Three evenings ago I had a conversation with a friend on the phone about politics--shocker, I know. Actually it is quite a shocker because my wife won't allow me to play with my friends if I argue with them. At very least she leaves the room. Anyway, my friend has very convincing arguments for moving to the middle. I as usual am a slow thinker when it comes to debate, so when I am approached with a new topic, it takes me a while to decide where I stand and develop the rebuttal to defend my position. And so, after a very convincing argument about the evil and power of big business, I have decided to stand firm on my radical, right wing ideals.
His argument was that, first and foremost, I am not that far off from the most radical, left wing people. He argued that I believe big government to be evil and leaned on big business to solve the problems of the world and that the oppposite is true with socialists, and so by wanting to beat big government into submission, I am not that far off from the ideals and tactics of the far left. He stands in the middle because he thinks both are evil and both should be in check by the other. I am summarizing and doing absolutely no justice to his argument, but it is hard to eloquently explain someone else's view point.
My argument is simple and, as of yet undeveloped. I argue that it is easier for the people to remove power from big business than from big government. Also, big business is earned; big government is acquired by a popularity contest usually relying on pandering and lies. Last, big business is based on choice, big government is devoid of choice.
So first off, how do you remove a corrupt government official? You certainly can impeach him or her, but that is nothing more than a scarlet letter on his or her forehead (Captain Lollipop Bill). The problem comes in the dissemination of information. Now if you believe the press truly is objective, first I have bridge for sale with a lovely view of the S.F. bay, and second I don't want you to have the right to vote any more! Voting comes with a responsibility that few undertake--research. Please don't believe everything you are told. And for heaven's sake (and all American's sake) please read a history book or two and develop your philosophies a little. I am not saying that if you are educated you will think one way or another, I don't care what you think, just think! The problem is that in order to remove a corrupt government official, it takes education and therefore a removal of ignorance.
In contrast, collapsing a big business is more an emotional act. In capitalism, your dollar is your vote. The leaders in business are leaders because people are casting their votes for them. Bill Gates would not be the success he is without having developed something that most of the civilized world voted for with their dollars. When a big business collapses, it is because of corruption, in which case the economy benefits (Enron), or because people are not voting for you with their dollars because they don't like your product (Apple)--and that is purely emotional-based. How many times do you have to be screwed over by a company or their product before you refuse to buy from them any more? If your answer is not once, you must really like the product, or you are a Sadist.
Now put the two together. Government really does have a product--governing. When you hate George W. Bush or Bill Clinton and their way of governing (their product) what do you do to get rid of them? How has that been working for you? When your mechanic lied to you and screwed you over, what did you do to get rid of them? Now tell me this, who still plays a role in your life, your mechanic or your President?
My second point is very similar to the first because it is also based on information. Elections are based on a selective dissemination (I always feel dirty saying that word) of information for a short period of time. When the campaigning is over and the election stands, how is the elected official held to their campaign promises. Even the most moral of people feel the pressure to pander to individuals or groups. And then, goodbye to the campaign promises. However, every day big business must hold up to their promises. If they don't, you don't buy and they lose power. Whether you like it or not, companies like in big oil are thriving because you and your fellow Americans vote for them every day. And will you stop voting for them. Most likely not, because you love the product they offer. Free industry will always find an answer. If someone dislikes the product enough, they will develop a new one and if others like their product, they will gain power.
People hate big business for many reasons, one of which is the influence they have on the government and legislation. But, I ask, is it possible for big business to influence these things if there is no such thing as big government? I would like to say no, but that is merely speculation. However, if the government is limited, then how much does the influence of big business really affect you--I would conclude in a 'limited' way.
My last point is again, related to the two previous, but enough different to give it a separate paragraph or two. The very subtle difference between big government and big business is choice. In a communist regime, you have no choice about where to work, how much you want to make, how much to donate to charity, etc. And, my friends, socialism practiced, is communism. There is no other way. Big business is selfish, yes, but you have a choice. Where to work, how much to make, how much to donate to charity, etc. This is a survival of the fittest setting and you are totally empowered to come up with ways to survive. If you choose to help others survive too, you are that much better for it. But, you chose. Someone else didn't choose for you. My friend mentioned earlier was arguing that I am very similar to the left-wing nuts because we both want to see everyone taken care of, I believe. This is true, but I want the choice to do it. I do not receive blessings for being forced to do something, I receive blessings for my choices. Government should not be 'compassionate,' it should be amoral. Please do not confuse that with immoral--I mean amoral, without the capacity to be moral or immoral. In other words, the government shouldn't care that you lost your job, or you are old, or you got pregnant as a teenager. Therefore, if it is amoral, it should not legislate to help people out in these circumstances. You and I have the capacity to be moral or immoral. Help people if you can. Otherwise, it is survival of the fittest out there in the cruel world, baby, and I will be the last one standing with my friends and family, if it comes to that!
Posts
