Actually, "that there's all dem inequality" is not really my point, though I'll take full responsibility for the failure to communicate. My point is more like, the government that keeps promising to save us already has tons of power. Tons of it. It's got the direct control of a fifth of the economy, massive power over the rest, etc etc, which is what I was trying to say.

My point is that if giving the government more power was going to solve all of our problems, it should have by now. We've been giving it more power. Us libertarian types are thoroughly outnumbered by conventional rightists and leftists, who both agree that the government should have more power, they just disagree what it should use it on and who should use it, but when it comes down to the compromise vote, the government almost always ends up with more power. It has been a monotonic ratchet since at least the New Deal.

We've been promised nirvana if they just have more power, and yet, lo, we've given them all this power and apparently the situation is worse than ever, if you listen to them. Is it really such a crazy idea that these two things might be connected? Is it really such a crazy idea that maybe the fact that we keep centralizing power so we can experience a less centralized power structure is a completely nonfunctional solution? One that requires a rather extensive propaganda campaign to make sure people think in the Right Way so as to avoid noticing this rather simple question?

(I note I've now posed it on HN three or four times, and I'm yet to get even a smidge of a response to it. I find this often Means Something.)

I'd suggest the sheer opprobrium shot at libertarians is itself just the dominant power structure trying to prevent you from being exposed to ideas that may result in them having less power.

(I am simplifying a bit such that power == money; it's a pretty decent approximation.)