My newsfeed has been host to an ongoing list of links and rants ever increasing in hysteria over the Dakota Access Pipeline. One side says that the Sioux Indian nation is once again the victim of bullying, while the other (much less vocal) crowd claims that the pipeline is only controversial because the media and global warming crusaders had declared it so. At this point, I've not read enough to really take a side, but I did notice that my gut reflex was to side with Transcanada (the company behind the pipeline) over the Sioux nation. How could I be so callous and heartless?! My ever-running inner monologue swooped in to save the day and use this controversy as a medium through which to examine my own political philosophy:
In short, I tend to be suspicious of government, but trusting of private business. This is because 1) the narratives of "evil" business and "righteous" American Indian are fraught with errors and oversimplification, and 2) government and business have different things to prove when either wants to get something done; in the case of government, almost every decision is tied to either taxation (read "other people's money") or limitations on personal rights, while in the case of business, every decision is private until it impacts the lives of others. Let me explain.
1) Many of us have been taught that big business is the great Satan of America; at least this seems to explain the rash of anti-business rhetoric that frequently accompanies any mention on FB of the Transcanada/Sioux standoff. Paired with that, of course, is the narrative that American Indians have been nothing but abused ever since 1492. These simplistic representations are fundamentally problematic because they gloss over a library's worth of inconvenient details, such as Upton Sinclair's political bias against big business that inspired his magnum opus, The Jungle, the general wealth and prosperity of the working American versus the working European during the age of the so-called "robber barons," as well as the sad historical truism that thems what got better tech will beat the opposition; the first Europeans to visit the New World in AD1000 were defeated by the equally-well-armed natives, while 492 years later, the Europeans had advanced into the early Industrial age while the aforesaid natives were still killing big game using arrows and atlatls. Much like the Mongols of the 13th century who conquered Russia and overran eastern Europe thanks to their superior horses, superior composite bows and battle strategies, and superior (actually, breathtaking) number of fighting men, the Europeans of the Exploration and Colonial eras proved technologically superior to their native neighbors. Thus, whenever the two clashed, the whites *always* won in the long run. This lop-sided history makes it easy for modern historians and teachers (while sipping lattes and groaning over the whole hour necessary to enter a Walmart Super-Center for made-to-order bread, eggs, and disposable diapers) to scoff at the real dangers of bloodshed and deprevation faced by both natives and settlers of the colonial era, and ascribe all evils to the victorious White Man. My awareness of this means that at the first discovery of the Dakota Access controversy (often none-too-subtly couched in terms of GRASPING WHITE MAN v OPPRESSED NATIVE) my gut told me that the situation was likely too complex to quickly grasp.
2) Despite my noncommittal approach to Dakota Access, I have been able to formulate the afore-mentioned philosophy, that I tend to distrust government and trust business. This is because of the nature of the proofs necessary for each party to provide in justification of their endeavors.
In the case of government: almost every decision is tied to either taxation (read "other people's money") or limitations on personal rights. Therefore, anything that the government or its agencies want to do must be critically examined. Let's say that the city decides that a road needs to be repaired. This is going to cost money, and the city, being a form of government, frequently accumulates revenue through taxation. If my opinion was solicited (say, though a city-wide vote) I'd have questions: Does the road need to be repaired/why? How much will it cost? Why select that company to do the construction? Who proposed this repair, and how will it benefit them? Or suppose the same city government wishes to pass a new law or ordinance regarding the use of said road. Once more, responsible citizens ought to ask probing questions about why the city believes it necessary to, in some way, limit the rights of citizens in their use of the road. These questions and others that could be imagined demonstrate that for every action, government must FIRST prove its motives pure - either because it is using citizen money, or because its laws, rules, and regulations are each a kind of infringement upon the rights of private citizens.
In the case of business: the exact opposite is true. Nobody likes a grasping businessman, but the truth that is inconvenient for many of us is that "it's none of your concern." So he doesn't offer health coverage comparable to that of other employers? So he doesn't have a "green" policy? So he doesn't give to charities or offer maternity leave? The fact remains he has no power to force people to work for him, nor has he the right to force customers to patronize his business. His affairs are his own - until they infringe on the rights of others. At that point the proof lies with his accusers to prove that he is somehow neglecting their rights in favor of his own selfish interests. Is he violating health/safety codes? Is he directing his employees to trespass on private property? These and other challenges demonstrate that for every action, private business is under no obligation to prove that its motives are pure; rather the onus is on concerned citizens to prove that the private business has overstepped its bounds by infringing upon the rights of others.
Now of course this is an oversimplifaction of a very complex world. Businessmen do have to measure up to local ordinances and codes (the onus being on them in such a case) and government is fully entitled to act when the interests of citizens are threatened (police and fire spring to mind). But hopefully the above monologue helps readers to better understand why I, and surely others, are reluctant to view big business as the villain and government as the savior, and American Indians as the perennial victims.
