share the label. I cannot stand this. It is typical for members of any ideology to ignore the crazy among them for the sake of solidarity, to appear united. But if libertarians pride themselves in consistency; consistency in its truest form, they cannot hide from the crazy among them.

This kind of corruption makes limits to individual wealth a necessity for a just society and a good life. In the 1950's, American president Eisenhower in order to balance the budget, raised the top tax rate for those making over 200,000 dollars (2 million today) to 89%. He was, as a side note. How could someone possibly sustain an high-end career under such tax rates? You may well ask Ringo Starr and Paul McCartney; the Beatles paid a top income tax rate of 91%.
My point is by stating all is this; the rhetoric spouted by libertarians today would have you believe that society cannot function properly without low top tax rates. History has shown we can function well with high top tax rates!
Unfortunately today, I have to state a solution that is in equal parts outlandish, pragmatic, and idealistic. If it could be enacted, it would genuinely work.
The Keynesian Era of economics (1945-80's) saw far greater rates of economic growth and far greater stability than with libertarian-preferred Monetarism. These consistent decades cannot be passed over as some sort of anomaly. Monetarist economics has had its own decades to vindicate itself yet we have seen far greater financial instability, far slower economic growth and far higher unemployment, while taxes on top earners have been lower than ever. The monetarist response seems to be to blame all problems on any Keynesian policies that persist! The sheer audacity!
What Keynesian policies persist? Obama's stimulus bill was Keynesian in nature.
Another sad notion discussed by terrible business economists only a year ago was government debt as a cause of instability. They would see austerity measures and federal debt reduction act as confidence to investors. I believe there's a term for this, 'confidence fairy', asking for confidence under conditions that work against. Let this be clear, as unemployment skyrockets and business fail, the government receives less through income (payroll) taxes, less corporate tax and spends more on supporting the unemployed on welfare.
What makes tax rates like those I've mentioned impractical today are the fact that the top earners in society have gained so much money, they have all the resources needed to evade taxes (when they're not lobbying for less). All the same, there is no reason -do note- to have top tax rates a mere 5% or 10% higher then working class have to pay.

Here's why so little: the 1% with all the money and power associated, in the government or private realm, they by default have all the resources they need to dodge taxes. They'll leave their nations onetime want one or third passport is remarkably easy to come by for these people. My family worked its way up the social ladder in two decades. I own two passports, assisted only by the nature of the citizenship test, and being a natural citizen of the commonwealth. While we were supposed to stay in the UK, business called him closer to the United States, where the company is based. And so I consider myself to have become British-Canadian by trickier means. Don't worry, I have a friend I may be compared to:
A former (likable and relaxed) classmate of mine, a true rich kid ethnically half Iraqi and half Lebanese, had the passports for Iraq, America, France, Canada, and the United Kingdom. Those are simply the ones I remember and of which I am absolutely certain. When I asked him about them, he responded that his family are simply given them because of his dad's business in all these countries, for reasons of sheer convenience. You're a charismatic mate, and I put up with your wealth because you weren't judgmental or a show-off... No one should have such easy access to so many passports! There's no excusing this! Some consider my access to a second passport easy, and I really don't care if I sound like a hypocrite here. A clear line needs to be drawn, as the richest individual should never own more than three passports. You would never, ever introduce yourself as 'the French-Canadian-American-British-Iraqi guy'.