Government of the rich, by the rich, for the rich
February 22, 2011 at 5:40 am
(This post was last modified: February 22, 2011 at 5:47 am by TheDarkestOfAngels.)
I do think quite a bit about what some of the more libertarian-minded individuals around here and elsewhere think about society and how it works and how it can be successful. This article sort of articulated my worst fears about the kind of government we would have
http://www.economist.com/blogs/freeexcha...al_economy
I've heard a lot of talk around here in particular because this is honestly where I can have any good political discussion with people much further to the consevative and libertarian side of the political spectrum, whereas I am more of a liberal. There's also been a lot of related issues in the news lately concerning this very issue.
The government abuses of power and the citizen's revolt in Egypt and the democrat, union, and teacher's revolt in Wisconsin against its govenor's attempt to quash the union's bargaining power despite the union's desire to help with the state's budget issues by cutting back benefits and pay.
Now, what I honestly think makes a nation successful is when its government takes a minimal role in their social lives and thus allowing people to have complete freedom in choosing the course of their lives. I believe the government should only give opportunies here, such as in education and job availability and not take any away, such as though legislation of sex, such as gay marriage or a woman's right to choose to have an abortion or not. The government should certainly, I believe, protect citizens from the abuses that we can inflict upon one another - robbery, rape, murder, and so forth.
What I believe the government's role in our lives should be is the protection. I believe it is the right of every human to health, life, education, and our freedom from the tyranny and malfeasance of others. This is to say that I believe the government should provide all of the services that provide for the quality of life for the entire society as much as its safety and defense. I do not believe that human health, education, and other facets so important not only to each of us as individuals but even to the collective power of an entire society.
I have a problem with the idea that things like healthcare is left to those whose ultimately are looking for money and not for the general welfare of the human beings whose life literally depends on their service.
Human history - and especially American history - is filled with the tyranny and greed of the powerful over the powerless. American history had what many libertarians and conservatives - to whatever extent - want out of the economic system. For the first few decades of American history really was as close to true Lassiez-Faire capitalism as I've known in the world.
It was a time when the government's budget could fit on a single sheet of paper and human equality was measured between white male property owners and genocide against the native americans was as overlooked as human rights violations against the geneva convention at guantanimo bay was (and still is) during the Bush-Cheney Administration.
It didn't take long for it to fail, utterly, precisely for the same reasons that many large companies are giving us problems today, such as BP ignoring safety standards in the Gulf of Mexico or Pharmascuticals essentially charging Americans 100x or more for our prescription drugs than in other countries we would consider 3rd world nations, like Cuba. It was a time when the first American monopolies began to form and essentially had utter dominance in American life for decades, until the government had to step in and start the regulatory culture that we still have today.
And you see, the government made these changes for good reason - the American people demanded it. The railroads and Standard Oil and others abused their power over their employees and their customers, who frequently had little choice but to purchase their products, because like gasoline and healthcare today, there is no other shops in town. They were either purchased, run out of town, or simply out-competed until there was only one shop to buy from and other methods to keep their employees good and loyal, after all, as many have learned in modern times, once you're out of a job, there are few choices (particularly if your former job was the only local location that required someone with your set of skills) you have before you in terms of finding another job capable of supporting you and your family.
So, what American history has shown us is that Americans demanded protection from those abuses (child labor laws, work safety, minimum wage, the 40-hour work week, vacation days, etc) which was each fought and won against the desires of a number of employers over the few centuries of American history. It's also the entire reason of why Labor Unions exist and they existed during the day and age when protests against terrible work conditions was cause for the employers to call in the national guard to break up these protests through the use of force.
And so, the ultimate result of those battles is the America we see today, where the battle continues to wage in places like Wisconsin, who has a govenor who publically stated that despite the union's willingness to concede to pay and benefit cuts for the betterment of Wisconsin, the GOP leaders there are still more interested in tax cuts and labor union busting.
This isn't for some political ideal. This isn't even for the good of the struggling economy of Wisconsin.
This is to remove the rights of the employees - government and otherwise - of the state of Wisconsin.
Case and Point:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IGJXQEHDH...ture=feedu
This isn't a battle even limited to that state, as many of those in the GOP and even many libertarians and tea party individuals within this country all want to see labor unions dead and the government reduced in power as much as possible out of what I can only imagine as the belief that rich and powerful companies are more good natured than the rich and powerful goverments.
Now, I'm not someone who finds companies inherantly evil - for every bad example I can name, I'm quite certain that I can find 1000 good companies - both small and local as well as those with billion dollar annual profits. They can be good or evil. Efficient and well-to-do and lazy and inefficent despite whatever percieved benefits given by rules and regulations and the law. Where I and libertarians differ is that I believe that governments are no different than companies in this regard.
I've been in a few discussions with a few of them - theVoid, Tiberius, and I think one or two others who appear to represent the position of a drastically reduced role of government and outright elimination of government in the realm of economics.
Personally, though, I take issue with this position and I'll tell you why -
First, it's highly conductive to the environment in which one company can come to completely dominate the market. Short of violating the law through the use of deadly force, this opens up an environment like those in American history against the abuses brought upon the employees of the steel industry, but this time, there are no unions (quashed by the company) and no goverment (lassiez-faire approach to economics). So how much freedom have we ended up with in this scenario? How and why is this good for society? How is this better than than a 1984-style "Big Brother" government?
I've been told that 'market forces' are supposed to control this. Employees are allowed to leave or not purchase unsafe products as private companies would provide many of these protections and can do so better than the government can.
My evidence against that is FOX News or any of the "big three" sources of information to the general American public - CBS, MSNBC, and FOX. Does anyone really trust any of those privately owned News Companies to fairly report the news? FOX beats the pants off the others for ratings, but they are the least trusted source of news broadcast on television.
They blatantly work effortlessly to promote an agenda and spin the news in the context of the GOP and republican party. What's to say that a privately owned company that's supposed to report on food safety couldn't be bought out in the same manner as a bribe to the food safety inspector?
I'd rather have a corrupt government offical in a democratically elected government because it's at least easier to change the political climate than a corrupt company that stays afloat entirely because they get legal kickbacks from one or more companies they should be regulating.
This only gets worse when you start to consider things like education and health.
Second, the greatest human achievements both before and since the industrial revolution have had as much to do with huge government projects. The entire space race would have never happened if the government didn't create and fund the National Aeronautics and Space Administration. Not to mention the boon on the quality of human life that government organizations like the Environmental Protection Agency or the project that created the Hoover Dam. The Statue of Liberty was a joint venture by both the French and US governments.
When a goverment works well as many have and do (and it tends to be a thankless job, given the anti-government climate that seems to flourish in the United States, even among us "big-government" liberals), it can fly us to the moon and provide us the cohesiveness and solidarity that allowed so many to fight and die for their freedoms in Wars both new and old. When a company is a good company, it give you a happy life and place to work and even build up a legacy. Who doesn't remember Thomas Edison or Washington Carver or Bill Gates or Walt Disney and so many people who built a legacy and good, decent places that allowed people to happily build a life for themselves. When a Union works well, it protects those employees who simply want to work for a decent wage and reasonable hours - whether the trouble comes from government getting too far into your business or a company that patently ignores safety standards for its employees.
You see, I think that if history has shown us anything, is that the freest and happiest society exists when it has the most opposing forces at work. I consider this to be the "big three" - which each represents the government, the people, and the compprivate industry. When all of these things are in opposition, the result can be wonderous because they are forced to compromise and bargain with one another as a "gangster" union would have to answer to the government and complaining companies and employees over bad practices. Polluting companies have to answer to complaining citizens and government regulators. Unpopular senators (like a certain Wisconsin govenor) will have to answer to angry mobs of teachers, unions, and common citizens in their attempt to obliterate the union's ability to bargain and organize in their state.
Freedom flourishes in a system of checks and balances. Some of these can be corrupted, but there can bea systems for dealing with that as well.
I think the American system as well as several of those around the world, although all flawed, have figured this out. This is why I think the European systems, Canadian, American, Australian, and so many more have environments in which all of these forces exist, flourish, and remain in opposition to one another and thus allow each one of us to do as well as we can. We're all in this together.
Yet, the libertarian arguement states that the oppositional forces can come from people and competing companies rather than government (and/or union, as some have argued), but as history has shown, that isn't enough. It's been tried. It's failed. It's why things are now the way they are.
Now, I don't believe that governments, companies, unions, or people are inherantly evil. Quite the opposite in fact, but that has never stopped the few of those with power and influence from taking advantage of those who don't have the power to stop them. Be them government or a CEO or a Union leader. What a free society should strive to do is prevent those from being able to corrupt or take advantage of others in this way. Eliminating government will only be conductive to this environment. It's why communism will fail. It's why best and greatest answer is always everything in moderation. Everyone is equal to one anther in that it should be a given right to all humans to have equal power to one another - even if this isn't measured by wealth.
I believe in capitalism, but I believe in democracy more than anything else. One individual. One vote.
Anyway, thank you for reading my rant/random thoughts. I'd be interested in any thoughts that anyone may have regarding anything I've discussed above or the linked article.
http://www.economist.com/blogs/freeexcha...al_economy
The Economist Wrote:In other words, rich Democrats and rich Republicans elect politicians with a diverse range of views, but all of which ultimately respond to the policy preferences of the rich.
I've heard a lot of talk around here in particular because this is honestly where I can have any good political discussion with people much further to the consevative and libertarian side of the political spectrum, whereas I am more of a liberal. There's also been a lot of related issues in the news lately concerning this very issue.
The government abuses of power and the citizen's revolt in Egypt and the democrat, union, and teacher's revolt in Wisconsin against its govenor's attempt to quash the union's bargaining power despite the union's desire to help with the state's budget issues by cutting back benefits and pay.
Now, what I honestly think makes a nation successful is when its government takes a minimal role in their social lives and thus allowing people to have complete freedom in choosing the course of their lives. I believe the government should only give opportunies here, such as in education and job availability and not take any away, such as though legislation of sex, such as gay marriage or a woman's right to choose to have an abortion or not. The government should certainly, I believe, protect citizens from the abuses that we can inflict upon one another - robbery, rape, murder, and so forth.
What I believe the government's role in our lives should be is the protection. I believe it is the right of every human to health, life, education, and our freedom from the tyranny and malfeasance of others. This is to say that I believe the government should provide all of the services that provide for the quality of life for the entire society as much as its safety and defense. I do not believe that human health, education, and other facets so important not only to each of us as individuals but even to the collective power of an entire society.
I have a problem with the idea that things like healthcare is left to those whose ultimately are looking for money and not for the general welfare of the human beings whose life literally depends on their service.
Human history - and especially American history - is filled with the tyranny and greed of the powerful over the powerless. American history had what many libertarians and conservatives - to whatever extent - want out of the economic system. For the first few decades of American history really was as close to true Lassiez-Faire capitalism as I've known in the world.
It was a time when the government's budget could fit on a single sheet of paper and human equality was measured between white male property owners and genocide against the native americans was as overlooked as human rights violations against the geneva convention at guantanimo bay was (and still is) during the Bush-Cheney Administration.
It didn't take long for it to fail, utterly, precisely for the same reasons that many large companies are giving us problems today, such as BP ignoring safety standards in the Gulf of Mexico or Pharmascuticals essentially charging Americans 100x or more for our prescription drugs than in other countries we would consider 3rd world nations, like Cuba. It was a time when the first American monopolies began to form and essentially had utter dominance in American life for decades, until the government had to step in and start the regulatory culture that we still have today.
And you see, the government made these changes for good reason - the American people demanded it. The railroads and Standard Oil and others abused their power over their employees and their customers, who frequently had little choice but to purchase their products, because like gasoline and healthcare today, there is no other shops in town. They were either purchased, run out of town, or simply out-competed until there was only one shop to buy from and other methods to keep their employees good and loyal, after all, as many have learned in modern times, once you're out of a job, there are few choices (particularly if your former job was the only local location that required someone with your set of skills) you have before you in terms of finding another job capable of supporting you and your family.
So, what American history has shown us is that Americans demanded protection from those abuses (child labor laws, work safety, minimum wage, the 40-hour work week, vacation days, etc) which was each fought and won against the desires of a number of employers over the few centuries of American history. It's also the entire reason of why Labor Unions exist and they existed during the day and age when protests against terrible work conditions was cause for the employers to call in the national guard to break up these protests through the use of force.
And so, the ultimate result of those battles is the America we see today, where the battle continues to wage in places like Wisconsin, who has a govenor who publically stated that despite the union's willingness to concede to pay and benefit cuts for the betterment of Wisconsin, the GOP leaders there are still more interested in tax cuts and labor union busting.
This isn't for some political ideal. This isn't even for the good of the struggling economy of Wisconsin.
This is to remove the rights of the employees - government and otherwise - of the state of Wisconsin.
Case and Point:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IGJXQEHDH...ture=feedu
This isn't a battle even limited to that state, as many of those in the GOP and even many libertarians and tea party individuals within this country all want to see labor unions dead and the government reduced in power as much as possible out of what I can only imagine as the belief that rich and powerful companies are more good natured than the rich and powerful goverments.
Now, I'm not someone who finds companies inherantly evil - for every bad example I can name, I'm quite certain that I can find 1000 good companies - both small and local as well as those with billion dollar annual profits. They can be good or evil. Efficient and well-to-do and lazy and inefficent despite whatever percieved benefits given by rules and regulations and the law. Where I and libertarians differ is that I believe that governments are no different than companies in this regard.
I've been in a few discussions with a few of them - theVoid, Tiberius, and I think one or two others who appear to represent the position of a drastically reduced role of government and outright elimination of government in the realm of economics.
Personally, though, I take issue with this position and I'll tell you why -
First, it's highly conductive to the environment in which one company can come to completely dominate the market. Short of violating the law through the use of deadly force, this opens up an environment like those in American history against the abuses brought upon the employees of the steel industry, but this time, there are no unions (quashed by the company) and no goverment (lassiez-faire approach to economics). So how much freedom have we ended up with in this scenario? How and why is this good for society? How is this better than than a 1984-style "Big Brother" government?
I've been told that 'market forces' are supposed to control this. Employees are allowed to leave or not purchase unsafe products as private companies would provide many of these protections and can do so better than the government can.
My evidence against that is FOX News or any of the "big three" sources of information to the general American public - CBS, MSNBC, and FOX. Does anyone really trust any of those privately owned News Companies to fairly report the news? FOX beats the pants off the others for ratings, but they are the least trusted source of news broadcast on television.
They blatantly work effortlessly to promote an agenda and spin the news in the context of the GOP and republican party. What's to say that a privately owned company that's supposed to report on food safety couldn't be bought out in the same manner as a bribe to the food safety inspector?
I'd rather have a corrupt government offical in a democratically elected government because it's at least easier to change the political climate than a corrupt company that stays afloat entirely because they get legal kickbacks from one or more companies they should be regulating.
This only gets worse when you start to consider things like education and health.
Second, the greatest human achievements both before and since the industrial revolution have had as much to do with huge government projects. The entire space race would have never happened if the government didn't create and fund the National Aeronautics and Space Administration. Not to mention the boon on the quality of human life that government organizations like the Environmental Protection Agency or the project that created the Hoover Dam. The Statue of Liberty was a joint venture by both the French and US governments.
When a goverment works well as many have and do (and it tends to be a thankless job, given the anti-government climate that seems to flourish in the United States, even among us "big-government" liberals), it can fly us to the moon and provide us the cohesiveness and solidarity that allowed so many to fight and die for their freedoms in Wars both new and old. When a company is a good company, it give you a happy life and place to work and even build up a legacy. Who doesn't remember Thomas Edison or Washington Carver or Bill Gates or Walt Disney and so many people who built a legacy and good, decent places that allowed people to happily build a life for themselves. When a Union works well, it protects those employees who simply want to work for a decent wage and reasonable hours - whether the trouble comes from government getting too far into your business or a company that patently ignores safety standards for its employees.
You see, I think that if history has shown us anything, is that the freest and happiest society exists when it has the most opposing forces at work. I consider this to be the "big three" - which each represents the government, the people, and the compprivate industry. When all of these things are in opposition, the result can be wonderous because they are forced to compromise and bargain with one another as a "gangster" union would have to answer to the government and complaining companies and employees over bad practices. Polluting companies have to answer to complaining citizens and government regulators. Unpopular senators (like a certain Wisconsin govenor) will have to answer to angry mobs of teachers, unions, and common citizens in their attempt to obliterate the union's ability to bargain and organize in their state.
Freedom flourishes in a system of checks and balances. Some of these can be corrupted, but there can bea systems for dealing with that as well.
I think the American system as well as several of those around the world, although all flawed, have figured this out. This is why I think the European systems, Canadian, American, Australian, and so many more have environments in which all of these forces exist, flourish, and remain in opposition to one another and thus allow each one of us to do as well as we can. We're all in this together.
Yet, the libertarian arguement states that the oppositional forces can come from people and competing companies rather than government (and/or union, as some have argued), but as history has shown, that isn't enough. It's been tried. It's failed. It's why things are now the way they are.
Now, I don't believe that governments, companies, unions, or people are inherantly evil. Quite the opposite in fact, but that has never stopped the few of those with power and influence from taking advantage of those who don't have the power to stop them. Be them government or a CEO or a Union leader. What a free society should strive to do is prevent those from being able to corrupt or take advantage of others in this way. Eliminating government will only be conductive to this environment. It's why communism will fail. It's why best and greatest answer is always everything in moderation. Everyone is equal to one anther in that it should be a given right to all humans to have equal power to one another - even if this isn't measured by wealth.
I believe in capitalism, but I believe in democracy more than anything else. One individual. One vote.
Anyway, thank you for reading my rant/random thoughts. I'd be interested in any thoughts that anyone may have regarding anything I've discussed above or the linked article.
If today you can take a thing like evolution and make it a crime to teach in the public schools, tomorrow you can make it a crime to teach it in the private schools and next year you can make it a crime to teach it to the hustings or in the church. At the next session you may ban books and the newspapers...
Ignorance and fanaticism are ever busy and need feeding. Always feeding and gloating for more. Today it is the public school teachers; tomorrow the private. The next day the preachers and the lecturers, the magazines, the books, the newspapers. After a while, Your Honor, it is the setting of man against man and creed against creed until with flying banners and beating drums we are marching backward to the glorious ages of the sixteenth centry when bigots lighted fagots to burn the men who dared to bring any intelligence and enlightenment and culture to the human mind. ~Clarence Darrow, at the Scopes Monkey Trial, 1925
Politics is supposed to be the second-oldest profession. I have come to realize that it bears a very close resemblance to the first. ~Ronald Reagan
Ignorance and fanaticism are ever busy and need feeding. Always feeding and gloating for more. Today it is the public school teachers; tomorrow the private. The next day the preachers and the lecturers, the magazines, the books, the newspapers. After a while, Your Honor, it is the setting of man against man and creed against creed until with flying banners and beating drums we are marching backward to the glorious ages of the sixteenth centry when bigots lighted fagots to burn the men who dared to bring any intelligence and enlightenment and culture to the human mind. ~Clarence Darrow, at the Scopes Monkey Trial, 1925
Politics is supposed to be the second-oldest profession. I have come to realize that it bears a very close resemblance to the first. ~Ronald Reagan
