I left this comment on my very good (and smart) friend Mike's blog, in response to his post on Security and Freedom...I thought I'd post my response here, just for fun and to possibly generate more discussion. Mikey and I tend to be on opposite sides of the political spectrum, and we have occasionally had very fun and spirited discussions on some topics. I tend to lean left and he tends to lean right, but I would hazard an extremely educated guess that neither of us would ever declare for a particular party, following ideas and ideals, rather than party platforms and people. Here is the comment:
I was going to leave a smarmy remark about how I'm leaving room for you at the next ACLU meeting, but then I realized I kind of disagree with Franklin a little bit, which came as a surprise to me. Franklin's far-left assertion is completely theoretical--just as is the far-right's position to let the free market decide everything, potential economic collapse be damned. Franklin didn't have to worry about dirty bombs in train stations, jumbo jets crashing into football stadiums and the like. Whilst I value my freedom above anything, I also value not having to worry about some extremist drop a 747 on my head just because I'm at the Super Bowl. (Note, in the Declaration of Independence, Life comes before Liberty!)
By the same token, to do nothing in the current economic climate, while staying true to a pure free market economy, would be completely foolish. Sure, you keep your "American" principles, but big deal, there's no economy left because we have no banks and no American auto or real estate industries. That's like if people no longer had to take their shoes off at airports--sure, that's a freedom back, but big deal, somebody drove a plane up my ass while I was just trying to enjoy a ball game.
I find it curious that countries that are much, much older than ours have moved to the left (a lot, in some cases) socially and governmentally, and to the right on some issues like security (there are cameras ALL over London, for example). They've been through all this before, and they learn from their histories so they do not repeat it. We're still learning. That's why the great Greek and Roman empires flamed out--they grew too far, too fast and didn't learn quickly enough. If you look into a crystal ball, America will look a lot like Western Europe in another 20 years, I think. And you might say we deserve neither freedom or security if we do that, but I would argue that it's just societal evolution--survival of the fittest and flexiblest.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
One of the greatest fallacies of our time is to think we can control the market to any greater extent than we can the weather. With every action we take, there is market based pressures to push against that action. As soon as the government releases the artificial containment, the market will certainly respond in a manner that reflects the actual place it should be.
After the terrorist attacks in late 2001, significant efforts were made to make us feel safer. We have taken what was once one of the more pleasurable aspects of business and destroyed it, turning air travel into a nightmare. On this level, the terrorist have succeeded. We no longer have the right to freely go where we please. Security trumps freedom.
During the longest and greatest period of growth in the financial markets, everyone enjoyed unprecedented profits. The stock market provided a place that even the least paid employee could invest and provide for his retirement. Capitalism was king. The investor class was comprised of all levels from the working class to the wealthy. The answer to many problems, Capitalism was even touted as the solution to the ailing Social Security program.
After riding capitalism to the top – a top that was artificially created by government meddling, it is time to pay the piper. The bail-out isn’t providing for those who most need it. I think I would be less worried about the governmental action if the money was going to those who would benefit the most and have the largest affect on the greater public. However, billions of dollars are going to banks and other corporations to bail-out poor business decisions. John and Mary Taxpayer are now investing in those who made the problem what it is. Government bureaucracy was the fertilizer that fostered the actions of two of the main culprits at the root of our market crisis today. The regulating office responsible for Fanny and Freddy employed hundreds. They didn’t do a very good job of protecting the taxpayer. Who is going to watch our investments now that we’re investing in even more public organizations?
Riding on the back of capitalism in good times and clinging to socialism in bad is a recipe for failure, preventing those who made the bad decisions from having to experience the consequences of those choices. This doesn’t help the future but dooms us to making the same poor choices again and again.
What pushed the markets to this point was a derivative system leveraged on bad debt. Where did the bad debt originate? It came as a result of government tinkering in the free market. Give loans to people you know do not have the wherewithal to make good on the debt. We feel good because the poor are buying homes. When the piper comes to collect his due, they cannot pay the bill. They lose their homes and their credit. We feel good, though.
Was this the fault of capitalism? It most certainly was not. Capitalism doesn't allow for those who cannot pay back a loan to have the loan in the first place. True capitalism doesn't seem to have emotion. In the long run, however, there is less pain when the final bill comes due.
Socialism does not work with human frailties. Rather than reward hard work, socialism punishes those who make their way on their own. Sure, we need social programs to provide for those who cannot take care of themselves. Conversely, to set up the poor for failures they could never realize on their own is more than just a little cruel, leaving them worse off than had they been left to their own devices.
Ronald Reagan suggested government is not a solution to our problem, government is the problem. In most every case, the government will address a simple problem by developing a solution that is far too complex and far too costly.
Interesting post, Craig. I don't know if you are correct, though.
There is a big X factor in our future and it is the generation that is growing up right now. They have never known life without an Internet. Never will have to order coffee without answering 62 questions afterward. They are the open source society. Everything in their life will be customize-able and changeable.
This generation will not accept a one-size-fits all approach toward society and the rule of law.
I can't say where this will lead us, but in the US it probably means the end to our current duopoly of governmental representation and will probably lead to greater freedoms, not less.
Post a Comment