This is exactly what I was getting at (and didn't find the time to respond to Tony) that, to me, both parties are 95% in agreement. ... There is *nothing* libertarian about either major party.
That's like saying you and I are 95% in agreement because neither of us is a racist. There's more than one axis to political theory.
I also find it amusing that those on the Democratic side complain about "neocon" bailouts of banks, but generally tend to support nationalization of the health care system. That is the *exact* same position, merely applied to different areas.
No, it's not. Most liberals are dejected by the bailout because there should have been more control over the companies to begin with to prevent this situation from occurring. We generally agree that at some level at least some of these companies have to be bailed out in order to protect the country's economy.
they agree we are too stupid to be entrusted with such decisions.
Clearly "we" are, as evidenced by the fact that huge numbers of huge companies are going bankrupt and affecting the entire economy.
The whole problem with the banks now has to do with allowing massively leveraged positions. If you're going to lend someone money, you should be required to assume the risk of a default.
That's all well and good until these companies start affecting the livelihoods of people who have no direct connection with them at all. Are we to allow all of those innocent people to bear the brunt of their default? I know, we are now. But since what's really happening is that the Federal Reserve System is backing their defaulted loans, and not actually expending money on their behalf, the effects are far less than what would happen if the company simply went out of business.
Regulation can decrease allowed leverage multipliers, but it won't restore prudence, because prudence only exists in a world of self-responsibility.
Unless you also plan to outlaw corporations, that sort of self-responsibility is already gone. The people making these decisions are so far removed from anyone who's actually going to be affected by the ramifications that that notion is nearly irrelevant to them.
The sinister thing about government taking care of everyone ... is that it deprives people of the opportunity to become a self-responsible, autonomous human being.
Okay, let's take your examples one-by-one:
You got cancer and can't pay for all the treatments? Gosh, you should have been more responsible and not gotten cancer.
Yeah, because smoking affects no one but the person smoking. Everyone should have to deal with smoke-choked grocery stores. After all, if you get cancer, you'll be taken care of. Oh, wait.
Agreed.
I already covered this one.
Basically, all your arguments assume that each individual is an island that affects no one that doesn't initiate specific contact. And that's simply not true.
I'm not a "Big L" libertarian because I believe that we need to address systemic bias of opportunity for people. I also have been persuaded that the "Invisible Hand" does not act benevolently; market participants do not have an incentive to protect the market mechanism itself -- that requires regulation. But I do agree that we should be guided the principle that more freedom tends to be the answer.
The two major axes of political thought are those of civil liberties and economic liberties. They are, of course, related, but they can still be viewed independently. By and large, one ends up talking about them as individual liberties and corporate/business liberties, respectively. At least I do.
Big-L Libertarians believe in both strong civil and economic liberties. Which means that they think there should be no restrictions on what a company can do or what a person can do. My argument is that this is an untenable situation. A small number of entities will gain more and more power until there are no liberties left for the rest of the people.
The current Bush administration, call its ideology what you will, seems to believe in reduced personal liberties (PATRIOT Act, for example) and increased corporate liberties (retroactive immunity from wiretapping prosecution, for example), but also with increased corporate welfare and decreased personal welfare. Which is totally absurd.
Liberals tend towards increased personal liberties and decreased corporate liberties. Obviously, we're talking about a large collection of people with varied opinions, but that tends to be the case. It is certainly the case for me.
Personally, I find the notion of giving rights to non-sentient entities repugnant. Companies should have no rights beyond those conveyed to them by their human constituents.
Your argument is that because "liberals" want the government to support individuals at the cost of companies and "neocons" want to support companies at the cost of individuals they are the same because they both support governmental intervention. Well, not to put too fine a point on it, that is absurd.
Previous Topic
Index
