I am really tired of hearing people rant and rave that Obama is a "socialist." Socialism is a form of economy in which the means of production are owned by the public or the government. Capitalism is a form of economy in which the means of production are owned by private individuals. It is obvious that the United States subscribes to the latter form of economy far more closely than the former. Recent bailouts because of dire economic conditions do not come close to government ownership of the means of production.
It would seem, then, that the ranting and raving is all precipitated by the very marginal tendency in our country toward public control of Capitalism. Here, it seems to me, there is nothing new going on in the Obama administration --- not even in the last half century. It has long been clear that public intervention is necessary in order to maintain a reasonable balance between Capitalism and the public welfare. Too bad! Wouldn't it be nice if private owners of the means of production would protect their workers with safe operations, adequate reimbursement for their labor, and old-age security for those who have served well. But they don't. The instinct of Capitalism is to make money and, unfortunately, has little to do with serving the wider community.
Consider coal mining in West Virginia. Pure Capitalism? No. Fortunately, The public has asserted that certain safety standards must be upheld and government agencies inspect mines to assure that safety standards are in place. Even then, we have a situation where some private owners refuse to comply and disasters occur. How much worse would it be if private owners were simply allowed to be "self-governing?" In its pure form, Capitalism does not provide any incentive for protection of the worker or for the public welfare. Since the 19th Century, the United States has worked toward a modified version of Capitalism designed to promote social justice. Is this Socialism? No. It is a necessary attempt to make our Constitution work by promoting the General Welfare and still allowing private entrepreneurship.
Do Conservatives today really want to live in a world of pure Capitalism? Do they really want to eliminate governments and promote anarchy? What really do they want? I would very much like to hear some of our Conservative authors tell us exactly what it is that they really want --- not the vague familiar "less government" or "lower taxes" but actual programs or laissez faire "freedoms."
Personally, I like eating food that I know with some confidence is healthy. I like driving on efficient Interstate highways. I like feeling that children can go to public schools and be educated rather than being forced into factories to support starving families. Do Conservatives really believe that these things are possible without government?
I can't speak for all conservatives, only offer my own opinion and suggestions.
ReplyDeleteBefore I get into specifics, I will explain that my proposals are based upon the premise that civil society, that means us, is generally capable of managing its own affairs. That means that we, as members of society, are capable of establishing whatever institutions we find necessary to solve the problems we face. In my opinion, the purpose of government is not to solve our problems, but to protect our unalienable rights from would-be predators and conquerors.
Another principle that informs my proposals is the preference for local over distant control I would argue that that a higher constituent to representative ratio results in representatives who are more responsive and responsible to the electorate. That is to say, my single vote has much more of an effect on the election of my town councilman than on the election of my US Congressman. This leads to the desire to decentralize political decisions to the most local level practicable.
So now that you know where I'm coming from philosophically, here are a few specific things I would like to see happen, the most urgent of which would be to cease the monetary destruction currently being perpetrated by the federal government. This would entail the elimination of the federal reserve, elimination of legal tender laws, legally defining the monetary unit in terms of an actual commodity, and elimination of the tacit and explicit support for reckless credit expansions undertaken by the banks. In short, I would advocate a sound, anti-inflationary, free banking system. This would immediately stop the massive transfers of wealth to the rich that has been going on for the last half century. It also happens to be consistent with the Constitution.
Other changes at the federal level would be to eliminate federal involvement in education, agricultural subsidies and quotas, corporate subsidies, and the war on drugs. I would propose the elimination of social security, Medicare, and Medicaid. I would suggest that all of these functions are capable of being performed either by civil society or by various governments from state, to county, to town. And again, none of these federal activities is consistent with the Constitution.
I think that much of the health and safety regulation you speak of could be done by civil society as well. Underwriters Labs is a good example of this. But I can see government playing some role here.
Federal highways? Sure, I can deal with them. They're not why we have trillions of dollars worth of debt.
And of while I'm wising for things, I would like to see the elimination of the federal income tax, with the federal government funding itself through tariffs and excise taxes. Hey, I can dream, can't I?