My friend Alan Perlman has an outstanding blog site "The Jewish Atheist". Alan is an ardent libertarian, a political and socioeconomic viewpoint with which I strongly disagree. He and I have been exchanging comments on his perspective, which is well illustrated in his post "The Incentivized (Compassionate) Society". Alan's position may be summarized by his last entry in response to my comments:
Yes, we’ll always have elites running things, and unequal distribution of wealth is an inevitable result of capitalism. Some people (or their talents) will always be (perceived as) worth more than others.
But a return to Constitutional government means less, MUCH less opportunity for collusion between business and government. This revolving-door BS, where CEOs get govt. posts and set the rules for their industries — there would be a lot less of that.
Alan,
If as you say, the elites will always run the show and unequal distribution is the result of capitalism, then I'm afraid we do indeed have the ingredients for a barbaric "Lord of the Flies" society which I previously asserted and which you refuted, in which the strong would trample the weak.
Beginning with the Reagan era, that is the direction in which the U.S. has been heading anyway as moneyed interests have been allowed to take over the government, including the Supreme Court. This is why we need the restoration of regulatory agencies and policies that will doggedly protect (yes the "P" word which I know libertarians hate) the interests of the people. As I've previously proposed, in order to prevent the revolving door conflict of interest, these agencies would be barred to employment for executives associated with the monitored industries.
Never in American history have so few owned so much of America's wealth which has resulted in the "elite" to which you refer: the 1% for whom the economic ideology is "State socialism for us, social Darwinism for everyone else". Deregulation has allowed concentration of wealth to that small segment of society. Under a libertarian culture in which the government would have extremely limited powers to prevent plutocratic abuses and excesses, wouldn't the Golden Rule ( "The one who has the gold makes the rule") be considered the natural order of things?
Rick
5 comments:
Rick,
Thanks for the respect and attention you give me and the ideals of liberty. Isn't MORE human liberty, exercised with responsibility, superior to a minority forcibly telling the rest how to live? I do hope you agree with that.
Where we differ is in our estimate of the human race. The progressive and the conservative see the citizens as churlish children who need to be regulated for their own good and exploited by the 1%.
It doesn't have to be that wasy. The realistic libertarian (e.g., me) sees that there is potentially the altruism required by a free society whose members take care of each other.
Hell, if people can be taught to love the government and buy one brand of jeans over another, thay can be taught charity and compassson in every possible way, throughout life. Remember that we're talking about personal choices here. Social Darwinism is merely a mental construct, an aggregate of choices, to justify the status quo. It could be replaced with a mentality of
voluntary redistributionism.
Don't assume that all CEOs are evil. Many have shared their good foretune with others, through foundations and personally.
Oh yeah, and the government ought to give tax CREDITS for charitable contribution, as I suggested in my blog piece.
Even without tax credits, there is a lot the govt. can do to free up money for charitable giving (farm subsidies, corp. welfare).
Underwriters Labs, Consumer Reports, and the Jewish kosher food system are proof that porivate regulation can work, if the organiation has the necessary impartiality and integrity (not like the FDA).
Alan,
You make so many interesting points that I hardly know where to begin. So let me first state my own position this way. As a progressive I'm not asking the government to "take care" of me. But as a taxpayer IMO I have certain expectations that would have been unheard of in the 18th and 19th centuries of then agrarian American society but are now part and parcel just about every advanced country on the planet. For example I firmly believe that affordable health care is not a privilege but a right, just as much so as public education, sanitation, and police and fire protection. The private health insurance system has become so abusive and prohibitively expensive to individuals that those without employer sponsored group plans are shit out of luck.
Personally, and I know I speak for others. the biggest fear of job loss is termination of medical benefits. And besides, in terms of practicality and economic productivity, it's cheaper to have a system where people who are sick can get care before their condition worsens and becomes more expensive and where employees can stay home instead of infecting their co-workers out of fear of losing their jobs if they don't show up for work.
This is not to say that under a state sponsored health system that I'm absolved from taking common sense steps of looking after my health anymore than I am from locking my door just because there's a police department or reporting a gas leak just because there's a fire department. But then would libertarianism abolish public safety departments and put everyone on his own in these areas anyway? After all, there' no reference to them inn the Constitution.)
As for banking on philanthropy and altruism, under the American capitalist economic system in which competition has permeated our culture. we,ll good luck. Since the onset of Great Recession, there are probably more Americans who are in need of assistance than who can offer it. Sure, there are some worthwhile charities out there and generous individuals who help their neighbors. But a lot of organizations operating as charities are scams. As I previously suggested to you, the government should publicize a list of such bad apples, especially if as you suggest, donors would get tax credits for making charitable contributions.
A few other points. I don't trust CEO's because by virtue of their positions they are charged with looking for ways to cut expenses (except their own bloated salaries) including payroll, which means employees will lose their livelihood as a result. Under libertarianism. in such circumstances there would be no government UI benefits and the unemployed would be left to soup kitchens and homeless shelters to survive. In advanced societies of the world, such inhumane treatment of those who are out of work through no fault of their own is unthinkable.
The kosher system at one time may have been reliable, but that's all changed with reports of corruption and mistreatment of employees and animals at a major kosher slaughterhouse in Iowa (http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3577905,00.html).
In short, if in a democracy, the people—or their elected representatives--are the government, then contrary to President Reagan's assertion, the government should not be considered he enemy.
DAMN, DAMN. I just wrote a reply and lost it. Sending shorter version.
Basically I said that trading hypotheticals was interesting but not productive, since we really don't know what will happen.
Also proposed a basic principles: if there's some way to solve a problem other than by fed. govt. action, that's what a libertarian would recommend. State and local govts. could do everything we've been talking about - also private orgs. You can hate corps. if you want (I do too), but they do give: donations from major corps. were up 13% last year.
Nobody who takes a "devil take the hindmost" attitude deserves to be called a libertarian (that includes Ayn Rand). To me, libertarianism is the political expression of secular humanism. The life, liberty and property of the poor, such as they are, ARE worthy of society's attention.
"DAMN, DAMN. I just wrote a reply and lost it."
That happens to me too. I don't believe in a supernatural being but sometimes I wonder about gremlins. (lol)
"Also proposed a basic principles: if there's some way to solve a problem other than by fed. govt. action, that's what a libertarian would recommend. State and local govts. could do everything we've been talking about - also private orgs. You can hate corps. if you want (I do too), but they do give: donations from major corps. were up 13% last year."
The trouble is that state and local govts are already stretched to limits on programs which they administer and are having to cut back assistance. But if they had the resources to act as a safety net with the federal govt as backup, that just might work.
Private organizations giveth and private organizations taketh away. Corporations, CEO's and CSR (corporate social responsibility) are untrustworthy. The first two are often responsible for firing productive employees and putting them in the need of the charities and foundations to which these hypocrites donate. The last one is usually nothing more than showboating and an attempt to buy the public trust that they don't deserve.
(The following portion of Alan Perlman's response was accidentally omitted in my above reply)
"Nobody who takes a "devil take the hindmost" attitude deserves to be called a libertarian (that includes Ayn Rand). To me, libertarianism is the political expression of secular humanism. The life, liberty and property of the poor, such as they are, ARE worthy of society's attention."
But doesn't libertarianism like all other ideologies have different schools of thought? I can't think of an "ism" that doesn't, including humanism. If Rand were still alive, would you and she refute each other's claim to the mantle of "true libertarianism?"
Post a Comment