Governments and Freedoms
The is NOT about the general argument of big government -vs- small government, nor is it about Democrats -vs- Republicans. It's not even about "how do big governments infringe freedoms" -vs "how so small governments preserve freedoms."
In this context I use (big) and (small) in reference to power and control.
Liberals acknowledge that big government _does_ infringe on freedoms" Their position is that it's a good trade. That some restrictions of freedom are to the benefit of the common good. Clearly this is true.
My questions are these: Where is the line that liberals and progressives have crossed? When has it become a bad trade? What defines a good and bad trade between freedom and the common good?
PS: Watch this FromWithin, this is how you could engage a debate on topics dear to you with appropriate civility.
|
3
points
Yes and see War on Poverty or Unaccountable Welfare Programs or Resistance to Voter ID or the ACA or Seat-belt laws or Limiting Gun Ownership, etc., etc. "fail to accomplish their stated goal" This seems like a clear one until you ask a liberal about the success of the ACA. Does our Constitution and its contextual interpretation provide a guide to when the federal government has gone to far? http://www.atlassociety.org/ 2
points
Your question is actually based on a lack of understanding of liberalism. First off, you must recognize positive and negative freedoms. Positive freedoms would be the ability to accomplish things you otherwise wouldn't, while negative freedoms are things you can accomplish because nobody is preventing you. Liberals tend to value positive economic freedoms and negative social freedoms, while conservatives tend to strongly value negative economic freedoms and often limit social negative freedoms. Within that far more accurate context, liberals do not have a unifying "line", as liberalism is not in any way monolithic. 2
points
Governments are formed for the sake of society. People living with people. A government devoted to freedom rather than tyranny makes laws to protect people from each other and from the government itself. When governments attempt to step beyond this function for the purposes of; aiding one at the expense of another, protecting people from themselves, or imposing laws based on religious morality rather than ethical interaction they take the first step toward an eventual "too far". This is when political gangs and interest groups are formed. What constitutes "too far" is a subjective, floating idea since different people have personal interests in different types of laws. It's not as though Liberals have gone too far (with Economic issues), but Conservatives haven't (with social issues). The freedoms that are properly limited in civil society are those which cause demonstrable harm to others. The first limitation beyond this is a step too far. There are inherent problems in trying to define a consistent line that constitutes the balance between freedom and government authority. To start with, that balance is not a constant but rather responsive to the immediate context of each governmental system - its economy, its demographics, its resources, its environment, its politics, etc. Further, that balance is affected not just by objective realities but of subjectively perceived values. Even if one can accurately determine the objective reality of the trade off, differences in subjective perception may cause parties to vary in their relative acceptance of the terms of that tradeoff. Because liberals and conservatives place different values on different issues and the rights contingent thereto, they arrive at different conclusions regarding the acceptability of tradeoffs. I think that the concentration of power at a federal power, which I attribute to both political ideologies rather equitably, is far more problematic than the ideologies themselves. While conservatives generally claim to be against such "big government" their political parties have expanded the powers of federal offices just as their counterparts have; it is in their interest and in the interest of their relative political machines to do so. The consequence has been that local situation and ideological dispositions are increasingly subjected to a homogenous understanding of an ideal balance. It is not just that one ideology is predominating, even, but that one iteration of that ideology is being applied across the board; the result being that most people are unhappy and feel poorly represented with little effective recourse. I think that the concentration of power at a federal l, which I attribute to both political ideologies rather equitably, is far more problematic than the ideologies themselves. While its undeniable that the power and reach of our federal government has grown and that the political center has shifted to the left, its not clear that both ideologies have contributed equally. The acts passed by Congress have been, with the exception of Harry Reid 's tenure, normally compromises reached between the opposing ideologies. I would judge the shift to the left and the expansion of power to have been driven by liberal ideology more than conservative. ------- No? Which ideology is more likely to shrink the power and reach of the federal government. I'd still have to go with conservatives The federalist and anti-federalist division within this country predates Reid; it is as old as the country itself, with perhaps the first substantial controversy surrounding the national bank during the Founding Era itself. Conservatism is not inherently anti-federalist anymore than liberalism is inherently federalist. Conservatism is not concerned primarily or exclusively with limited federal power, but with preservation of the status quo more broadly; a consolidated federal power may seem antithetical since it represents a deviation from what once was but it actually enables the rest of the conservative agenda to be implemented more effectively. While contemporary conservatives generally proclaim their opposition against federalist expansion, they typically have supported and outright advocated for invasive federal laws regulating the lives of the constituency (e.g. sodomy laws, DOMA, DADT, NCLB, etc.) and otherwise supporting federalist expansion (e.g. expansion of national military, etc.). Contemporary liberals are commonly stereotyped for their support of expansionist policies, yet they tend to oppose certain federal regulations of personal choice (e.g. sexual orientation, gender expression, abortion, etc.) and supports the separation of church and state which prevents the imposition of one theistic ideology onto others. I think that genuine anti-federalists are considerably less common than the contemporary conservative is. 1
point
|
