Sunday, February 19, 2012
Wednesday, February 8, 2012
Is More Government Really Bad?
The one time king of the “government is evil” cry and corporate puppet Ronald Reagan once said, “Runaway government threatens the very preservation of freedom itself.”
How dare the government keep any true American from riding a motorcycle without a helmet? So we constantly hear the government is bad cry from the hard core libertarians. So often the idea and government are two opposing and mutually exclusive concepts. It seems that one cannot exist without destroying the other.
One of the greatest political victories of the conservative right in the last forty years has been creating the belief that government itself is wrong and bad. That it is the government not the private sector who hinders freedoms. In one single political stoke that concept seems to render many liberal policies and initiatives as damaging and anti-American. Any attempt to expand social programs or increase business regulations becomes itself a direct attack on freedom.
The problem with this mindset is two-fold. First it begins from a belief that government it self is inherently bad for and damaging to freedom. What follows from that is that any attempt by the government to assist in the lives of its citizens is by definition an infringement on the freedom of such citizens rendering the effort a failure before it has even implemented and regardless of its results.
Secondly is that almost entirely forces us to see the relationship between government and freedom adversarial and combative. It also creates a strong suspect between the government and the very people it is expected to serve. It implies the “Big Brother” stereotype. One problem with this idea is that it assumes the mere size of government has a direct correlation on its oppressiveness. This is at its base a false dichotomy. The belief that only a small government can provide, protect and save our freedom is not very valid reasoning.
There is the possibility of a small but very oppressive government, allowing only one party rule, no freedom of speech or press. In opposition one can have a very large government with a strong public sector of power that is still able to maintain strong freedoms for its citizens. One great living example is the country of Belgium. Its government is nearly twice the size of the US based on its comparative size vs. GDP ratio. Yet its citizens enjoy almost the same liberties and rights we do. They have quite an extensive health care system. They have a very generous unemployment and pension programs. Check the records we have very few political refugees fleeing the political oppression of Belgium.
This is argument is strengthened as well by taking a look as many of the most common activities handled and controlled by our government. Those activities are not in and of themselves not oppressive. These include but are not limited to: putting out fires, fighting crime, fighting disease, building roads & bridges, funding research, providing parks & recreation areas, educating our children, sewage treatment, funding our poor, and providing medical care for the elderly, It seems that the one over powering cry from the small government crowd always ends up truly being about money and taxes. As one follows the logic of the argument we find the opponent is mostly angered by the amount of taxes he has to pay to help others. This idea will be addressed in a later blog.
Sadly one of the most popular arguments from the anti-government crew is one of the weakest with a glaring logical fallacy that is virtually ignored. It is of course the slippery slope reasoning. Examples being the creation of mandatory no-smoking laws will automatically lead to the downright outlawing of cigarettes. That the government requiring background checks for gun owners will undoubtedly lead to major gun restrictions and of course the confiscation of guns by the government. Leaving its citizenry unarmed and unprotected. This is additionally hampered by the false assumption that the government would take up arms against the people, even if we were to grant the invalid reasoning. Or lastly those environmental protections of wetlands will destroy private property rights and lead to government control of all property.
As Max Nieman explains:
It is common among conservative critics of public activism to characterize government growth in the arena of social welfare, environment, consumer, and worker protection, and income security as steps toward the loss of liberty and even totalitarianism. Many critics of the emergence of the modern social welfare state…have tried to convey the sense that the road to totalitarian hell is paved with the good intentions of the social democratic program…There is no record, however, of any oppressive regime having taken power by advancing on the social welfare front. Lenin and Stalin, Mussolini, Mao, Tse-tung, Castro, and Chile’s Pinochet did not consolidate power by gradually increasing social welfare programs, taxes, and regulation of the environment or workplace. Rather, these assaults on personal freedom and democratic governance involved limitation on civil rights and political rights, the legitimization of oppression and discrimination against disfavored or unpopular groups, and the centralization and expansion of military and policy forces. Hitler did not become the supreme ruler of the Nazi state by first taking over the health department. (1)
We can all at least agree I think that to limit the freedom of those who might choose to harm society is valid. We may not agree on who falls in that category. While conservatives tend to have no problem what so every cancelling freedoms of those who choose to rob, rape, do drugs, or murder. They tend to be less forceful about the businesses which may defraud investors and customers, or factories willing to dump harmful chemicals in our water supply. Or drug companies free to sell dangerous or untested medication. So we may tend to disagree on what best serves the public interest.
One of the most interesting and often loudest complaints of government intrusion from our antigovernment brothers is helmet and traffic laws, as well as auto and truck registration. (even though that is city and county not federal) However, one can also view both of these as liberating as well. We have seen the damages associated with motorcycle accidents drop after such helmet laws are put into place. This can be a benefit for all as a savings in insurance rates, the lowering of stress and over work of hospital and rescue employees. Also the requirements of many traffic laws, such as speed limits, traffic signs, vehicle upkeep requirements enables each of us to have safer and freer travel throughout this country. If all were allowed to avoid traffic laws and to drive automobiles in ill repair immobilized by fear of accidents and crashes.
Lastly we are given even deeper and better liberties because of so called government interference. For example we are free to breathe clean air, and drink clean water because of environmental laws. The grail of the libertarians known as “Free Market” could itself not survive or function without certain major government rules regarding economic actions such as laws about contract, property rights, debt collection, fraud etc. In my opinion without some government our capitalism system would itself fall into decay and chaos. We become free to join in that market because of those very laws that protect us in the process.
Of course that is just my opinion I could be wrong.
-John M. Valdez
How dare the government keep any true American from riding a motorcycle without a helmet? So we constantly hear the government is bad cry from the hard core libertarians. So often the idea and government are two opposing and mutually exclusive concepts. It seems that one cannot exist without destroying the other.
One of the greatest political victories of the conservative right in the last forty years has been creating the belief that government itself is wrong and bad. That it is the government not the private sector who hinders freedoms. In one single political stoke that concept seems to render many liberal policies and initiatives as damaging and anti-American. Any attempt to expand social programs or increase business regulations becomes itself a direct attack on freedom.
The problem with this mindset is two-fold. First it begins from a belief that government it self is inherently bad for and damaging to freedom. What follows from that is that any attempt by the government to assist in the lives of its citizens is by definition an infringement on the freedom of such citizens rendering the effort a failure before it has even implemented and regardless of its results.
Secondly is that almost entirely forces us to see the relationship between government and freedom adversarial and combative. It also creates a strong suspect between the government and the very people it is expected to serve. It implies the “Big Brother” stereotype. One problem with this idea is that it assumes the mere size of government has a direct correlation on its oppressiveness. This is at its base a false dichotomy. The belief that only a small government can provide, protect and save our freedom is not very valid reasoning.
There is the possibility of a small but very oppressive government, allowing only one party rule, no freedom of speech or press. In opposition one can have a very large government with a strong public sector of power that is still able to maintain strong freedoms for its citizens. One great living example is the country of Belgium. Its government is nearly twice the size of the US based on its comparative size vs. GDP ratio. Yet its citizens enjoy almost the same liberties and rights we do. They have quite an extensive health care system. They have a very generous unemployment and pension programs. Check the records we have very few political refugees fleeing the political oppression of Belgium.
This is argument is strengthened as well by taking a look as many of the most common activities handled and controlled by our government. Those activities are not in and of themselves not oppressive. These include but are not limited to: putting out fires, fighting crime, fighting disease, building roads & bridges, funding research, providing parks & recreation areas, educating our children, sewage treatment, funding our poor, and providing medical care for the elderly, It seems that the one over powering cry from the small government crowd always ends up truly being about money and taxes. As one follows the logic of the argument we find the opponent is mostly angered by the amount of taxes he has to pay to help others. This idea will be addressed in a later blog.
Sadly one of the most popular arguments from the anti-government crew is one of the weakest with a glaring logical fallacy that is virtually ignored. It is of course the slippery slope reasoning. Examples being the creation of mandatory no-smoking laws will automatically lead to the downright outlawing of cigarettes. That the government requiring background checks for gun owners will undoubtedly lead to major gun restrictions and of course the confiscation of guns by the government. Leaving its citizenry unarmed and unprotected. This is additionally hampered by the false assumption that the government would take up arms against the people, even if we were to grant the invalid reasoning. Or lastly those environmental protections of wetlands will destroy private property rights and lead to government control of all property.
As Max Nieman explains:
It is common among conservative critics of public activism to characterize government growth in the arena of social welfare, environment, consumer, and worker protection, and income security as steps toward the loss of liberty and even totalitarianism. Many critics of the emergence of the modern social welfare state…have tried to convey the sense that the road to totalitarian hell is paved with the good intentions of the social democratic program…There is no record, however, of any oppressive regime having taken power by advancing on the social welfare front. Lenin and Stalin, Mussolini, Mao, Tse-tung, Castro, and Chile’s Pinochet did not consolidate power by gradually increasing social welfare programs, taxes, and regulation of the environment or workplace. Rather, these assaults on personal freedom and democratic governance involved limitation on civil rights and political rights, the legitimization of oppression and discrimination against disfavored or unpopular groups, and the centralization and expansion of military and policy forces. Hitler did not become the supreme ruler of the Nazi state by first taking over the health department. (1)
We can all at least agree I think that to limit the freedom of those who might choose to harm society is valid. We may not agree on who falls in that category. While conservatives tend to have no problem what so every cancelling freedoms of those who choose to rob, rape, do drugs, or murder. They tend to be less forceful about the businesses which may defraud investors and customers, or factories willing to dump harmful chemicals in our water supply. Or drug companies free to sell dangerous or untested medication. So we may tend to disagree on what best serves the public interest.
One of the most interesting and often loudest complaints of government intrusion from our antigovernment brothers is helmet and traffic laws, as well as auto and truck registration. (even though that is city and county not federal) However, one can also view both of these as liberating as well. We have seen the damages associated with motorcycle accidents drop after such helmet laws are put into place. This can be a benefit for all as a savings in insurance rates, the lowering of stress and over work of hospital and rescue employees. Also the requirements of many traffic laws, such as speed limits, traffic signs, vehicle upkeep requirements enables each of us to have safer and freer travel throughout this country. If all were allowed to avoid traffic laws and to drive automobiles in ill repair immobilized by fear of accidents and crashes.
Lastly we are given even deeper and better liberties because of so called government interference. For example we are free to breathe clean air, and drink clean water because of environmental laws. The grail of the libertarians known as “Free Market” could itself not survive or function without certain major government rules regarding economic actions such as laws about contract, property rights, debt collection, fraud etc. In my opinion without some government our capitalism system would itself fall into decay and chaos. We become free to join in that market because of those very laws that protect us in the process.
Of course that is just my opinion I could be wrong.
-John M. Valdez
Wednesday, February 1, 2012
My friend Jack
Sitting here in the Impy Playhouse remembering my friend Jack. He taught me a lot about acting. I loved him as a director. He took a chance on casting. Short fat Mexican as a British detective. And it was the best acting review I ever had. thank you buddy. Love ya man.
-Johnny V.
-Johnny V.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)