@Arjuna,
Arjuna;101226 wrote:I'm right there with you on the ideological basis of the free market. A modern liberal viewpoint does consider the pragmatic aspect of the situation, but in a more profound way: if the free market approach leads to concentration of means and opportunity into the hands of the few, it's not creating the society we want. Furthermore, it's not creating a stable self-sustaining society. This isn't a matter of attitude: it's history. Base the pure free market in any moral context you want, the fact remains: it didn't work. That's why we don't have it now.
This is a fact that modern conservatives often overlook. The rise of socialism in America is not the result of some liberal conspiracy. It happened because of a long bloody conflict between labor and business that the federal government finally began to participate in by virtue of Theodore Roosevelt. During the same time period, the rest of the world got Karl Marx. Marx was a spokesman for a widely recognized problem: the cultural deevolution resulting from the unchecked freedom of capitalists.
The cherry on top of the heap was the Great Depression, which taught a whole generation the truth of one of Marx's tenants: a free market will, over time, demonstrate bigger and more dramatic swings between expansion and contraction until the contractions become dangerous to continuity of the government. The view of Marx was that this would lead to a global proletariat revolution.
Our view might be: if the government doesn't protect the society from these swings, the distress of the population will put an end to that government and lead the people to take a leap in the dark. Probably straight into tyranny. Regulation is required to protect personal freedom.
Pragmaticaly speaking, I agree with you; had the U.S. (and England in an earlier period) not implemented some socialistic reforms, there probably would have been far more radical revolution, peaceful or otherwise. However, I also feel, know really, as far as I know anything, that the growth of collectivistic tendencies in the western world was not only a natural phenomenon resulting inevitably from the tendency of capitalism to allow for the accumulation of wealth in a few hands. My point is that I don't feel that free market capitalism got a fair shake. Sure, if tommorow I magically reformed to nation into my ideal libertarian society, it might well given a few decades or centuries revert to its present state, or worse, but I simply refuse to accept thew conclusion that we should abandon this, IMO, best of all systems, in favor of something admittedly worse, but which is more likely to endure. The founders created a system that lasted mostly intact for well over a hundred years. We've learned alot by the subsequent corruption of that system and I think if we had an opportunity to refound the nation, so to speak, we might be able to add some improvement and additional safeguards against 'slippage' that might allow it to last much longer. No system endures forever, everything becomes corrupt sooner or later. But in the meantime, let's do the best possible. And another point; even a collectivist society is in flux, all are, so there's no garantee that a moderate social democracy, e.g., will remain in that form; it may be corrupted to become something far more oppressive and authoritarian. If you look at the whole process on a spectrum from individualist to collectivist, or free to totalitarian, whatever your pleasure, you might consider that, even if it doesn't last, at least a republican (i.e. per the American constitution) system starts us off
farther away from very nasty other extreme of the spectrum. That nasty extreme of totalitarianism with a tiny ruling elite and a vast mass of poor serfs is unfortunately the recurring theme in human history, the natural state of affairs. I view republicanism as a bulwark against that horror, even if only a temporary one.
Quote:In short: if you want to protect the right of personal freedom, look at the bigger picture and see what checks and balances are required to accomplish that in the long run.
I agree, but I don't think that any of those checks and balances need involve giving the state more power over the individual. If you'll humor me, there are a few tenets that I would have added were I among the authors of the constitution:
1) a
far more explicit prohibition of central banking and fiat currency
2) a provision for a mandatory popular referendum before entering into any war
3) an absolute prohibition against federal funding to the states (to avoid state dependence on federal government)
4) a far more explicit prohibition of taxes on labor/wages
5) an expansion of the 1st ammendment clause re freedom of assembly to apply to labor unions
6) a clearer definition of the role of the Supreme Court, which would state that it's rulings cannot negate legislation on the grounds of unconstitutionality, and that it should function only as the highest court of appeals
7) a clear prohibition of the employment by the federal government of mercenaries or other contractors for active military purposes, and a mandate that all contracting with the federal government for any reason occur through open auctions
8) a VERY explicit clarification of the 'interstate commerce clause,' stating that it grants the Federal government only the power to prevent inter-state tarrifs and to arbitrate in the event of disputes concerning inter-state commerce brought forth by the states re tarrifs
9) strict prohibition against the government borrowing any money whatsoever except through the sale of bonds on the open market, not to exceed 10% of the annual budget in any given year, not to grow in terms of that percentage borrowed annnually for more than two consecutive years, and to be paid off in full every ten years, in order to do which the government would be required to eliminate all funding for new programs created during that period before they sought the funds through higher taxes - any debts accrued outside these rules shall be considered null and void
10) a clarification of the 2nd ammendment, stating that individual citizens have the right to own and possess any sort of small-arm, and to enlist in their state militia if they so choose
11) an expansion of the clause prohibiting officials from accepting gifts or titles from foreign government to include a prohibition against the membership of officials in any policy-making international organization
12) explicit clarification that treaties made with foreign governments or international bodies do not supercede the constitution should a conflict between them arise, and providing for a popular referundum and ratification by the state legislatures before any treaty can be entered into by the federal government
13) a provision for the public funding of election campaigns, with a total prohibition of private funding for campaigns directly or for advertizements, events, or other promotions of a candidate or a party - though private funding of promotions of the above mentione kind would be permitted if they were promoting an idea, a piece of legislation, or some other public initiative without referring directly to any candidate or party
14) a prohibition of the practice by the states, who otherise set voting regulations, of having different requirements - re any aspect of elections - for different political parties or individuals; also a prohibition against any vote counting method other than of paper ballots by hand
15) explicit prohibition of the use of regular military forces in the U.S., except in the event of actual invasion by one or several of the states themselves by hostile foreign nation (e.g.
not a nation-ess terrorist organization)
16) provision for a popular referendum, to be held at the request of 2/3 of the state legislatures, for the impeachment of any and/or all members of the federal government, and for new elections in the event of such impeachment
17) explicit prohibition of a military draft in the 13th ammendment, under any circumstances whatsoever
18) explicit prohibition of the creation of any department of office of government which is not always and directly able to be audited by the Congress of the U.S., whether in open session or in closed session with records of the proceedings
19) a clarification of the 'emminent domain' clause, expressly prohibiting the transfer or sale of any properties thus siezed from private persons to other private persons, and a limiting of the use of the power to times of war, i.e. foreign invasion, within the U.S. themselves
20) explicit prohibition against the government investing in any private enterprise or corporation, and from loaning any money to any person or corporation under any circumstances
21) explicit prohibition against any official of the federal government owning any stock or interest in any corporation, or doing any private business with any person, which is also involved at that time in a financial relationship with the government or which was involved in such a relationship within five year past; and of any business between an ex-official and any person or corporation - either doing business with the government, or which was doing business with the government during his tenure in office - for no less than five years after he abdicates his government office
. But no I think ultimately, within my liftime anyway, we'll get this country back. Many times throughout history great nations have fallen to one form of tyranny or another, but never before to my knowledge has there been a nation so innately strong - or posessed of such a powerful tradition of freedom - as the the United States.