Monday, April 20, 2009

The Problem with America

Not like you don't know.

So big government versus little government. Right to bear arms, or no? Stimulus package, or no? Abortion? taxes? Gay Marriage?

Unfortunately, its rare that there are any cut and dry issues.

-No matter how many times you say "Guns don't kill people, people kill people", in the end its crazy people WITH guns.

-Opposed to the stimulus package? Then I expect when you get this money that you give it straight to charity.

-Opposed to abortion? Are you then opposing private property?

But none of this is the point. Its that nobody is trust worthy anymore. It's already been proven that you can't put control with the people. You angry at AIG execs? This is the byproduct of small government with untrustworthy people.

And I guess we're going to find out that you can't trust the government either.

I'm not saying I have the answers, just some things I've been pondering recently.

7 comments:

Tamara said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Tamara said...

Oooh:

"Opposed to the stimulus package? Then I expect when you get this money that you give it straight to charity."

Great idea!!! I bet the number of people who would actually do that would be very, very small.

Anonymous said...

I'll leave most of my comments for our next crawfish boil, but I will comment on the stimulus package point. Our governor (Jindal) has rejected the money, to his credit because he recognizes the strings that come attached to it. When anyone gives you money they expect, and rightly so to be able to exert control. That's what has happened to the banks who were forced to accept bailout money even though they didn't want or need it and are now wanting to give it back (Iberia bank of Louisiana is one of many) but now the govt. won't accept it. They won't take it back because they want to be able to tell the private companies how to run their business. That should scare a free society. Remember, these are companies that were doing everything right.
Forgive me for saying this, but this is how free counties fall. I've seen it before, but most countries loose their freedoms while fighting to the death. We are sitting back and cheering it on.

Anonymous said...

Oh by the way, that last post was from me... Sorry for not signing.
Dad

The Juice said...

haha. next crawfish boil? Soon, I hope?

thanks for posting pop. Let's try to keep this civilized.

As you know I'm fiscally on the conservative side, but a little more socially liberal than the rest of the fam.

ANYWAYS, I applaud the way that Jindal is handling the situation. Do you really think they are exerting control? I think the fact that the financial institutions that received money and then BLEW IT by giving out more bonuses doesn't really seem to be exerting control to me. Not that I'm condoning the bailout. And why don't they just give it to someone who needs it?

Like I said, a'int nobody trustworthy anymore. I mean how many governors did LA go through before they found a good one?? This country is run on greed, which I believe is a byproduct of a free society. But lets flip it to government control. THEY GREEDY TOO! So its a lose lose. THIS was the point of my post. Do I have the answers? NO. Anyways, thats my piece.

Tamara said...

Capitalism runs on greed and self interest. Adam Smith in his "The Wealth of Nations" wrote about a society built on self interest with the point being that in pursuing one's own interest one will promote the interest of the society in which he lives. It's a system built on a personal vicious motivation that translates to public good.

One problem is that charity doesn't really fit the model. Yes, we can act charitable towards relatives and friends, but in business and capitalism there are no "charitable" goods and services, just a person's voluntary willingness to redistribute their own income.

I digress...I'm not anti-capitalism but when we have a system motivated by greed you're kind of asking for it in some instances, like the people who raise prices during a natural disaster (of course that's illegal and regulated by the government but they try anyway) or the CEOs and executives you mentioned. And CEOs: really?! With these big corporations it still boils down to personal greed. Personal. Each person. The problem is that these CEOs have the power to make that personal greed happen when they are in fact hired to watch out for the self-interest of their company and its stakeholders: employees, stockholders, the environment (and that’s a whole other can of worms…)

It's rare to see businesses with models such as Whole Foods, where the company head will only make a certain percentage more than that of their company’s average employee salary (I think right now it’s 14% more). Not purely capitalistic, but it might be better than other large companies that go out of business while their employees suffer and upper management people escape with their golden parachutes and self-induced raises.

In short, capitalism and socialism are two extremes, and I guess that’s why I adhere more closely to the ideas of neo-capitalism...everything in moderation. :)Just to point out, we’re a lonnng way off from socialization in the U.S.

The answer may very well be that there is no one answer, more a fusion of the best ideas from all trains of thought. We definitely aren't completely capitalistic in the U.S. and people freak out about this. I just hope that woman on CNN protesting in Texas by wearing a shirt that said "Keep out your socialist policies" protests by paying for her private health insurance when she retires and subsequently never collects on Medicare or utilizes other "socialist" social programs. After all, actions speak louder than words.

Of course, because she pays her taxes those programs will be there when she needs them, regardless of what she may have said a week ago. Free speech is beautiful.

Just some thoughts.

Anonymous said...

We need a crawfish boil :)
I thought I was civil :)
Love ya,
Dad