-
Our society is currently gripped by a financial crisis that many of us (myself included) only vaguely understand. We know it has something to do with the mortgage industry, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and is somehow affecting the "financial industry" (whatever that is). In the midst of this, we have seen our government step in and bail out some companies by giving them a bunch of money, but not others. Most recently, there is talk of a bailout to the tune of $700,000,000,000 - $1,000,000,000,000. (That's 700 Billion to 1 Trillion dollars). That's a LOT of money! In the midst of all of this has been talk of government "taking over" sectors of our society, "nationalization of our finance industry," etc.
While I feely admit that I'm not a financial expert and just plain cannot comprehend numbers that high, I am reminded of a fundamental question about politics, government, and business. Basically, who has the right to do what? What role should our government play in all of this? How much and what kind of regulation is appropriate? What about the greedy people on Wall Street? Shouldn't they be held accountable?
Basically, we're talking about what kind of society we want and, ultimately, whom do we trust the most? Do we trust the government to deal with these situations? Or do we trust the free market and capitalism to handle it?
I think the answers to these questions forms the basic difference in philosophy between conservatives and liberals. Conservatives, by and large, tend to mistrust government more than big business while liberals, by and large, tend to mistrust big business more than government. In the spirit of believing the best about people, I don't suppose that anyone has an absolute distrust in either one of those. If they did, then conservatives would want to have NO government whatsoever, which is total anarchy. Likewise, I don't believe most liberals would want to have NO independent business whatsoever, which is, I guess something like a pure Communist or Socialist state.
That being said, I do believe that human nature tends to hunger for more and more power without ever being satisfied and those who already posses a great amount of power are especially susceptible to this hunger. We've all read about and seen companies that grow beyond all measure and how, without regulation, that can possibly lead to abuses. I think the old monopolies such as Standard Oil are prime examples of this. On the other end of the spectrum, we've also seen how governments have acquired more and more power over people's lives. Venezuala is a current example of this, while the most dramatic example would be Germany under Hitler's rule or Stalinist Russia.
Now, the question I have is: which is worse? Assuming that there are no restraints at all, which has the potential for greater evil, big business or big government? (And in assuming no restraints, I think we are still in the realm of the possible because human nature being what it is, those in power are constantly trying to find the loophole, go around, change, or just run ramshod over any rules that get in their way. It's a constant struggle between their power and the rules in place.)
I would submit to you that big government has the potential for the greatest evil. Although big business has been known to abuse it's own workers, big government has been known to abuse it's ENTIRE population - even to the point of extermination. That is one of the primary reasons I am a conservative. I mistrust government much, much, much more than I mistrust business or the free market.
And seeing what I'm seeing these days with the financial crisis, I'm not feeling very trusting right now.
Why Is There a Left?
1 day ago
Posts
2 comments:
Here's a good summary of the $700 billion bailout plan, as submitted by Secretary Paulson: It stinks.
Reading the plan itself, I notice that while the scope of granted powers are narrow (only the purchase, management, and sale of "mortgage-related assets"), they are poorly defined. The express refusal of any oversight defined in Section 8 is very disturbing:
Sec. 8. Review. Decisions by the Secretary pursuant to the authority of this Act are non-reviewable and committed to agency discretion, and may not be reviewed by any court of law or any administrative agency.
This is the heart of the problem with the current administration: they have repeatedly demanded or claimed unprecedented powers, but refuse to be held responsible for their exercise of those powers.
I completely agree: The bailout plan that Paulson originally submitted stinks. That's why I'm so thankful for the House Republicans for fighting to strongly to improve it. I understand your angst about the current administration. I've been very disappointed with it on many levels and on many things as well. That's why, polically, I identify myself as conservative first, Republican second. I believe in the conservative principles that says government should be limited to a couple of specific, discrete functions and that's it. Looking at things through a principle-based lens allows me to agree with some things, and disagree with others about the same administration without having to just tote the party line. That being said, I believe the Republican party, in general, is in closer alignment to conservative principles than the Democratic party.
Post a Comment