No, "economic freedom" carries a price - just as limiting it - by government control does. The real issue is what sort of price are you willing to bear?
Okay, in this context we can find common ground in which to work with.
Too little government regulation and you have disasters such as the BP oil spill, the Massey Mine explosion, envirnomental pollution from uncontrolled emissions, unsafe or dishonest consumer products.
Incorrect. Both those disasters and industries are heavily regulated. But when regulations are subverted by corruption or apathy or political agenda they are no longer able to be considered in operation, and the industry acts as if it was unregulated. There are no needs for MORE regulation as much as there is a failure of enforcement and punishment for violating it on both sides. Both government and the industry must be held accountable and punished. Regulations are only as good as their enforcement, and if you have too many rules to enforce, you may as well deregulate what you cannot enforce, and stick to what you can. Find the most acceptable risks and live with the consequences. If you can't do that, then you need to find the ability to pay for the enforcement as well as the ability to punish properly those who violate it. Right now, what we lack is not the ability to regulate but the political will to do so. New regulations will not change this.
Too much government intervention and you stifle economic creativity and entrepeneurism which is what has given our economy an edge over many of our counterparts and why it's easier to start up new business here rather than in Europe.
In this we agree, except that now it this is past tense thanks to Obama admin business/economic strategy penalizing banks and not allowing the market to correct to it's true value, let the bad businesses fail and the responsible ones survive to pick up the pieces and move forward. Until the market is allowed to find it's own level, businesses will not be starting in this nation or pretty much anywhere without real difficulty. But traditionally, you're right.
If we had a "fiscally responsible" government - would we have had such a booming economy? Since the end of WW2, at least our economy has been driven by debt - not just the government, but individual Americans. We have one of the lowest savings records of any developed country. Debt has become an acceptable way of life - and that is not just "liberals" but "conservatives" as well.
Yes, I know that. and if you look at budgets you're correct it's both parties. Republicans have been borrow and spend while democrats have been tax and spend more. They only differ on what they spend on. That is why when Clinton did one of the few smart things of his presidency, he went along with the republican led congress which was high on spending hawk fervor at the time, and reformed welfare. That helped massively in regards to the budget.
This nation is addicted to debt like a shopping addict is addicted to store credit cards. We, as a nation need to have an intervention, cut up the cards and force government on an austerity program of up to 50% the total budget for the next 10 years to save ourselves. And if we reach our goal sooner, we can stop then. No department left unscourged. What must be done is an audit of the government, find redundant and wasteful spending, unconstitutional and unprofitable programs and cut them.
You could also do a version of this by going back to the size of the 2001 budget and freeze it at that level for 10 years. Of course that means all government programs after that would have to be cut. The reason I picked 2001? It's before the Department of Homeland Security which should never have been created. That crap needs to be folded back into the DOD and DoJ ASAP and dismantle the clusterfuck known as TSA. It also would return the TARP slush fund, defund NCLB, Medicare Part D, Obama Care, and every bailout.
Government must be reduced and fast.
But poor scores on greenhouse gas emissions and the impacts of air pollution on ecosystems dragged down the overall U.S. rank.
Global warming is econazi drivel and has no business being even recognized by law or rational intelligent people other than to be shown as a group of psychotic luddites trying to destroy western civilization for the sake of nature worship. That is the logical outcome of their philosophy and they have shown to not have any moderation or rationality the instant they start talking about 'trimming a little fat off the world population'. That makes them insane and therefore irrelevant to the issue.
They have no bearing on pollution as CO2 is not a pollutant. All data in this fantasy can be safely disregarded improving our score all the more.
true equality is a utopian ideal
And impossible to attain. The drive for utopia has been at the center of the most evil governments and people in the world. That is why I don't trust anyone who wishes to create a utopia.
Conservatives tend to look at penalizing in the form of a progressive tax system that places a higher burden on the wealthiest (along with a more generous system of loopholes).
No, conservatives are not for this. The leftist rainbow is.
But workers are also penalized in other ways. It does not matter if you work hard and honestly in a low wage/low benefit job - you are penalized by the inequity of the wage system that does not reward hard work but rather, those with opportunity and intelligence combined with a good work ethic and, sometimes those with opportunity and a sub-par work ethic.
That is not a penalty. You accepted that wage for that work. If it cannot support you, who's fault is it for making a bad deal? Yours. If you do not train and get the skills to be hired for a good paying job, who's fault is that? Yours. If you let the advantages you are given slide through your fingers because you are unaware or unwilling to use them, who's fault is that? Yours.
Your value as a worker is not based on entitlement or need. It is based on the value of the work you do. This is the fantasy of government employ and union jobs, that time in service counts for something more than just experience. Honestly, the next time the union suffers layoffs, instead of starting at the bottom of seniority, it should first address early retirement and cull the old dead wood that is most expensive to maintain and give a chance to the young and enthusiastic to grow.
No one owes you even a living wage, you must work for it. And if starvation isn't a good enough motivator, well, is it a loss to society that you die? And right there is the inherent fallacy of the righwing position: all you guys who don't earn a living wage are a bunch of lazy bastards who deserve to starve. "nuff said.
What entitles you to the labor of another after you have reached adulthood. As a child, it is the parent's duty to provide. After you are an adult, there is no entitlement.
If one side must win, and it's the Darwinistic viewpoint you appear to espouse, then it would be a callous and heartless society. The same society that brought us the tenaments, factory fires and cheap labor of another era and saw real starvation in America. That is something neither you nor I have seen in this country.
No, I am not advocating social darwinism. I never have. I am advocating ethical capitalism. I have also espoused the enablement of charity through removing government in charitable giving. If you want to help from a legislative point of view, offer tax breaks for charitable giving. The social ills you speak of were created by unethical greed brought about by those who were able to cut corners ethically due to non existent enforcement of public safety, anti-fraud and many other normal protections that we take for granted in modern western society. Back in the era you were talking about, the Guilded Age or the industrial revolution, you needed to do something about that for people who did not agree in ethical capitalism were in charge and running the nation like plutocrats with no care for the quality of life of anyone but themselves. Charities did what they could, but it was not enough till people like Upton Sinclare, Jakob Riis and others championed new concepts of public safety, health and life.
Today, you see these same issues in developing nations like China, India and others (yes they are still able to be considered developing in many many ways).
The founding father's drew up the constitution almost 250 years ago, in a very different economic and cultural society.
The principles are still the same.
I seriously doubt they envisioned and unchanging world or a system of government that couldn't change to meet new needs.
That was why we have the amendment process. They also believed we would have a revolution close to every 30 years or so. it took 75 for the first. We're a little behind for the next about 140 or so.
Those same founding father's also invisioned a society where only white adult males had a full set of rights and freedoms and the children of the poor worked alongside adults on farms and in factories.
Yes, and the amendment process took care of that. Not the redefinition and reimagining of the words. That is where the left's argument falls apart. Throwing out original intent, and ignoring the all too hard amendment process to prevent rash decisions and bad choices from coming about too easily. Forcing cooler more tempered minds to have sway.
When, in American history - did such a utopian society exist?
It never has and every law passed pushes us farther from an individualist society based on personal responsibility. I also never said it would exist. See, the problem with government is that it can never be completely fair no matter how hard you try. Someone somewhere is always going to get screwed. YOu can't go back and make amends, for then you screw someone else and compound the problem. All you can do is suck it up, and try to find the way to be the most fair to the most people as often as possible.
You certainly sound every bit as much an extremist as the most committed communist.
When sound reason, personal responsibility, honest industry and common sense are considered radical and extremist concepts... then I gladly take on the revolutionary mantle against it's foes. The judgment of the corrupt and wicked are worthless and need not trouble my conscience for they are without truth or wisdom.
