Uh no. This “The left and right wing of American politics are two sides of the same coin” thing is patently false, there is no comparison. Any Liberal/Progressive who said there should be no free market, the federal gov’t should handle everything would never get elected county dog catcher.
And yet, the man who is neck and neck to becoming the president of the United States thinks that the private sector should dismantle the federal government:
You guys try to make it sound like it’s even close because it’s to your benefit to confuse low information voters. It’s not.
Freedom to me is first freedom from oppression. That means keeping government under control (the biggest source of oppression in mankind’s history), but also protection from oppression by others (the earlier mentioned thieves). I would add in some protection from overly powerful corporations as well - in the model of Teddy’s Trust Busters.
So I start with our Constitution and Bill of Rights - a document designed to limit the power of the Federal Government to very specific areas, followed by a listing of specific areas that the Government should not touch. That is still a pretty good start.
I DO agree with Romney’s statement du jour that moving power from the Federal to the State is a good thing. I like as much power and decision making to be on the local level where I have a slightly better chance of having an impact or at least measurable input. That doesn’t have much to do with Freedom, and is more about good government.
The balance of freedom between employer and employee is a tough one that we face as a society, and will continue to be a source of debate.
If it is a matter of economic liberty, which implies freedom from oppressive corporations, I would propose the following:
1. A private, for profit business may occupy one physical location
2. A not-for-profit co-op may be formed to co-ordinate for-profit businesses
3. Co-op participation must be voluntary for all parties; no individual member business may exert coercive influence through the co-op
4. The co-op may require up to one percent of gross revenue from its members for maintenance and overhead
There are flaws with this concept, but it plays to the genuine libertarian value of personal freedom.
Once corporations become big enough in their oppression they ARE the government, by definition oppression comes from rulers. If the corporations get bigger and more powerful than the government, they become the government…basically the U.S. now.
All power? If so then I hope you don’t claim to be an “American”. If you mean some, there is room for debate, but “States rights” has a very ugly history and I don’t think America should be a bunch of mini-countries that have complete freedom to set their own laws no matter how oppressive or exploitive…that is not a union.
No, but I do think that the Federal government should be limited to the powers specifically enumerated in the Constitution. The ability of the the Federal government to raid marijuana dispensaries in California, for example, bothers me. California legalized medical marijuana - the DEA should back off in my home state.
I am not an anarchist or secessionist any more than the left wing on this board is made up of statist communists.
Nonsense - corporations are not more powerful than the US government. Lehman is gone. The Feds could have done a lot to GM. A few regulations can make or break Wal Mart. More importantly, the corporations do not have a central organization - and they are often at odds with each other on any given regulation.
If you think that there should be no such thing as federal law, in my opinion you are pretty much defacto a secessionist. Again, we fought a war over this already.
edit: Let me clarify, we have the same problem with dispensaries in my state (WA) so I sympathize, but instead of thinking there should be no such thing as federal law, I am for changing federal law to fix the problem instead of throwing the baby out with the bath water. More than half the population believes in legalized marijuana and some form of gay marriage, let’s get it done.
The corporations write the legislaturefor our politicians. They run the government and play by their own rules and decide how the peons that are normal folk are treated, what is in our food and how it is labelled, the poisons in our environment, among many other abuses because buying politicians is the smartest investment money can buy.
WTO simply makes it easier for nations to engage in trade. If you don’t want to be in it - you can drop out and negotiate every single trade agreement separately if you like.
Let’s take a look at just your first specific claim. Corporations “decide what is in our food”? Actually they do not. When you go to a supermarket, you decide what to purchase. You are not forced to purchase anything. No corporation has ever decided what is in your food. You have always been free to decide what foods, with what things in them, you’re going to eat. If you decide that you don’t like any of the tens of thousands of items on sale at the grocery store, you can go to a natural foods store run by aging hippies, a farmers’ market, a roadside food stand, a restaurant, a CSA, or any number of other places. You can go dumpster diving if you want to. You can grow your own food in your own garden. The claim that corporations decide what is in your food is completely absurd. No corporation has any say in anything that you eat, unless you choose to purchase their products. That’s the wonder of a free market.
The government, on the other hand, imposes a lot of restrictions on what we can eat. In many cities it’s illegal to raise livestock, so those who want animal products have no choice but to purchase from elsewhere. Meanwhile, a host of federal, state, and local regulations make it difficult to run small-scale farming and food packaging operations.
Really? So I can go to the store and easily know whether my food has been genetically modified right? I’m not even a foodie and I actually have no problem eating GMO’s, but the corporations are the ones deciding what is on the labels and right now they don’t want us to know which foods are frankenfoods at a glance, so they won’t tell us.
And if you want to play the “you can grow your own food so you can’t complain about what’s in commerical food” game, I can pull the “You can go live in a shack in the woods or on a deserted isle so you can’t complain about government intrusion”, they’re equally ridiculous.
The default situation is that food doesn’t have to be labeled at all. Corporations can’t write the absence of a law into existence, because not existing is the law’s natural state.
The onus is on the people who want “frankenfoods” and “GMOs” to be labeled to demonstrate that it’s a good idea, not to mention to come up with a realistic, objective way to determine what is a “frankenfood.”
The overwhelming majority of Americans think that GMO foods should be labelled, yet they are not, because corporations own the government. Again, I don’t personally have a problem with eating GMO’s so I’m not going to argue why they are bad (I don’t think they are automatically), I’m giving their lack of being labelled when the MAJORITY of Americans want them to be labelled, as a clear example of how corporations decide the policy/legislation, not the peasants with no influence.
And anyway, the hard-on conservatives have for the FDA has to be tied with the one they have for the EPA as far as “most bizarre cultist belief”, we already tried letting the free market keep our food safe and healthy. Many more people died before regulations were put in place. Food and water are the FIRST place government should be.
Freedom means whatever I want it to mean, because freedom of thought is the first and the essential freedom.
To live and socialize with other human beings, you have to curb your free will when it impinges on the rights of others. This requires a code or belief of personal responsibility. People with no code of personal responsibility, require laws that provide public penalties for those whose private freedoms cause other people harm. (Not distress, hurt feelings, or philosophical angst…Harm.)
Good leaders seek to provide minimal government that encourages personal responsibility, bad leaders seek to create a powerless society that needs more government to accrue more power to themselves.
Tragedy of the commons. One person may over-use their share of a common resource with minimal consequences, but if everyone did so then everyone would suffer.
That entirely misses the point of my post. If you don’t like the way that the ACME Corporation chooses to label its food, you are not required to purchase any food from them. It’s as simple as that. There is no Constitutional right to have genetically modified foods labeled is a certain way, but there is a right to choose which foods you purchase.
It’s worth remembering that the federal government already has imposed rules on the labeling of packaged food. Yet here we are decades later, and those rules haven’t made people happy. Instead we just get calls for more enforced labeling. It’s a perfect example of how government regulation never leaves people satisfied, but only spawns more and more regulation.
Did I ever say “you can grow your own food so you can’t complain about what’s in commercial food”? I seem to recall that I said this:
When you go to a supermarket, you decide what to purchase. You are not forced to purchase anything. No corporation has ever decided what is in your food. You have always been free to decide what foods, with what things in them, you’re going to eat. If you decide that you don’t like any of the tens of thousands of items on sale at the grocery store, you can go to a natural foods store run by aging hippies, a farmers’ market, a roadside food stand, a restaurant, a CSA, or any number of other places. You can go dumpster diving if you want to. You can grow your own food in your own garden. The claim that corporations decide what is in your food is completely absurd. No corporation has any say in anything that you eat, unless you choose to purchase their products. That’s the wonder of a free market.
The American form of government isn’t based on automatically doing whatever the majority wants. It is based on limited government with enumerated powers, and everyone being allowed to act freely unless there’s a clear justification for government intervention.
The biggest ‘flaw’ in the concept is that it would totally destroy the economy, and that it betrays a complete ignorance of economics and what creates wealth and prosperity and a decent standard of living for the average citizen.
Declaring ‘freedom’ to be freedom from corporations, to be ‘protected’ by large government, is to turn the true concept of freedom on its head. Don’t forget that the people who built and own those corporations are also people who have rights.
The typical libertarian answer to the question of freedom is, “I am free to do whatever I wish, so long as the exercise of that freedom does not involve the coercion of others.”
Now, there is definitely a problem of the commons, with the aquifer issue being a good example. Another would be dumping toxic chemicals into a river that flows through my land. While I’m exercising ‘freedom’ on my section of the river, there’s no doubt that I’m coercing people who live down river by polluting their water through my actions. So freedom of individual action will always be in tension with the fact that it’s hard to take many actions without affecting others.
Another aspect of freedom is the right to keep what you earn, which is part of the right to own property. Again, that freedom is in tension with the collective needs of society to pay for the services that are provided to the public by the government. But it’s not at all clear just how many of those ‘needs’ should be solved by the government and tuned into a matter of politics. So we can have legitimate disagreements over the proper amount of taxation that is appropriate for a free society.
The difference between moderate libertarians and liberals is that liberals seem to always want to push the public sphere into the private sphere. The libertarian argument is that when you make what used to be private public, you introduce the problem of the commons and therefore give others more power to dictate your life.
A classic example is health care: If you make health care a public matter, funded by tax revenues, then suddenly MY health becomes YOUR business. If I don’t look after my health, you have to pay more in tax. Therefore, I lose the right to choose how to look after my own body, at least to some degree. Here in Canada, advocates for everything from smoking bans to helmet laws use the argument that your own health affects everyone else because health care is paid for by the government. Michael Bloomberg used the same logic to ban large soft drinks.
Ultimately, the difference in the perception of freedom comes back to the divide between those who see individuals as being born with certain inalienable rights, and a society which has as its purpose the maximization of those rights so that people have as large a sphere of personal autonomy as possible, and those people who think that humans are born into a community and derive their rights from the community and what the community will allow. Locke vs Rousseau.
I believe in individual rights, and while I would agree that there are many areas where legitimate arguments can be made for government control when there are externalities to my actions, there are also many areas where I believe government clearly over-steps its boundaries.
For example, I totally reject the liberal concept of ‘positive rights’, such as the right to a ‘living wage’, a right to health care, the right to a good-paying job, etc. Such rights cannot exist unless other people provide them, which means that you’re subverting the rights of others. The ‘right’ to health care cannot exist without taking away the rights of doctors to set their own fees and treat whoever they wish to treat. A right to a ‘living wage’ cannot be ensured without taking away the rights of people to keep what they earned.
In fact, these ‘rights’ are merely a way of using the force of government to subjugate one group of citizens to the benefit of another. There are no externalities or arguments over the commons here - there is only political power and the use of force to extract wealth from one person and give it to another.