The Illusion of Freedom
It sounds so good: Less government, more freedom. An old neoliberal mantra that is still eagerly repeated on drinks from real estate investors and in the LinkedIn posts of self-proclaimed ‘freedom thinkers’. But what if less government does not lead to more freedom, but to less protection? To less control, less influence and ultimately: Less humanity?
“When everything is left to the market, you are no longer a citizen, but only a consumer with a thin wallet.”
Dogshit economy: when loss is presented as progress
In ‘Geometry Hates Cars’, Cory introduces Doctorow the Concept unit economy: the calculation of whether each product or service sold separately generates a profit. If a company can only survive by losing money on each unit – and still survives thanks to subsidies, hype or monopolistic tricks – then Doctorow mentions that dogshit economics. An economy of bogus profit, polished with public money and political goodwill.
Look at Elon Musk. Its tunnel vision on infrastructure – literally: The Boring Company — swallowed billions in taxpayers’ money and then turned it into a Tesla file under Las Vegas. Starlink (via SpaceX) offers ‘internet for all’, but relies on frequency allocations and launch subsidies from the US government. And who is finally starting to ask critical questions about it? The FCC, which recently backtracked on subsidies for Starlink, precisely because the promised performance is not being delivered.
Without public money and political cover, these companies would have gone bankrupt long ago. But instead of control, we demand ‘less rules’. And meanwhile, Musk buys himself a position of inviolability — without ever being accountable.
“Dogshit economics is what you get when you confuse subsidy with success and accountability with bureaucracy.”
The invisible hand has blood on its hands.
Think of care, education, housing. A contractor earns more from twenty houses of five tons than from a hundred houses of a ton and a little. You'd rather see a hospital go than come. An old people's home only becomes profitable if it can swallow up an inheritance.
Who protects you from this logic? Not the market. They want your wallet, not your well-being. It is the government that regulates these interests. But if you make her winglam with slogans about deregulation and efficiency, who will she serve?
“As soon as the government withdraws, capital steps forward. And capital does not listen to people, only to returns.”
Protection is not a restriction
A well-protected employee is expensive. Not an employee in a sweatshop. A farmer survives mainly thanks to subsidies and loans, often through a bank that lets farmers live just enough to pay off their debts. And meanwhile, we believe that freedom is what you get when the government withdraws. That's nonsense.
Government intervention is not a violation of your freedom. It's an attempt to protect your humanity in a system that reduces you to profit per square meter.
“Freedom without protection is like swimming in an ocean full of sharks – and then being proud not to wear a life jacket.”
Transparency is not a luxury
A government without transparency is not a government of the people. It is only an extension of other interests. That's why every government needs to be able to explain what it does with your tax money. Not as a bureaucratic obstacle, but as a democratic duty.
Doctorow points to a painful point: “We have developed technology that allows us to track everything but power.” If transparency is lacking, you have to ask yourself: Who is protected here? The citizen? Or the capital?
“If you don’t know who is serving your government, see who is never bothered by it.”
English (UK)