I wasn’t expecting anything of the sort. I was hoping for less action on the part of our government to stimulate the economy. I feel that the economy is in general self correcting. But then again, our country would have been screaming for his head if he took no action.
I am close to a full libertarian with a few exceptions in thought. I find that government is needed to regulate disputes between different social groups in an unbiased manner. More importantly I think it is the responsibility of the government to preserve fluidity in society so that we can best utilize our human resources while providing sufficient incentive to build wealth. (This is impossible to do and have anywhere close to a majority of the population happy.)
Presently that function is not being served. Currently the right for unions to form and operate is being substantially marginalized. Yet at this same time, corporations are becoming larger with fewer competitors in their market. One must understand that this is a form of union that works primarily for those with discretionary income. They have much more bargaining power than in the past. Partly because of these trends we are seeing a shrinking middle class in the states.
You sound like the most left-wing libertarian ever (except I think I see as much all-over-the-place-ness with most libertarians). You are so left-wing, you're right-wing! You've gone clear over to the other side with that one. Come on back over, the water's warm (and no, I didn't pee in it).
I have been having trouble with sticking to any philosophy. I think this is because the Boolean logic that is used as the backbone of philosophy is too simplistic. Actual decision making is modeled on a continuum between 0 and 1 at some arbitrarily chosen cut off point in this range. (1 being yes and 0 being no) I hate the term fuzzy logic. Yet, it does offer more flexibility.
I think most libertarians are enamored with the philosophy of a free market. It would be nice to think that people that work hard and intelligently would be rewarded for their greater contribution. But they fail to take into account that people will form economic alliances in order to gain advantage over other groups that are less organized or have fewer resources. The largest result of this economic conflict is short sighted decision making for immediate gain instead of long term goals.
I understand the expediency and possible necessity of such intervention. Unfortunately, it seams that most government intervention has a destabilizing effect by trying to push the point further where it favors those already entrenched in power. Both republicans and democrats are guilty of this.
I would like to know what you mean by "most government intervention". This is a gross simplification of the political system. You think over 50% of the Constitution and the entire governmental apparatus created by it has had "a destabilizing effect" on Modern Society? And what a blanket statement! Over what time period? By what criteria?
In any case, I agree with you that a fault of the Founding Fathers and of America in general since was, and has been, that the powerful are not only not prevented from abusing their power, but are empowered to do so. And a still third level of power comes from their ability to convince the rest of soceity, the "losers", that this was their right from the natural order of things, that their power does justify their right to more power. That people argue so forcefully against their economic interests gives the lie to the whole premis behind free markets - people will naturally do what it is in their interests to do. Not so, in fact people are so gullible they will accept fantasy for reality and do anything, anything, to defend that fantasy from reality. Another case of people "voting" against their economic (and others)interests.
I'm with you Michael, I'm no fan of singular thinking. That's to close to the ideology of religions if you ask me. I do believe in mans insatiable want and that's probably the only reason I'm not a full fledged Libertarian.
I wish I had noted who said this but I don't remember and I'm probably miss quoting the shit out of it. Here is how I remember it.
"A wealthy person doesn't need a country, their wealth can provide for them anywhere in the world. In knowing this they seldom concern themselves with the long term repercussions of their actions."