When liberals want government to get out

[d-ray657]

Please forgive the labels in this post, but they make for an easy shorthand.

It seems contradictory that the liberals look to government to accomplish many things, but don't want the government involved in very private choices - birth control, the choice of a partner, the use of recreational drugs, what we read, what we watch, who we talk to, etc.

On the other hands, the conservatives (TV definition, Rob, not yours) want government out of business, but want to legislate morals.

Libertarians want government involvement in anything limited to the barest essentials.

Here is why I don't consider the liberal position to be contradictory. Our choices about our personal life are unlikely to have a great effect on the rest of the community. If I choose to raise a family in the traditional sense, that is a male/female relationship that gives rise to the birth of children, that should be of little concern to anyone else. If I want marriage to be part of that relationship, again, that choice has little affect on anyone outside of my family. If I would prefer to enter into a same gender relationship, that would again be a choice that has little effect on anyone out of the family.

However, one's working or commercial life is generally more public than private, and will usually affect people outside of our family. When one works for another, both parties take on obligations. When one sells items or makes purchases, the transactions are often public. One who drives a vehicle is handling a machine capable of causing significant harm to people or property. The more our public actions and transactions have the ability to affect others, the more justification there is for some sort of standards to govern the conduct.

There is little question that we need a standard for which side of the road we drive on, for how to avoid collisions when paths of travel intersect, for speeds at which vehicles can be safely operated. Similarly, the conditions under which people work affect their safety. The waste products of manufacturing, or the methods of operation can affect the safety of the community.

Beyond safety, economic relations among people are part of the public sphere. Banks hold the assets of from hundreds to millions of people. Many companies employ huge numbers of people. Often, the transactions that occur within the economic relationships involve people or entities with vastly differing levels of economic power. That disparity in economic power can very easily be abused. Moreover, the economic power wielded by some entities can affect thousands or millions of people. In the face of transactions affecting members of the public, a compelling case for regulation arises.

I have often heard some variation of the line that your ability to do what you please ends at my nose. The more we undertake conduct or transactions that affect other people, the more we are subject to regulation of that conduct or those transactions. Because of the enormous effect that economic activity has on the lives of people, it is logical to regulate that activity.

Regards,

D-Ray

[merrylander]

No arguement from me.

[JonL]

Originally Posted by d-ray657

I have often heard some variation of the line that your ability to do what you please ends at my nose.

And the more powerful our technological and economic activities become, the smaller the proverbial distance between "you" and "my nose" becomes. I think that's also something that some conservatives and libertarians don't adequately recognize -- that the effects of many of our actions are far more pervasive and widespread than they once were.

[djv8ga]

Whatever...write a book.

[BlueStreak]

Originally Posted by d-ray657

Please forgive the labels in this post, but they make for an easy shorthand.

It seems contradictory that the liberals look to government to accomplish many things, but don't want the government involved in very private choices - birth control, the choice of a partner, the use of recreational drugs, what we read, what we watch, who we talk to, etc.

On the other hands, the conservatives (TV definition, Rob, not yours) want government out of business, but want to legislate morals.

Libertarians want government involvement in anything limited to the barest essentials.

Here is why I don't consider the liberal position to be contradictory. Our choices about our personal life are unlikely to have a great effect on the rest of the community. If I choose to raise a family in the traditional sense, that is a male/female relationship that gives rise to the birth of children, that should be of little concern to anyone else. If I want marriage to be part of that relationship, again, that choice has little affect on anyone outside of my family. If I would prefer to enter into a same gender relationship, that would again be a choice that has little effect on anyone out of the family.

However, one's working or commercial life is generally more public than private, and will usually affect people outside of our family. When one works for another, both parties take on obligations. When one sells items or makes purchases, the transactions are often public. One who drives a vehicle is handling a machine capable of causing significant harm to people or property. The more our public actions and transactions have the ability to affect others, the more justification there is for some sort of standards to govern the conduct.

There is little question that we need a standard for which side of the road we drive on, for how to avoid collisions when paths of travel intersect, for speeds at which vehicles can be safely operated. Similarly, the conditions under which people work affect their safety. The waste products of manufacturing, or the methods of operation can affect the safety of the community.

Beyond safety, economic relations among people are part of the public sphere. Banks hold the assets of from hundreds to millions of people. Many companies employ huge numbers of people. Often, the transactions that occur within the economic relationships involve people or entities with vastly differing levels of economic power. That disparity in economic power can very easily be abused. Moreover, the economic power wielded by some entities can affect thousands or millions of people. In the face of transactions affecting members of the public, a compelling case for regulation arises.

I have often heard some variation of the line that your ability to do what you please ends at my nose. The more we undertake conduct or transactions that affect other people, the more we are subject to regulation of that conduct or those transactions. Because of the enormous effect that economic activity has on the lives of people, it is logical to regulate that activity.

Regards,

D-Ray

+1. Very well written. Thanks, Don.

[BlueStreak]

Originally Posted by djv8ga

Whatever...write a book.

Whatever....if you want anarchy, move to Afghanistan.

Dave

[piece-itpete]

Excellent post D, even if I don't agree

'My' faction of the GOP is in a quandry of sorts. We want smaller government, yes. However we do have to deal with the govt the way it is. This leaves us open to charges of hypocrisy, particularly when discussing goals and philosophy.

Regulating business is no different than regulating individuals, overall. The economy is made of people. Therefore, regulating the economy is regulating people.

That aside, to clarify - I want the FEDS out of peoples private lives, not in them. If the local or state community decides it doesn't want this or that behavior that's fine - they are free to do so, or the Founders thought they would be anyway.

Because the reality is the left does indeed interfere in private lives. They say the right makes people do this or that, but the left doesn't let them have the freedom to do so at all.

THEY make the decision for the people, and force it upon them. They know better?

I could make much the same argument against the Libertarians, although they are at least not forcing their will and saying they don't. The people don't have the right to regulate their own society?

What does 'freedom' mean?

Pete

[piece-itpete]

Btw, I believe it's all too late now anyway, the government has become sovereign. And for the record, the GOP is as bad as the Dems when it comes to government power. They all want power.

Pete

[JJIII]

Originally Posted by piece-itpete

Btw, I believe it's all too late now anyway, the government has become sovereign. And for the record, the GOP is as bad as the Dems when it comes to government power. They all want power.

Pete

True dat!

[merrylander]

Originally Posted by piece-itpete

What does 'freedom' mean?

Pete

Oh, freedom from personal bakruptcy because some one is riening in the cost of healthcare.

Freedom to pursue my livihood as a shrimp fishermman because someone made sure the rules were followed and that blowout preventers really prevent.

Freedom from toxic substances in the food supply because someone inspected foodstuffs.

Freedom to live out my senior years quietly because the government honoured its contract.

Freedom from dying because not every whackjob is allowed to get firearems.

Freedom from idiots in government because the media actually set about to inform people and tell the truth.

Freedom from seeing the SCOTUS turned into a political farce.

Yeah, I know, I'm daydreaming.