jrodefeld
11-02-2010, 12:25 AM
Hello everyone. I am a new member here.
I am very politically astute (not to brag), I am kind of a political junkie. And I like to engage in respectful debate with those I disagree with. I have not participated in party politics much, even given my interest because I feel that both parties are mostly the same. I tend to care only about ideologies and philosophies. So I tend to not care about left-right conflict and arguments.
I am hoping that this message board will allow me to debate with some liberals about their ideology and some of the preconceived notions that form the basis of our political beliefs. I don't care for conflict, but I truly feel intellectually curious about the foundation of the beliefs of those I disagree with. What stimuli have shaped your world view? Have you thought about it? Where can we agree and find common ground?I think it is these types of discussions that are lacking and the political parties hinder efforts to foster true dialog among Americans.
With that said, I tend to look at policy rather than parties when I judge the merit of our governments actions. And although I probably disagree with most of you here, I am not a Republican. So before anyone comes back and says "But Bush did...", I agree with you. Bush was a terrible president and precipitated many of the problems we are experiencing now.
My political ideology is Libertarianism.
I will be happy to discuss the reasons I became convinced that non-coercion, peace and individual liberty are superior to communism, socialism, fascism, etc. But I would rather like to touch on what I consider to be the most critical divide among people of varying political ideologies.
Everyone I talk to says they believe in liberty. What tends to divide us is the question of who you consider to be a threat to that liberty. And obviously, how do you define liberty.
Especially in this day and age with the Tea Party and the economic crisis, people are divided and very angry. As defined by the media, the central disagreement from people on either "side" of the isle differ in world view like this:
The people on the left tend to feel that corporations and businesses are the oppressor and they heap all their criticism on Wall Street and they generally fear corporate power.
The people on the "right" tend to feel that the government is the oppressor and they fear it and would rather place their faith in businesses and corporations rather than politicians.
I think both are very simplistic and miss key aspects of the problem, but this goes to the heart of the difference between those who are more conservative and those that are more liberal in my opinion.
As a libertarian, I do believe in a limited Federal government and a "free" market. My definition of liberty is the freedom from coercion or force. When I take this position in my view that government should be smaller and less involved in the economy, the liberals I have talked to react with horror and are quick to recount all the ways in which what I am advocating will make "corporate America" more powerful and oppress workers, destroy the environment and a whole host of apocalyptic things would happen where the rich will hoard all the wealth and the poor will be starving in the streets.
They consider businesses and corporations to be a grave threat to liberty and see government as a more benevolent counterbalancing power to corporate power. They see that by "weakening" the government (in their minds), such an action would correspondingly increase the corruption, fraud and abuse of corporations. They also decry the "profit motive" as a reason for so many of our problems. If only we removed the profit motive from health care, for example, the system would be more effective and more just. Or so goes the argument.
Liberals that I have talked to seem not as concerned with the size of the government, or see the same threats to liberty that I see. I am very curious as to why this is the case.
I want to make a few points about this and I hope the liberals on this forum can respond.
First, I decry corporate abuse and fraud as much as anyone. I think a central part of financial reform should be putting many of these Wall Street criminals in prison for the massive amount of fraud they perpetrated. I agree with the left on this point wholeheartedly. The problem is that I see this speculative binge and corruption as more of a symptom, rather than the cause of our problems. I will go into that shortly.
I first want to reexamine which sector is the most threatening to human liberty, the government or the private sector. I think we can be honest that no type of economic system or government system can create a Utopia where there are no problems. The key is can we embrace a system which will provide the maximum amount of individual liberty, the greatest prosperity for the maximum number of people, and the most accountability in our government? I believe so, but we have to iron out our differences and establish a benchmark for the preservation of liberty and human rights and what that means.
To go back to the point I made earlier about a belief common among liberal commentators. The notion of government being a counterbalancing force against corporate tyranny is complete nonsense. Now, I am not arguing that their isn't a role for the State in providing justice and protecting the environment. But as a rule as the government expands in size and regulations increase, corporate power increases and money gets concentrated among fewer hands. This isn't capitalism and government is trying to prevent its "excesses". Government is actively facilitating this corporatism.
The problem is the cozy relationship between corporations and special interests and our government, rejecting every notion of free markets and free enterprise.
Bailouts, special privileges, tax havens, regulatory capture, and inside deals are a hallmark of our current system. This is an absolute assault on our liberties and I stand right beside liberals in condemning it. The problem is too many people call this capitalism and in a knee jerk way call simply for more regulations, "oversight" committees or other solutions which will not address the real problem.
From my study of economics and history I have learned that Wall Street bankers, military contractors, big pharma and all the egregious corporate abuse and fraud we have seen in recent history have been perpetrated by people who are openly hostile towards the free market. In fact they are proponents of big government and increased government control over the economy. Leftist commentators always justify expansive government power by pointing to their favorite corporate bogeyman not realizing that many of the policies they espouse increase the corporate tyranny they so rightly decry.
As a libertarian, I can join the left in criticizing all of this atrocious corporate fraud and behavior, but through my correct understanding of economics I advocate combating this by favoring a smaller government and embracing the free market and human liberty. Obviously that would include removing all subsidies, special favors and reestablishing equal justice under the law. It would entail granting free entry by smaller competitors into the markets which were cornered through complex regulation designed to protect entrenched interests. And most importantly, it involves allowing those who took excessive risks to go bankrupt, removing moral hazard from the system. No bailouts for anyone.
This is a separate issue and I don't want to get into that here. But, the liberals I have talked to tell me about the horrors that a libertarian society would bring, yet I cannot for a minute understand what they are talking about. If any of you take a similar position, perhaps you could enlighten me?
Lets say I favored a MUCH smaller federal government, a respect for personal liberties, a principle of non aggression and a government limited to protecting liberty and providing equal justice under the law and keeping the piece. My contention is that people on the left the criticize such a system haven't thought it through very well.
Back to the question of liberty, could you please answer this question:
How can a business or corporation infringe on the liberties of others or become tyrannical and oppressive without the participation of government?
This is the central point. With a government that as a rule stays COMPLETELY out of the economy, a corporation cannot compel me to do anything I don't want to do. They are limited to making a product or service and trying to persuade me to buy it. Without government intervention and a massive state apparatus, businesses are FORCED to compete and be innovative or they go out of business. This constitutes true wealth production and elevates the standard of living for all of us.
Now, you may argue, and indeed many liberals have, that many corporations will treat their employees badly, make unsafe toys or pollute the environment. They will then argue that this is an egregious affront to human liberty which necessitates a large government. But hold on a minute. I always argue that government has a role in protecting the environment. Many of these disputes can and should be dealt with through the court system. However, if you insist that for a few specific areas that there is a merit to government involvement, I won't argue too forcefully against you.
I will only make the point that we should understand the unintended consequences of interfering in the marketplace and it should be foremost in our minds even when we think that government intervention is necessary for some reason. Even with all the government intervention, we still have unsafe drugs, unsafe work environments and so forth. But in terms of human liberty, we should know that even these examples are remarkable self contained compared to an action by the Federal government.
Most anyone can choose where to work. Anyone can choose who to buy from and who to avoid. We can easily avoid ever dealing with a company or business we don't like. A government regulation or Congressional action is felt by millions of people. I don't agree that a corporation without government involvement can become a tyrannical oppressor of many people. The evidence does not suggest this.
I want to wrap this up shortly and open this up to discussion, but I want to recap my main point and thesis.
Corporations, generally, become tyrannical oppressors only with the participation of governments through which they can compel people to give them their money or gain unearned control over a sector of the market.
This has nothing to do with capitalism or free markets. Or libertarianism. Advocating for a smaller federal government and a "freer" economy will not lead to more corporatism as we have seen, but less. Honesty will be rewarded and fraud will be prosecuted.
Can the liberals on this thread explain to me how they can view corporate power as MORE of a threat to human liberty than government power?
Governments, on the other hand, have oppressed people throughout history. Out of control government growth and no limits have lead to: Wars, Assassinations, Dropping Nuclear Bombs on Hiroshima, Genocide, Invasion of our Privacy, Illegal searches, police brutality, stealing our money, instituting a draft, CIA involvement in drugs and conducting experiments on people without their knowledge, Concentration Camps for Japanese Citizens during the thirties, arresting people and putting them in jail for non violent drug offenses, the IRS scaring people to death and behaving as belligerent thugs, CIA people writing their own search warrants, and on and on and on.
That is why I, as a libertarian, value strict limits on government power. I see that governments throughout history have been the major threat to human liberty, including individuals or corporations using the power of government to reduce your liberties. Either way, government is force and is incredibly dangerous.
None of this precludes a compelling argument for a responsible government doing certain things that in fact are good and beneficial in an oversight role. But my main complaint is that there seems to be a complete lack of even an acknowledgement that government is a threat to liberty. I see very little call on the left for limits on government power or reductions in spending or anything of that nature. It is always to bring up the corporate bogeyman, who in fact was likely a product of government favoritism in the first place.
So could you all explain to me why you object so strongly to a free economy? And why you don't see the threats to human liberty from the government in the same way a libertarian such as myself does?
Could you give your argument against libertarianism as you see it?
I look forward to hearing your reactions to this post. Sorry about the length.
I am very politically astute (not to brag), I am kind of a political junkie. And I like to engage in respectful debate with those I disagree with. I have not participated in party politics much, even given my interest because I feel that both parties are mostly the same. I tend to care only about ideologies and philosophies. So I tend to not care about left-right conflict and arguments.
I am hoping that this message board will allow me to debate with some liberals about their ideology and some of the preconceived notions that form the basis of our political beliefs. I don't care for conflict, but I truly feel intellectually curious about the foundation of the beliefs of those I disagree with. What stimuli have shaped your world view? Have you thought about it? Where can we agree and find common ground?I think it is these types of discussions that are lacking and the political parties hinder efforts to foster true dialog among Americans.
With that said, I tend to look at policy rather than parties when I judge the merit of our governments actions. And although I probably disagree with most of you here, I am not a Republican. So before anyone comes back and says "But Bush did...", I agree with you. Bush was a terrible president and precipitated many of the problems we are experiencing now.
My political ideology is Libertarianism.
I will be happy to discuss the reasons I became convinced that non-coercion, peace and individual liberty are superior to communism, socialism, fascism, etc. But I would rather like to touch on what I consider to be the most critical divide among people of varying political ideologies.
Everyone I talk to says they believe in liberty. What tends to divide us is the question of who you consider to be a threat to that liberty. And obviously, how do you define liberty.
Especially in this day and age with the Tea Party and the economic crisis, people are divided and very angry. As defined by the media, the central disagreement from people on either "side" of the isle differ in world view like this:
The people on the left tend to feel that corporations and businesses are the oppressor and they heap all their criticism on Wall Street and they generally fear corporate power.
The people on the "right" tend to feel that the government is the oppressor and they fear it and would rather place their faith in businesses and corporations rather than politicians.
I think both are very simplistic and miss key aspects of the problem, but this goes to the heart of the difference between those who are more conservative and those that are more liberal in my opinion.
As a libertarian, I do believe in a limited Federal government and a "free" market. My definition of liberty is the freedom from coercion or force. When I take this position in my view that government should be smaller and less involved in the economy, the liberals I have talked to react with horror and are quick to recount all the ways in which what I am advocating will make "corporate America" more powerful and oppress workers, destroy the environment and a whole host of apocalyptic things would happen where the rich will hoard all the wealth and the poor will be starving in the streets.
They consider businesses and corporations to be a grave threat to liberty and see government as a more benevolent counterbalancing power to corporate power. They see that by "weakening" the government (in their minds), such an action would correspondingly increase the corruption, fraud and abuse of corporations. They also decry the "profit motive" as a reason for so many of our problems. If only we removed the profit motive from health care, for example, the system would be more effective and more just. Or so goes the argument.
Liberals that I have talked to seem not as concerned with the size of the government, or see the same threats to liberty that I see. I am very curious as to why this is the case.
I want to make a few points about this and I hope the liberals on this forum can respond.
First, I decry corporate abuse and fraud as much as anyone. I think a central part of financial reform should be putting many of these Wall Street criminals in prison for the massive amount of fraud they perpetrated. I agree with the left on this point wholeheartedly. The problem is that I see this speculative binge and corruption as more of a symptom, rather than the cause of our problems. I will go into that shortly.
I first want to reexamine which sector is the most threatening to human liberty, the government or the private sector. I think we can be honest that no type of economic system or government system can create a Utopia where there are no problems. The key is can we embrace a system which will provide the maximum amount of individual liberty, the greatest prosperity for the maximum number of people, and the most accountability in our government? I believe so, but we have to iron out our differences and establish a benchmark for the preservation of liberty and human rights and what that means.
To go back to the point I made earlier about a belief common among liberal commentators. The notion of government being a counterbalancing force against corporate tyranny is complete nonsense. Now, I am not arguing that their isn't a role for the State in providing justice and protecting the environment. But as a rule as the government expands in size and regulations increase, corporate power increases and money gets concentrated among fewer hands. This isn't capitalism and government is trying to prevent its "excesses". Government is actively facilitating this corporatism.
The problem is the cozy relationship between corporations and special interests and our government, rejecting every notion of free markets and free enterprise.
Bailouts, special privileges, tax havens, regulatory capture, and inside deals are a hallmark of our current system. This is an absolute assault on our liberties and I stand right beside liberals in condemning it. The problem is too many people call this capitalism and in a knee jerk way call simply for more regulations, "oversight" committees or other solutions which will not address the real problem.
From my study of economics and history I have learned that Wall Street bankers, military contractors, big pharma and all the egregious corporate abuse and fraud we have seen in recent history have been perpetrated by people who are openly hostile towards the free market. In fact they are proponents of big government and increased government control over the economy. Leftist commentators always justify expansive government power by pointing to their favorite corporate bogeyman not realizing that many of the policies they espouse increase the corporate tyranny they so rightly decry.
As a libertarian, I can join the left in criticizing all of this atrocious corporate fraud and behavior, but through my correct understanding of economics I advocate combating this by favoring a smaller government and embracing the free market and human liberty. Obviously that would include removing all subsidies, special favors and reestablishing equal justice under the law. It would entail granting free entry by smaller competitors into the markets which were cornered through complex regulation designed to protect entrenched interests. And most importantly, it involves allowing those who took excessive risks to go bankrupt, removing moral hazard from the system. No bailouts for anyone.
This is a separate issue and I don't want to get into that here. But, the liberals I have talked to tell me about the horrors that a libertarian society would bring, yet I cannot for a minute understand what they are talking about. If any of you take a similar position, perhaps you could enlighten me?
Lets say I favored a MUCH smaller federal government, a respect for personal liberties, a principle of non aggression and a government limited to protecting liberty and providing equal justice under the law and keeping the piece. My contention is that people on the left the criticize such a system haven't thought it through very well.
Back to the question of liberty, could you please answer this question:
How can a business or corporation infringe on the liberties of others or become tyrannical and oppressive without the participation of government?
This is the central point. With a government that as a rule stays COMPLETELY out of the economy, a corporation cannot compel me to do anything I don't want to do. They are limited to making a product or service and trying to persuade me to buy it. Without government intervention and a massive state apparatus, businesses are FORCED to compete and be innovative or they go out of business. This constitutes true wealth production and elevates the standard of living for all of us.
Now, you may argue, and indeed many liberals have, that many corporations will treat their employees badly, make unsafe toys or pollute the environment. They will then argue that this is an egregious affront to human liberty which necessitates a large government. But hold on a minute. I always argue that government has a role in protecting the environment. Many of these disputes can and should be dealt with through the court system. However, if you insist that for a few specific areas that there is a merit to government involvement, I won't argue too forcefully against you.
I will only make the point that we should understand the unintended consequences of interfering in the marketplace and it should be foremost in our minds even when we think that government intervention is necessary for some reason. Even with all the government intervention, we still have unsafe drugs, unsafe work environments and so forth. But in terms of human liberty, we should know that even these examples are remarkable self contained compared to an action by the Federal government.
Most anyone can choose where to work. Anyone can choose who to buy from and who to avoid. We can easily avoid ever dealing with a company or business we don't like. A government regulation or Congressional action is felt by millions of people. I don't agree that a corporation without government involvement can become a tyrannical oppressor of many people. The evidence does not suggest this.
I want to wrap this up shortly and open this up to discussion, but I want to recap my main point and thesis.
Corporations, generally, become tyrannical oppressors only with the participation of governments through which they can compel people to give them their money or gain unearned control over a sector of the market.
This has nothing to do with capitalism or free markets. Or libertarianism. Advocating for a smaller federal government and a "freer" economy will not lead to more corporatism as we have seen, but less. Honesty will be rewarded and fraud will be prosecuted.
Can the liberals on this thread explain to me how they can view corporate power as MORE of a threat to human liberty than government power?
Governments, on the other hand, have oppressed people throughout history. Out of control government growth and no limits have lead to: Wars, Assassinations, Dropping Nuclear Bombs on Hiroshima, Genocide, Invasion of our Privacy, Illegal searches, police brutality, stealing our money, instituting a draft, CIA involvement in drugs and conducting experiments on people without their knowledge, Concentration Camps for Japanese Citizens during the thirties, arresting people and putting them in jail for non violent drug offenses, the IRS scaring people to death and behaving as belligerent thugs, CIA people writing their own search warrants, and on and on and on.
That is why I, as a libertarian, value strict limits on government power. I see that governments throughout history have been the major threat to human liberty, including individuals or corporations using the power of government to reduce your liberties. Either way, government is force and is incredibly dangerous.
None of this precludes a compelling argument for a responsible government doing certain things that in fact are good and beneficial in an oversight role. But my main complaint is that there seems to be a complete lack of even an acknowledgement that government is a threat to liberty. I see very little call on the left for limits on government power or reductions in spending or anything of that nature. It is always to bring up the corporate bogeyman, who in fact was likely a product of government favoritism in the first place.
So could you all explain to me why you object so strongly to a free economy? And why you don't see the threats to human liberty from the government in the same way a libertarian such as myself does?
Could you give your argument against libertarianism as you see it?
I look forward to hearing your reactions to this post. Sorry about the length.