Opening remarks by "Ray Pensador"
"JayH," we've been debating all kinds of issues since we met online (old Wall Street Journal forum) back in 2004. During all this time we have rarely found areas of agreement, but we both have found it worthwhile to continue the debate, even if it feels that we are both hitting our heads against the wall trying to convince each other of the superiority of our arguments.
I've found your Libertarian political views quite extreme, to be honest, and your support (in the past) of presidential candidates like Ron Paul, wrongheaded. And I've also found your sympathies towards the Tea Party movement, troubling. You know my take on it: That the Tea Party movement is basically an Astro-Turf financed political (public relations) tool of corporatist front men like Dick Army.
I could go on pointing out areas of disagreement, but I think from what I've written so far readers can get a pretty good idea about your politics... And of course, you'll be able to expand on it in your reply.
As you know, for years (since the times of our debates at the old WSJ forum) I've been arguing that corporations had too much influence in our government. That they had basically bought off the politicians with campaign finance money, influence peddling, promises of lucrative positions (after leaving office) for them, and for family members, and close friends.
My main argument has always been that this type of influence peddling by corporations on our government needed to be removed if we were to save the Republic. As a self-described (proud) Progressive Liberal, I've defended the role of government in its responsibility to establish a level playing field so every citizen has the opportunity to improve her lot in life by working hard, by being enterprising. I've also defended the role of government in the establishment of a social safety net to help those who can't help themselves, because of illness, mental capacity, poverty, economic dislocation, or misfortune.
Your response to those views is that what I'm advocating is basically having the government steal money from the "productive" class in order to give it to lazy, irresponsible people. You see any expansion of the role of government as problematic, and as a true libertarian, you advocate for the government to have the smallest possible role in society.
You typically believe that the free market can self-regulate, and that bad actors in the economy would pay the consequences without having the government intervene... Sell a bad or tainted product, and the market will eventually punish you for it.
In light of the current situation in the United States, and indeed, much of the world, which I believe was caused by thievery and corruption perpetrated by Wall Street and financial conglomerates, how do you justify your previous views? Or, are you ready to admit that I was right all along?
------------------------------------
Response by "JayH"
We have been at this a long time Ray. I remember the good old days when we ganged up on the GW supporters and bashed them from both sides. Seems like ages ago. That was fun.
One thing I would like to say before we get into the debate is that while I often find your assumptions erroneous and your conclusions questionable, I have never doubted your sincerity or your genuine concern for the country and for humanity. You, Ray, are a progressive in the dictionary definition of the word, working tirelessly for the advancement of mankind.
I also appreciate your invitation to have this libertarian vs. progressive discussion. Too often we argue in solos. A community like dKos often debates minutia among themselves or simply whips up hatred of an “other”. Whether you are left, right, green or libertarian, there is value in understanding a different point of view. (even if it is based solely on “know thy enemy”)
Let’s start with an easy one. The Tea Party:
The problem here is that there are two Tea Parties. One is the original grass roots movement pushed by a wide variety of local and minor activists with the goal of reducing the scope and reach of government. They basically had one point, scale back the federal government. I support this. Initially these people were scorned by the left and ignored by the right, but as the movement picked up support, the Republican establishment got concerned. They had to put together a plan to co-opt the movement.
And the “Tea Party Express” was born.
You are absolutely correct that the Tea Party Express is astro-turf, funded by the Republican establishment and promoted by Fox News, Murdoch, et al. This effort has been successful to the point that most of the people who would self identify with the Tea Party don’t realize what happened. A very slick political move by the Republicans.
Despite this, you should not dismiss or ignore the sentiment that led to the movement. There is a large segment of the population that can unite on this concept. All of the current Republican presidential candidates are attempting to sell to this constituency. Probably Cain is doing the best job of it, but they are all pandering heavily to this segment. It is a force to be reckoned with. If you are lucky it will fragment the Republican party to the point where they cannot win a presidential contest no matter who the nominee is. (this is my bet)
Regarding Capitalism:
I am very much a laissez faire capitalist, however I do realize that capitalism can only thrive in a high trust environment. A high trust environment includes rule of law, strong property rights and enforceable contracts. Only government can provide those things via courts and law enforcement. When government becomes corrupt, capitalism collapses and you end up with some form of organized crime or corporations as warlords. Some people call this crony capitalism, but it is not really any form of capitalism, it is simply a system of criminal enterprises that have bought government protection. Enron, Solyndra, Goldman Sachs, GE, Madoff, etc… This is not capitalism, it is corruption and criminality.
Where we differ is that you continually point to the rot in corporations and I continually point to the rot in government. I maintain that without cleaning up the mess in Washington D.C. there is no possibility of restoring our economic system to the rule of law. The foundation must come first. As long as senators can be bought, someone will be bidding. As long as billion dollar contracts are up for grabs, there will be suitcases full of cash. As long as politicians have trillions of dollars of the peoples money to buy votes we will have bridges to nowhere and give-aways to anyone with a pulse. It is the nature of mankind. D.C is a swamp, drain the swamp first.
In this regard, the only difference between the R’s and the D’s, is who is on the recipient list for the loot. Your faith in the D’s to do the right thing (if only they could overcome those evil Republicans), is misguided and history has shown that the looting and corruption continues no matter who controls the federal government. The only viable solution is to drastically reduce the size and scope of the federal government so that it does not attract every sophisticated con-man (politician) on the planet.
On welfare:
There are currently three large streams of welfare in the U.S. Poverty welfare, generational welfare and corporate welfare. Libertarians are oppose to the federal government being involved in any of these wealth transfer systems.
This does not mean that libertarians are against a social safety net, but the mechanisms that are in use today are completely broken and it is impossible to continue to fund all the programs in place and to meet all the promises made. Regardless of what you would LIKE to happen, it is mathematically impossible. So give it up and start working on meaningful solutions. Raising taxes is like spitting in the wind. It won’t solve the problems.(it might make you feel good, but you still get spittle on your face)
The libertarian solution would be to stop all programs at the federal level and push them to the state or local level. Past this one note the topic is too complicated to be properly discussed, I will just point out that the poverty welfare and the generational welfare systems that the left has built over the past 80’s years are broken and I maintain that they are not fixable.
On the corporate welfare side I expect we can agree that this should just stop. Taking money from working citizens and giving it to corporations is just wrong. BTW, this is not something the R’s are in charge of. A loan guarantee to Solyndra is just as much corporate welfare as is tax breaks to oil companies, and Democrats have given just as much to the banks as the Republicans have. Shame on both of you.
Ray, I agree that the U.S. and the world are riddled with thievery and corruption today, but I am not going to be able to admit that you are right. I differ drastically from you in where I place the primary blame and what I see as solutions. I stand by my views and from my perspective, history is proving me right.
------------------------------------
Update: 8:00pm - Guys, I invited JayH to engage in this debate and assure him that he should expect very forceful arguments, but that people would restrain from personal attacks. I can't control what you write, but I ask you politely to refrain from attacking him personally, if at all possible...
Comments are closed on this story.