[Subscribe to Daily Digest] |
I agree with you on the multi-dimentional nature of "political leanings." Google "Nolan Chart" for a two-dimensional representations. IMHO, real life is even more complex than that, as each person has different preferences on specific policy issues. The most central issue that corporate and government media (and the public education system) seldom address is the dichotomy between government monopolistic control vs. free choice on the part of indviduals: i.e. statist vs. liberty.
People throughout history tend to prefer liberty for themselves instead of being controlled by slave owners or "minders." That's why those in power and aspire to power have to keep coming up with new statist scams with new names to con people into depriving their neighbors (and consequently themselves) of liberty. "Big-government conservatives" and "big-government liberals" are merely two sides of the same coin: monopolistic control of the population.
When we have free choice in the kind of bread that we buy, we have all sorts of bread to choose from: some prefer levened, some unlevened; some like fluffy bread, some hard bread or flat bread; some may even like rye bread, others multi-grain, etc. etc.; some just want the least expensive bread possible because frankly they prefer spending their resources elsewhere, including leisure (not having to work too much). Entreprenuers have an incentive to come up with the best quality bread at the lowest cost because consumers have the option of doing business with others instead. If government ever made bread "free"; i.e. nobody is allowed to charge money for bread, and the government would tax everyone to have bread made . . . because bread is not really free like rain falling from sky, all such a legislated "free" would accomplish is creating monopoly contractors who do not have to answer to consumer choice. That's the difference between free-choice/freedom vs. "free-by-government-fiat."
While nothing is ever perfect (life is about making improvements), "there are times a purely free market is not perfect (therefore adjustment by government is needed)" is tantamount to saying freedom is bad from time to time and a dose of slavery/monopolistic-control would make things better. The frequently cited example of banking regulation is very misleading: central banking is the "original sin": the monopolistic fiat money law/regulation necessitated by stand-by bailout guarantee/regulation by the central bank (as "buyer of last resort") to transfer losses from gambling to innocent third parties creates incentive for further reckless gambling. Regulations like "Glass-Stegal" limited the reach of the distortions of those regulations to a certain extent. The removal of Glass-Stegal actually permeated central banking "put" to investment banking; the result is more distortion by government regulation not less.
For an analogy, it's like constitutional limits on the power of government officials; those limits/regulations on the privileged class is meant to keep the government size in check. Removing those constitutional regulations/limits on the privileged class of bureaucrats actually is not freeing up the market place at all, but allowing bureaucrats to run amok and wreck havoc on the society.
The advocacy for "balance" that we hear so often is, IMHO, another scam. There is no "balance" between being mugged vs. not being mugged. There is no "balance" between slavery vs. liberty. People yearn for liberty (just like they yearn for a society free from the scourge of robbery or rape), but often have to settle for / live in something less, for the time being. Few would advocate for a "balance" for robbery or rape frequencies or severities.
posted by 96.233.42...
, Sat, 27 Nov 2010 10:54:30
, Fri, 26 Nov 2010 07:46:32
, Thu, 25 Nov 2010 07:43:14
No Site Registration is Required to Post - Site Membership is optional (Member Features List), but helps to keep the site online
for all Saabers. If the site helps you, please consider helping the site by becoming a member.
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
