[SpaciousBox]

Afternoon my fellow Liberals,

For the purposes of this thread, I am defining "fellow liberals" as those of the centre, centre-left, and further left (I know there are a few of you!). I am quite happy to hear the opinions of other liberals, and even non-liberals if you have constructive thoughts, however the prime discussion is aimed at those who share my Social Liberalism. This may be a fairly long thread, and hopefully won't end up in Opaque Ponderations.

I'm home visiting my parents at the moment, and last night I was out at a dinner party (that's kinda what we do in the west country). It was a bit of a family gathering with some of my friends, and then my friends parents, and extended family. Yes, it still feels slightly strange to have two generations of adults at a table, but that's by the by. The conversation soon turned to politics, and science, and similar ideas, with the generally left wing overtones that are common amongst the new-left and present middle-class. The debate continued, and for the most part I listened, rather than directing the flow of conversation. One thing that struck me above all else, was the fact that none of the issues raised could presently be tackled, even if the severity required an immediate answer. One of the issues we discussed was climate change (solutions of) and I'll use it as the example in this post.

In order for something to be done about Climate Change, we would need a government in power who answered to either the national interest (as per their definition, and of course; assuming they accept the evidence for climate change), or to the interest of a well educated population with control over their democracy (as I assume most of us support). Now, regardless of which line you pick, it is increasingly becoming apparent that the initial root to both those worlds is the same: Violence. As may be fairly obvious by now, this train of thought isn't one that just started up last night, but one I've been considering for a while. And whichever way I twist and turn, I'm finding it difficult to consider a solution that does not require us (that is those who believe in a Liberal culture, government, and as a result future), from being forced into almost revolutionary action against the established order. No, I am not lost to the Socialists, please consider my reasoning below:

We (again; Social Liberals) accept that business interests are never going to lead to the Liberté égalité fraternité sort of Liberalism that we aspire to. If this is considered as true, then we must also accept that those interests cannot be allowed to take control of a nation once initially removed. In order to prevent this from happening, I have a couple of solutions:
1. Proportional Representation: Voting systems that do not allow monopoly of power and thus corruption. When combined with the other solutions suggested bellow, a PR Democracy would indeed be a strong wall of defence against authoritarians; be they business interests or imperialists.
2. Recall powers and Regulation: Our Politicians are not presently held to account under the law, and once changed this would at least require them to do their jobs. Corruption is also a big issue within our modern Democracy, and one I feel needs addressing.
3. Ban on Duel Interests: I actually support Putins new measure to ban Russian politicians from sitting on outside boards, and would actually take it one step further to include home companies; there should be no duel interests. Your only job should be a political one - your only duty to the people under your protection.
4. Education: We need PPE in schools (Politics, Philosophy, Economics) - many of our issues stem from populations who can too easily be taken for a ride by politicians from all sides of the spectrum. Once combined with the above, we would have a far stronger and far more accountable system of government. Accountability would crush interests that do not benefit people and their right to exist as deemed under Liberalism - however this is only possible if we really do focus on education.
5. Money and Lobby Groups: If money buys votes, then there will need to be limits on where the cash comes from and how much can be given. This is more of a general notion, than anything concrete.

I don't however present that list as the primary focus for our debate, but more as a general idea for how you can secure the future. The problem I believe we now face is the method to which we enact these reforms - if politicians are indeed subservient to business interests, then how do you correct those interests without having to combat the politicians? With that in mind, how do we ensure that we don't just become another group of Stalinists, or Fascists, who simply replace the existing order with something just as bad? (or indeed far worse!). And yet, in the example provided of Climate Change, we would need a government both willing and able to put their foot down. Business interests will never be green interests, and yet I imagine all of us here would agree that the future simply must be green in order for our children to have a future.

One thing that seems apparent to me whilst rereading my list, is the sheer necessity of those changes, and then the worrying implications for our present political order: Turkeys do not vote for Christmas. How exactly do you implement an accountable, Representative Democracy in a system where the decisions of those in power are controlled by only two interest groups within our countries? I admit I am now sounding a little like something from the Socialism sub-forum again, and apologies for that. But I have also never been one to run away from a scary question, and so I put it to you guys here and now: Are we coming ever closer to Liberal Revolution? The sort that our ancestors may have fought in order to secure us our present freedoms? has that time come again? And how on Earth do we save our ideology without morally bankrupting it?

I take no pride in sounding like an extremist. I still very much believe extremism to be socially damaging. But I am very interested in hearing your thoughts.

[mikema63]

Liberalism is on the right.

[Pants-of-dog]

Liberalism is on the right.

Not as the OP defined it. Please do not turn this into a semantic discussion. The OP clearly indicates that "liberal" means someone who wishes to use state power to enforce regulation of corporations in order to protect the populace from the pitfalls of an unregulated free market. In fact, the OP goes so far as to advocate violence against a gov't that does not do that. That is decidedly not on the right.

The question the OP is asking, and is far more interesting than defining "liberal" yet again, is how people who are devoted to the idea of non-oppressive gov'ts can hold the gov't accountable while simultaneously ensuring that business interests do not capture the gov't apparatus.

The question is how do we ensure gov't follows the people's will rather than the will of those with money.

It's a tricky question because when you open the door so that the most powerless individual in the land can hold the gov't accountable, how do you stop the rich man (who is already powerful) from using that same opportunity to control the gov't?

Obviously, severely restricting the rights of corporations would help, including getting rid of the legal fiction of corporate personhood, and losing that awful idea of limited liability. Also, severely restricting lobbying and political donations.

But the problem with all this is that the rich, being rich and powerful, would oppose such measures.

[Rei Murasame]

The question the OP is asking, and is far more interesting than defining "liberal" yet again, is how people who are devoted to the idea of non-oppressive gov'ts can hold the gov't accountable while simultaneously ensuring that business interests do not capture the gov't apparatus.

I would contend that you basically can't. Economic power precedes political power, and getting economic power - control of a scarcity - requires some kind of oppression of someone, somewhere.

[Pants-of-dog]

I would contend that you basically can't. Economic power precedes political power, and getting economic power - control of a scarcity - requires some kind of oppression of someone, somewhere.

Not all political power is economic power. Nor is economic power required in order to wield political power. You implicitly recognise this when you claim that the solution is to use your political power to oppress those with economic power. Since the oppressor does not have economic power (if so, our hypothetical oppressor would instead be one of those targetted for oppression), the oppressor must be using some other sort of political power to oppress the rich, one that is not based on economic power.

If political power is not necessarily tied to economic power, as you imply, then you can do so.

[Rei Murasame]

No, they would be using a different source of economic power. For example, say that you decide to become a socialist (just an easy example, chosen at random), and you get followers, your form of economic power would be the ability to have 70% of the population engage in denial-of-service attacks against the nation's industries by withholding the use of human resources.

Also known as 'massively going on strike'. Human resources are an economic power.

There are other examples, let's say you went with the middle class option and you found some people who have control of water or food sources, who for some reason want to have political change? Well, a political movement that has control of the water supply and food supply, would be a movement possessing an absolutely immense power as well.

Also known as 'resource bottlenecking' or 'sanctions'. Natural resources and agriculture are an economic power.

In either example, someone has to come to the table and bargain with you, because you have the power to hurt them.

But this has been said a long time ago by an Englishman named S. G. Hobson:

Whatever unhappy vicissitudes politics has passed through since the glory of Greece set it on its way, it is as true now as ever that successful statesmanship is founded on enduring principles and not upon the appraisement or nice balancing of material considerations. There is a practical sagacity, notably in the obiter dicta of Bacon and later in Cromwell's policy, that does not disregard the economic factors; but that sagacity turns to cunning or opportunism if it lose faith in the fundamental principles disclosed by time and circumstance. This is not to deny the main fact of modern industrialism that economic power precedes and dominates political action. There is a sense in which that aphorism is permanently true; another sense in which it is a polemic peculiar to existing conditions.

It is permanently true in that statesmanship must possess the material means to encompass its ends, precisely as one must have the fare and sustenance before proceeding on a journey. But whilst the fare must be available as a condition precedent to the journey, it remains a means to the end. Our aphorism is a polemic peculiar to private capitalism in that the fare to continue the metaphor is controlled by an interested section of the community, which can consequently decide the time and direction of the journey. But when the fare and sustenance pass from private to communal control, in the process increasing in abundance and availability, we find ourselves as a people free to embark on whatever spiritual or political enterprise we desire.

Economic power is not finally found in wealth but in the control of its abundance or scarcity. If I possessed the control of the water supply, my economic power would be stupendous; but with equal access to water by the whole body of citizens, that economic power is dispersed and the community may erect swimming-baths or fountains or artificial lakes without my permission. Not only so; but the abundance of water, which economically considered is of boundless value, grows less serious as a practical issue the more abundant it becomes.

Upon the substantial truth of this hangs our conception of citizenship and State policy. I have consistently disclaimed for the future Guilds the control of wealth, conceding to them no more and no less than the control, through monopoly, of their labour-power.

[...]

The dominance of economic power depends, therefore, upon two main considerations artificially, by the private control of wealth; fundamentally, by a natural scarcity. If the former be abolished and the latter overcome, the [Guild Socialist] State possesses the means to achieve its purposes, so far as they depend upon economic resources. In this connection, it is not without significance that common parlance often describes a propertied man as "a man of means," and never so far as I know as "a man of ends." But it is usual to refer to a statesman as one having ends to be served by political methods. These philological distinctions are at bottom instinctive citizenship, a recognition that wealth is a means to an end.

I'll baton-pass to the left now though, since I don't want to monopolise this thread, it wasn't really designed for someone like me to respond to.

[Pants-of-dog]

No, they would be using a different source of economic power. For example, say that you decide to become a socialist (just an easy example, chosen at random), and you get followers, your form of economic power would be the ability to have 70% of the population engage in denial-of-service attacks against the nation's industries by withholding the use of human resources.

Also known as 'massively going on strike'. Human resources are an economic power.

Okay.

if this is true, and your previous claim is also true (i.e. getting economic power - control of a scarcity - requires some kind of oppression of someone, somewhere), then labour strikers necessarily oppressed someone somewhere.

Who and when?

There are other examples, let's say you went with the middle class option and you found some people who have control of water or food sources, who for some reason want to have political change? Well, a political movement that has control of the water supply and food supply, would be a movement possessing an absolutely immense power as well.

Also known as 'resource bottlenecking' or 'sanctions'. Natural resources and agriculture are an economic power.

"Whoever controls the spice, controls the galaxy."

Hydrodespotism is an economic tool of oppression, I grant you that. And I am certain that you can list many others. However, the easiest way to disprove this is to provide an example of political power that does not rely on economic power. I pick the civil rights movement by Martin Luther King Jr. and his religious followers and colleagues, who effectively wrought political change from a religious rather than economic base.

In either example, someone has to come to the table and bargain with you, because you have the power to hurt them.

Yes, you need leverage, but it need not be economic leverage.

Violence, for example, is not necessarily economic.

Code: Select all[b]It is permanently true in that statesmanship must possess the material means to encompass its ends, precisely as one must have the fare and sustenance before proceeding on a journey.[/b] But whilst the fare must be available as a condition precedent to the journey, it remains a means to the end. Our aphorism is a polemic peculiar to private capitalism in that the fare to continue the metaphor is controlled by an interested section of the community, which can consequently decide the time and direction of the journey. But when the fare and sustenance pass from private to communal control, in the process increasing in abundance and availability, we find ourselves as a people free to embark on whatever spiritual or political enterprise we desire.

Having the material to do your task is not economic power, as it is not the leverage used to enforce demands. It is merely how you sustain yourself while applying leverage.

Economic power is not finally found in wealth but in the control of its abundance or scarcity. If I possessed the control of the water supply, my economic power would be stupendous; but with equal access to water by the whole body of citizens, that economic power is dispersed and the community may erect swimming-baths or fountains or artificial lakes without my permission. Not only so; but the abundance of water, which economically considered is of boundless value, grows less serious as a practical issue the more abundant it becomes.

I agree, which is why I think that privatisation of communal essential resources is a bad idea in general.

I'll baton-pass to the left now though, since I don't want to monopolise this thread, it wasn't really designed for someone like me to respond to.

If you wish. However, I would say that this conversation is very enlightening in terms of answering the OP's questions.

[Decky]

I'm most definitely fit into "further left" and liberals tend to bomb us and spread agent orange over our civilian populations, fuck them. Why would someone on the left support liberalism?

[Prosthetic Conscience]

In a democracy, there are ways of getting the general population's preferences enacted; it's just hard to work against the power of entrenched interests - businesses, establishment groups (the military, etc.). We can vote out a government we don't like, if we can get enough of a movement going. Publicity and organisation are important, and the internet helps with that.

Take press regulation in the UK, for example. This has all developed from the collective outrage when how far the News of the World had actually gone was exposed. Up until then, the media had downplayed the extent; but when the tipping point of Millie Dowler's phone was reached, there was an incipient boycott, organised through the web, of any company advertising in the NotW. So the NotW closed, and the Levenson Inquiry set up. And public opinion forced Cameron into agreeing with some regulation of a powerful sector (the press), when he was about to sweep it all under the carpet. And that's important, when the media used to have control of how people mostly found out what their fellow citizens were thinking.

I think it's not too late to save democracies from control by corporation. What their money bought was control of the message. We now have the chance to communicate with everyone, basically for free.

[roxunreal]

I can pretty much agree with the OP on practically everything. I believe that social freedoms/human rights/democracy is what makes liberalism liberalism, total economic freedom has no place in it since total freedom is not freedom, it is basically anarchy in which those strongest (or in this case with most money) will always seize the top and exploit everyone else for their own purposes. Just look at what bankers have done only in the last five years, there is nothing "liberal" in "neoliberal capitalism" as it often works directly against the other far more important liberal values.

My views have already been stated a few times, the way of the future should be retaining and improving social freedoms/human rights/democracy while at least curbing economic freedoms of big businesses, though I far more fancy outright nationalization of most key and strategic industries, infrastructure, banks and insurance companies whose demise or irresponsible business practices could have serious adverse effects on the entire country. And I have little doubt that something like this will eventually have to happen, since the seeds have already been sown. The elites in power may have all the money, but they are still but an insignificant fraction of the overall population, a population more and more interconnected through new technologies and more able to share information and organize themselves than ever before. Thus whether through mass strikes and civil disobedience or more direct methods than those, those who would see entire peoples starve and toil in the mud for their own greedy agendas will indeed not be able to continue doing this indefinitely.

Not as the OP defined it. Please do not turn this into a semantic discussion. The OP clearly indicates that "liberal" means someone who wishes to use state power to enforce regulation of corporations in order to protect the populace from the pitfalls of an unregulated free market. In fact, the OP goes so far as to advocate violence against a gov't that does not do that. That is decidedly not on the right.

Doesn't often happen that I so completely agree with PoD.

I think it's not too late to save democracies from control by corporation. What their money bought was control of the message. We now have the chance to communicate with everyone, basically for free.

Indeed, as more and more people become part of the age of the internet, classic election campaigns normally reserved only for the rich that can afford them will become less and less relevant for the voting results.

[SpaciousBox]

Afternoon all,

Firstly; sorry for not getting back into this thread sooner. With the disastrous standard of posting I've seen recently, I have found myself having less investment in PoFo in recent weeks. I am though still interested in contributing, and hearing your thoughts here. Let's deal with a few omissions first, though I really don't want this to develop into another discussion:

Liberalism is on the right.

Not according to standard modern political theory. Seriously, just google Social Liberalism and read it's history. It's all there, it's not something new, it's been around since about the 1920's and is a very key part of all modern political educations and academia.

I'm most definitely fit into "further left"

It was badly worded on my part, sorry about that. I was talking about Liberals of the, rather than all the general groupings of the left.

And onto the pie:

how people who are devoted to the idea of non-oppressive gov'ts can hold the gov't accountable while simultaneously ensuring that business interests do not capture the gov't apparatus.

This entirely. In answer to your following point about the powerful and powerless being able to hold the government to account though: I would probably say that we need to make sure their political power is the same - even if their economic is not. The problem as I see it is that modern economic power is political power, and for every ounce of power shifted in the direction of economics you will always be taking power from other individuals within their own democracy. This intrinsically prevents the powerless from holding government to account, whilst ensuring that those with money call the real score behind the scenes. My proposals would - hopefully - shift that power balance back in favour of something more equal, by addressing the methods of invoking economic power into political power. This would mean the man with money would have far less of an influence, or hopefully almost the same influence as the man without. I am not pretending that money will never be an issue of influence in politics - that is an issue only communism can prevent - but assuming we accept the con's of communism outweighing that particular pro, we must find the next best method of ensuring our politicians are accountable and our democracy is representative.

Obviously, severely restricting the rights of corporations would help, including getting rid of the legal fiction of corporate personhood, and losing that awful idea of limited liability

Could you expand further on this? I personally have shifted less into the idea of legal solutions, and more towards a kind of neo-corporatism, based off a negotiation between business and labour. Whilst it pains me to say it, I do actually agree with Rei, which is kinda why I drew this thread up, as I accept that economic power will very often lead to political power if we do not do something to prevent it from being so.

I agree, which is why I think that privatisation of communal essential resources is a bad idea in general.

I am moving in this direction as well, and from what I can see so is Rox. And yet I also accept that the nationalisation of business is a dangerous game to play. Where would this lead us ideologically? (a question to you both).

In a democracy, there are ways of getting the general population's preferences enacted; it's just hard to work against the power of entrenched interests - businesses, establishment groups (the military, etc.). We can vote out a government we don't like, if we can get enough of a movement going. Publicity and organisation are important, and the internet helps with that.

Very true, and most well put. I think a lot of people are waking up to the idea that much of what is presented in the media may not be quite so true. Sure, the rest of us have known this for years - I grew up in a household where I was literally taught to not trust what I saw and heard. It may be a slow process, but I think democracy is winning through open free information, albeit slowly. Social media and the internet may very well be a soft, and non-violent form of revolution. But whilst I do accept this will change people;s perspectives, it does not answer what we should do about the power that has still alienated us from our own democracy.

I can pretty much agree with the OP on practically everything. I believe that social freedoms/human rights/democracy is what makes liberalism liberalism, total economic freedom has no place in it since total freedom is not freedom, it is basically anarchy in which those strongest (or in this case with most money) will always seize the top and exploit everyone else for their own purposes. Just look at what bankers have done only in the last five years, there is nothing "liberal" in "neoliberal capitalism" as it often works directly against the other far more important liberal values.

This. 10 out of 10. I'm never going to understand why people cannot seem to gather this, though I guess that is what separated us Social Liberals from the Market/Classical Liberals. Moving on though; if I read the rest of you correctly Rox, you would almost appear to be calling for a form of Liberal Market Socialism? I have not though seen your views on economics presented before, so if you could reiterate or provide a link that would be most appreciated.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

These are all excellent points and I thank you all for your contribution. The question that has been lingering in my mind though is how we enact these changes. I cannot see a method of changing the system, without a violent and indeed bloody form of take over, followed by a top-down style forceful systematic change that would be very far from the values we all clearly hold dear. Can this be done democratically? Even when we all seem to accept the interests of present parties are not reform? Or, as I am starting to wonder, are we talking about revolution and an almost dictatorship of the democrats type scenario? - Marx would be thrilled! Before ordering our executions, of course. Over to you.

[Soix]

In order for something to be done about Climate Change, we would need a government in power who answered to either the national interest (as per their definition, and of course; assuming they accept the evidence for climate change), or to the interest of a well educated population with control over their democracy (as I assume most of us support).

I find this interesting because one must assume that:

a) Climate change is a "problem" which demands a "solution" .
b) That only government can secure this "solution".
c) A national interest exists and is definable (by whom exactly? - a "well educated" populace, perhaps?).

It is as if one has simply ignored all the arguments proffered by "Public Choicers" and "Free-market Environmentalists" in favor of, what I would call, a panacea of government intervention which means a few ignorant busybodies who know and understand less than the millions of people acting in the market process.

[Pants-of-dog]

Could you expand further on this? I personally have shifted less into the idea of legal solutions, and more towards a kind of neo-corporatism, based off a negotiation between business and labour. Whilst it pains me to say it, I do actually agree with Rei, which is kinda why I drew this thread up, as I accept that economic power will very often lead to political power if we do not do something to prevent it from being so.

Right now, a corporation exists as a sort of legal person, and like actual people, they get certain rights. The weird thing is that sometimes the rights of the corporation supersede the rights of the employee, such as when a corporation owned by Catholics can choose not to provide certain types of medical insurance to its (non-Catholic) employees. Or that they should be allowed to donate to political causes. The more rights corporations have, the more gov't is accountable to them.

Limited liability is the other side of the coin of corporate personhood. Because the corporation is a person that can sign contracts and get sued, the individuals who actually choose to not honour their contracts can avoid getting sued by letting the corporation get sued instead. With some fancy accounting, the people in the corporation get away scot free while the corporation is left as dried husk.

We should stop maintaining these legal fictions.

I am moving in this direction as well, and from what I can see so is Rox. And yet I also accept that the nationalisation of business is a dangerous game to play. Where would this lead us ideologically? (a question to you both).

It has little to do with ideology to me.

The market simply cannot provide certain things. Those things that the market cannot provide must be provided some other way. Right now, the easiest way to run these things is through gov't. This is not the ideal solution, as any rich capitalist who is not a complete moron will obviously try to use their wealth to get the state to support those ventures that will further enrich our hypothetical capitalist, but you work with the tools you have.

This is why social liberalism is important. In my mind, we have to keep the state fighting business, so that the two most oppressive forces in modern history (i.e. state and business) are too busy to hassle individuals and communities. So, the idea is to focus the gov't on corporations instead of individuals. Get gov't out of the lives of ordinary people. As long as it's consenting adults and there is no reasonable risk of anyone being hurt, have at it. This way we don't make the mistakes of Soviet style authoritarianism, while keeping the capitalists from turning the world into their banana republic.

Is the system perfect? No, not by a long shot.

Does it work better than everything else we've tried so far? Yes.

--------------------------------------------------------------

In order for something to be done about Climate Change, we would need a government in power who answered to either the national interest (as per their definition, and of course; assuming they accept the evidence for climate change), or to the interest of a well educated population with control over their democracy (as I assume most of us support).

I find this interesting because one must assume that:

a) Climate change is a "problem" which demands a "solution" .
b) That only government can secure this "solution".
c) A national interest exists and is definable (by whom exactly? - a "well educated" populace, perhaps?).

It is as if one has simply ignored all the arguments proffered by "Public Choicers" and "Free-market Environmentalists" in favor of, what I would call, a panacea of government intervention which means a few ignorant busybodies who know and understand less than the millions of people acting in the market process.

The market won't do anything about climate change. The gov't might, when things get really bad, i.e. violent.

If the market could do something about climate change, it would. It's not, as far as I can tell.

[Soix]

PoD, the "market" is, however, starting to do something. Carbon credits (that thing Al Gore is so hung up on) is a market method of combating climate change. Let's hope there is more to come from the market and less from government. The millions of people acting through the market have greater knowledge and understanding on any issue than the few "experts" and bureaucrats acting within the state apparatus and government.

[Pants-of-dog]

PoD, the "market" is, however, starting to do something.

Great. You're too late.

Gov't has been doing really simple things like enforcing how much insulation goes into roofs in order to drastically reduce energy use, since the eighties in most developed nations.

Carbon credits (that thing Al Gore is so hung up on) is a market method of combating climate change.

And how much change has that made so far? My local bicycle repair shop has probably done more to reduce carbon emissions.

Let's hope there is more to come from the market and less from government.

I am not happy gambling the future of my ecosystem to your "hope". I want something a little more concrete. The state, with the whole gulags and guns and oppression, has shown itself to be fairly good at forcing people to do things. Now, you and I can agree that oppression is bad, but we can also agree that the state gets shit done. So, until the market shows itself to be more capable, I will go with the tool that is actually doing something, even if it is far too little.

The millions of people acting through the market have greater knowledge and understanding on any issue than the few "experts" and bureaucrats acting within the state apparatus and government.

No. If this were the case, then we would all happily be living in Galt's Gulch now.

[Soix]

Well, I think you, PoD, put too much faith in a select insular few (government agents), rather than trying to make combating climate change "profitable" to the many (individuals acting in a market).

If it is profitable to stop climate change then, I suspect, on the margin it will be retarded. I think this method is more effective method than government mandates and regulations which often have unforeseen, and usually opposite to that which is intended, consequences.

[Pants-of-dog]

Well, I think you, PoD, put too much faith in a select insular few (government agents), rather than trying to make combating climate change "profitable" to the many (individuals acting in a market).

Really? Since when is it our job to "make climate change profitable"? Do we have to put together your business model for you now?

I thought free marketeers were rugged, independent visionaries. My bad.

If it is profitable to stop climate change then, I suspect, on the margin it will be retarded. I think this method is more effective method than government mandates and regulations which often have unforeseen, and usually opposite to that which is intended, consequences.

And yet, it hasn't shown itself to be effective so far.

[Soix]

Give it time, if there's a buck to be made I am confident some greedy individual will want to make it. Also, I apologize if I don't live up to your standard.

[Pants-of-dog]

Give it time, if there's a buck to be made I am confident some greedy individual will want to make it. Also, I apologize if I don't live up to your standard.

There is no more time.

And sometimes, you need to find a solution even if there is no money to be made. This is probably one of those times.

This is why the modern liberal looks to the state in those times. Because the state can compel people to behave ethically even when it is not in the short term interests of all the parties involved. The market can't do that.

[Soix]

To say there is no more time, I think, is deliberately demagogic. I am suspicious of those who spread a sense of urgency since it is often used as a pretext for extending the scope and range of government power of individuals which often is never rescinded (a good recent example is George W. Bush's Patriot Act). I don't want to extend the government's power over people.


Also, I think, if one's first response to any "problem" is took look to the government for a solution instead of the people then I honestly don't think that person qualifies for the label of "liberal", regardless of what qualifying adjective is used. The liberal is suppose to abhor the concentration of power, of which government is emblematic.