I also referenced a letter to the editor in which Carl advocated limits on government and private enterprise.
--------------
Dear Carl,
It’s my turn to apologize for this delayed response, although in retrospect it is probably a good thing because of your intervening letter to the editor.
That letter may raise some eyebrows amongst your friends, I think. Any acknowledgement that government needs to restrained automatically classifies you as an right wing extremist. ;) I know you tried to mitigate it with an obligatory shot across the bow of big business, but you may not realize that you committed a cardinal sin that cannot be mitigated.
I’m only half-joking with you. I personally found your letter to the editor to be balanced and nicely articulated. May I say, though, that if government can be properly restrained and properly delineated as you suggested, the excesses of big business will also be solved.
I say that because big business exits the realm of capitalism when it lobbies government for favors. But if government could be restrained and returned back to its constitutional boundaries, then big business (as well as any other lobbyists) would have very little to influence. If government did not have the power to manipulate society and the economy with targeted taxation/tax breaks, favorable treatment, or sweetheart legislation, then big business would simply walk away from it.
Turning to your response of 10/23/09, you write, “I favor government programs in some cases (as in the case of health care).” Tying in with the above discussion, another reason I oppose national health care is that it gives government even more power, which in turn increases its susceptibility to external pressures like lobbying.
You wrote, “I do not share your faith in capitalism. Capitalism is just another flawed (and unsustainable) economic system; it works for people who are gifted entrepreneurs and business people, but everyone's gifts do not lie in those areas.” I need to be as clear as I can be. Capitalism is the legal, voluntary exchange of value. That makes everyone a capitalist, even Marxists and communists. Everyone engages in the exchange of value. It isn’t a faith in capitalism, it is faith in people going about the private pursuits of their daily lives.
Capitalism is not the process by which a select few people get rich, it is the process by which society functions. Some people are very good at coming up with good ideas or desirable products that a them a lot of money as others engage them in voluntary exchange. However, making a lot of money is not a feature of superior skills in capitalism, it is only one of many possible outcomes of capitalism in a free society.
“Some people have to do the world's work, and these people often feel the brunt of capitalism.” No, no, no. 1) People who get rich in capitalism ARE working. 2) people “doing the world’s work” are engaging in voluntary exchange (working for money) and as such are capitalists themselves. 3) There is no “brunt” to feel in capitalism, there is only the risks and rewards of living life.
“Capitalism coupled with our culture of radical libertarian individualism has resulted in real suffering for some people in this country…” Capitalism - people freely associating for mutual benefit – is a positive thing. I have never, ever seen “radical libertarian individualism.” I have only seen big government meddling; meddling which destroys lives and plays favorites. Government permeates every facet of society and influences every exchange we engage in. I wonder what ““radical libertarian individualism” you could possibly talking about.
“My preference is communalism, that is, living in a voluntary association known as the community where we look out for each other and help each other out.” Communalism is intrinsically at odds with powerful centralized government. Those “voluntary associations” result from human relationships, not government programs. Government destroys relationships and interpersonal obligations, substituting programs funded with dollars coerced from us. I would say that communalism is a founding concept (states’ rights as opposed to powerful, oppressive central government).
“I really do not think the two party system works-some of our Founding Fathers were suspicious of parties (or "factions") and rightly so.” I agree, which is why I have never said I’m a Republican, I have never joined a political party, and I have never made a political donation to a party.
“I favor a NO party system, maybe a Constitutional amendment stating that every candidate for political office has to run as an independent pledged to solve our common problems…” I would disagree to the extent that such a system might obscure the ability for the people to discern what a candidate believes and what that candidate would do once in office. But if the result was to break the hold that political parties hold over their candidates (chairmanships, campaign dollars, etc.), I would definitely agree to that.
“Private donations to political campaigns (THE corrupting force in American politics) should be banned…” No, POWER, the ability to spend other peoples’ money with impunity, is the corrupting influence (i.e. lobbyists). There would be no multi-million dollar campaigns if the resulting elections sent people to Washington without the power to allocate tax dollars.
“…I most believe in the Politics of the Third Way-synergy-where debating and pooling our ideas results in solutions that are even better than what we bring to the table.” I understand your desire for less acrimony and more cooperation, but unfortunately there can be no “can’t-we-just-get-along” government. People always have been divided by opinion, world view, politics, religion, neighborhoods, and any other topic you could name. This actually is the way it should be (free association). Our ideological diversity is much more a strength than the diversity of our pigment levels. We should debate ideas. The alternative is forced compliance from a top-down authority, which I don’t thing you are advocating, are you?
“I should also add that neither conservatives or liberals (if your figures are accurate) tithe.” Tithing is what God requires of people who choose to be obedient to Him. By His mercy I have been blessed, and one of my acts of worship is to obey Him and give to others. I would only hold people of faith to a tithing requirement, and then it still is a matter of conscience rather than government forcing people to part with their money.
“Finally, what is insurance? It is paying my money for someone else to use. Is this socialism? No, but it operates on a similar principle…” No. Insurance is a contractual agreement voluntarily engaged. It has nothing to do with socialism on any level. Things of value are exchanged without coercion. It is a private, legal transaction for mutual benefit.
“…I think it is reprehensible that health insurance companies can drop coverage or deny coverage on the basis of preexisting conditions.” These apocryphal stories of abuse are frequently trotted out, and they certainly do happen, but I don’t think they are as common as insurance company critics suggest. However, regarding pre-existing conditions, I think they ought to be denied. Or do you think you should be able to buy car insurance the day after a crash? Do you think you should be issued a life insurance policy after dying? A pre-existing condition has a 100% probability of loss, so it violates the one of the primary principles of insurance: A loss must be unexpected.
“Moreover, I think it is criminal; it is swindling.” Like I have already said, there are laws against criminal behavior. So yes, I agree. Prosecute them every time it happens.
“Maybe single-payer is not the way we should go, but we haven't even had an honest vetting of that option.” Yes we have. Oregon and Massachusetts. Medicare. CHIP. H1N1 vaccination program. Every one a mess, subject to fraud, cost overruns, and inefficiency.
Well, this is a long letter in response. I look forward to your letter, should you send one.
No comments:
Post a Comment