- 6,808
- 16,581
- Joined
- Jun 28, 2004
Thank you blco,
I see your point and at first glance the standard liberal position of civil liberterianism and economic intervention are internally contradictory.
Nevertheless, I support these seemingly contradictory position because the state is ultimately a collection of elected offices and established agencies and bureaucracies. Agencies that do or claim to regulate financial markets, oversee people's pensions, prevent pollution and to protect workers do use force but they use a small amount of actual force and they do or they can be tremendously beneficial. Conversely, the agencies that Conservatives tend to support have the opposite ratio. The DEA, the FBI, the ATF, the Local Sheriff and police departments wield a tremendous amount of actual force and in our current "tough on crime" political milieu, we see very few benefits to society.
So if we actually funded and empowered the CFPB, recessions could be prevented, pensions could be preserved, homes could be kept and the amount of force involved would be minimal. A few bankers who sell bad products or who over leverage would be fined.
Contrast this to the War on Drugs where the public health benefits are negligible, at best. These paltry social benefits come at the cost of millions of maimed, broken and imprisoned bodies.
As a Social Democrat, I try my best to make these distinctions and when we have robust and inquisitive free press, widespread education and an engaged electorate, we the people, should be able to make those distinctions. Obviously, any agency can indeed be used to severely oppress people and we do need eternal vigilance to try to prevent that from happening. I sincerely believe that Social Democrats are just as capable of maintaining eternal vigilance as people of any other political stripe.
I see your point and at first glance the standard liberal position of civil liberterianism and economic intervention are internally contradictory.
Nevertheless, I support these seemingly contradictory position because the state is ultimately a collection of elected offices and established agencies and bureaucracies. Agencies that do or claim to regulate financial markets, oversee people's pensions, prevent pollution and to protect workers do use force but they use a small amount of actual force and they do or they can be tremendously beneficial. Conversely, the agencies that Conservatives tend to support have the opposite ratio. The DEA, the FBI, the ATF, the Local Sheriff and police departments wield a tremendous amount of actual force and in our current "tough on crime" political milieu, we see very few benefits to society.
So if we actually funded and empowered the CFPB, recessions could be prevented, pensions could be preserved, homes could be kept and the amount of force involved would be minimal. A few bankers who sell bad products or who over leverage would be fined.
Contrast this to the War on Drugs where the public health benefits are negligible, at best. These paltry social benefits come at the cost of millions of maimed, broken and imprisoned bodies.
As a Social Democrat, I try my best to make these distinctions and when we have robust and inquisitive free press, widespread education and an engaged electorate, we the people, should be able to make those distinctions. Obviously, any agency can indeed be used to severely oppress people and we do need eternal vigilance to try to prevent that from happening. I sincerely believe that Social Democrats are just as capable of maintaining eternal vigilance as people of any other political stripe.
