Wednesday, October 20, 2010
Liberalism vs Libertarian philosopy
I just took this from a friend's Facebook page, frankly:
"...just swiped this from the comment section over at Truthout:
Genuine freedom includes two components:
1. Freedom to
and
2. Freedom from
Libertarian ideology only recognizes the first component--which is why it's inadequate.
The two often come into conflict.
Take smoking. Smokers' freedom to smoke in public conflicts with non-smokers' freedom from harm (cancer, etc.). Society initially supported the former but as evidence of harm mounted, shifted to the latter.
Take the environment. A company's freedom to pollute conflicts with citizens' freedom from harm (in various forms, including cancer and global warming). We've addressed this issue only in an adequate way to date.
The free market alone can only support "freedom to." It takes government regulation to support "freedom from."
That's why the liberal theory of freedom is much more powerful and ultimately beneficial than the libertarian theory of freedom.
Libertarianism = the greatest good for the rich & well-connected
Liberalism = the greatest good for the greatest number"
Food for thought, for sure.
Have a great day, y'all, and enjoy that terrific, continuing stretch of wonderful weather.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
9 comments:
Thanks. And I just stole this from YOU!
https://sites.google.com/site/radiomankc/the-truth-about-liberals
I disagree with this because it takes responsibility away from the individual and places it in the hands of "the government."
A big problem we have in our society today is that people like to stake claims on their rights and freedoms, but they want someone else to take care of their responsibilities.
In a truly free market, we wouldn't have govt. bailouts. Corporations that are mismanaged would go bankrupt due to their mismanagement. The consequences for bad decisions would be as dire are they should be, and thus corps. would be run much more conservatively.
The separation of responsibility from "freedom" is the biggest weakness in the Liberal version discussed above.
okay, emawkc, I respect you and your writing but you're way off on this one.
It absolutely does not take "responsibility away from the individual and..." place "it in the hands of the 'government."
And here's why--it's still up to "the individual"--you and me--to take care of ourselves and do what we can and must do but the fact is, there are plenty of things in this world that are far bigger and greater than the individual and so, out of our control--beyond our control. Smoking in public and the corresponding possibilty/likelihood of cancer is but one of them. Pollution by a large corporation that damages an area or an ecosystem is yet another. The fact is, th situations are virtually limitless where a corporation can impact our lives negatively in both large and small ways and, but for government, we would have no recourse.
What recourse do we have, individually, against Countrywide Home Loans, after they created all those illegal, immoral subprime loans out of California?
Answer: None, really.
Sure, one could file a lawsuit but the courts and the process is virtually completely in their favor.
The BP oil spill is an excellent example, above. What recourse does that fisherman have, by him or her self, against that mega-corporation, its money and attorneys?
Come on. You know the answer is very little recourse.
Without government, the "little guy", the individual, you and I, are screwed.
mr
"Corporations that are mismanaged would go bankrupt due to their mismanagement."
Right.
Except J.P. Morgan and Goldman Sachs--two terrific examples here--were "mismanaged", at minimum and in the first place, benefited greatly by that mismanagement and now are making even more money, and none of the people responsible for out national and international economic meltdown were held responsible or punished in any way.
The foxes are guarding the chickenhouse. And they're inside the chickenhouse (read: the White House)
mr
okay emawkc... so what's your problem with 'government'? Because they have guns?
I submit that some corporations in private enterprise have sufficient power to railroad individuals... and individuals here have established a government to protect them from abusive powers... be they govts in other lands, individuals with guns, or corporations which have managed to attain power over others.
I'm much less concerned about who SHOULD have responsibility or theoretical notions of how good behavior will result in success and bad behavior will result in bankruptcy.
We have a very interesting government here which does have check and balances... though we've seen where private enterprise is now seeking to control. And which needs to be stopped.
Government, IMHO and without writing a final treatise about it, is to do things not efficiently done privately, to protect the society and its members as it sees fit through a majority process, but through the Bill of Rights also manages to protect the individual from the tyranny of the group.
I guess I'm more inclined to be interested in FAIRNESS, REASONABLE LIBERTY, and OPPORTUNITY for us to life with life, liberty, yada yada.
I do not respect corporate 'rights' on the same level as citizen rights. The legal definition of an entity is not guaranteed and I don't think it should be. Moreover, this is a nation of humans. Not organizations. In part because these organizations are designed to hold its controllers harmless with limited risk and individual responsibility.
I might feel differently if more boards of directors served jail time for bad behavior. But corporations do work as intended... to protect those who run them.
The problem is that too many people put their faith in federal government control and regulation, then turn away and just expect it to work.
We've had lots over regulation over the petroleum industry for years, yet we still have an environmental catastrophe in Gulf during which a Democrat administration bent over to the very industry officials that they should have been punishing.
"…Except J.P. Morgan and Goldman Sachs…"
This is actually a great point in my favor. Rather than letting all of the mismanaged banks/insurance companies/auto manufacturers fall into bankruptcy, they've been rewarded for their malfeasance with government bailouts and big bonuses.
As far as recourse against companies like Country Wide, well country wide should be out of business, the loans they made defaulted upon. The people who accepted loans they couldn't afford would also be punished (they need to be responsible for their individual decisions as well).
I'm not in favor of complete anarchy. I agree that we need government to help provide services for which we should be jointly and severally liable. I just disagree won what services those are.
It's not the government's job to make sure every motorcyclist wears a helmet. It's not the government's job to make sure I don't poison my body with french fries.
I also agree that corporations should not be accorded the same rights as individuals. Again, this is because corporations do not share the same responsibilities as individuals, which is the whole point.
The problem is that too many people put their faith in federal government control and regulation, then turn away and just expect it to work.
We've had lots over regulation over the petroleum industry for years, yet we still have an environmental catastrophe in Gulf during which a Democrat administration bent over to the very industry officials that they should have been punishing.
"…Except J.P. Morgan and Goldman Sachs…"
This is actually a great point in my favor. Rather than letting all of the mismanaged banks/insurance companies/auto manufacturers fall into bankruptcy, they've been rewarded for their malfeasance with government bailouts and big bonuses.
As far as recourse against companies like Country Wide, well country wide should be out of business, the loans they made defaulted upon. The people who accepted loans they couldn't afford would also be punished (they need to be responsible for their individual decisions as well).
I'm not in favor of complete anarchy. I agree that we need government to help provide services for which we should be jointly and severally liable. I just disagree won what services those are.
It's not the government's job to make sure every motorcyclist wears a helmet. It's not the government's job to make sure I don't poison my body with french fries.
I also agree that corporations should not be accorded the same rights as individuals. Again, this is because corporations do not share the same responsibilities as individuals, which is the whole point.
Nonsense and hogwash, with all respect.
You say: "The problem is that too many people put their faith in federal government control and regulation, then turn away and just expect it to work."
Piffle.
Most people expect to handle virtually everything themselves, first and foremost, in our society--most of us--and the, if we get a really good, big screwing from a corporation or person, THEN we maybe expect something to be done, usually through us filing a lawsuit.
Then: "country wide should be out of business..."
But they aren't. Bank of America bought them and the illegal, ugly loans these predators created still exist and B of A is trying to collect on them.
I'll give you this--the people signing those loans shouldn't have believed the nonsense that was being told them by the thieves at Countrywide, that's for sure. But now, after the fact, when we realize the kind of organization Angelo Mozilo ran over there and the kind of ugly, stupid, irresponisble and yes, illegal tactics they used, we need the government to step in and protect these people. It's what gov't does. Without it, we're powerless.
I do agree with this, to a point: "It's not the government's job to make sure every motorcyclist wears a helmet. It's not the government's job to make sure I don't poison my body with french fries."
Can we have too much government? Sure. You bet. We certainly agree on that. But we surely need government protections as BP's oil spill, the financial collapse and a lot more have proven.
mr
"…Except J.P. Morgan and Goldman Sachs…"
"This is actually a great point in my favor. Rather than letting all of the mismanaged banks/insurance companies/auto manufacturers fall into bankruptcy, they've been rewarded for their malfeasance with government bailouts and big bonuses."
And the mismanaged banks, insurance companies, auto mfrs, etc., would fall into bankruptcy but for being inside our gov't--esp Goldman Sachs and Wall Street. We need to get them out of the White House and out of gov't but the American people aren't upset enough yet and not demanding it. They also don't know we need true campaign finance reform that would make the lobbyists, lobbying and their money illegal AND that we should mandate a much-abbreviated election season as Britain did long ago.
We're happy idiots.
mr
Post a Comment