I believe in the rights of the individual and the consequences of such. I believe that taxation is too heavy, and that the government doesn't have the right to tax me without my consent. However, I believe that taxation should be something that you can opt-in on, and based on such when necessary you receive a certain amount of care, based on how much you opt-in. Those who contribute more, based on the percentage of their gross income, should receive more service or more covers, similar to an insurance type deal. I also believe in a decentralized government for dealing with economic dealings and I think for the most part, the government shouldn't touch the economy. This comes back to the fact that I'm a Laissez-faire capitalist, I don't think the government has any right to touch transactions conducted by private parties.
Associated with the concept of natural rights and servings as an additional buttress to the edifice of laissez faire was the faith of Americans in the self-sufficiency of the individual. To a great extent the result of the unusually favorable economic conditions that prevailed in the United States, individualism became part and parcel of the nation's democratic faith. Americans placed their trust not in "external government" but in the free individual, who must be kept free from restrains; and it was widely held that as individuals became more intelligent and more attuned to the moral law, there would be a decreasing need for government.... It was, indeed, in the writings of the transcendentalists Emerson and Thoreau that the doctrine of the free individual attained its classic expression in mid-nineteenth-century America. To Emerson, the self-reliant individual was more than a match for organized government, and he foresaw the day when the advance of the individual would render the state unnecessary. Thoreau was even more contemptuous of the state, and in his famous essay "Civil Disobedience" carried individualism to a point where it became almost indistinguishable from anarchism. The teachings of classical political economy, which were brought to America from England and France, also helped to promote the idea of the negative state.
Laissez-faire capitalist, now that's something that has never worked. It simply leads to cartels taking over businesses and completely stifles any sort of competition.
Ford wanted to start his auto company back about 1900. There was no regulation or anything like that, but when he went to start the company, the cartel, ALAM, that 'licensed' all of the auto businesses, said nope, fuck off we don't need anybody else. It was only when Ford and ALAM started a lawsuit that the cartel fell apart.
Aviation has to be heavily regulated, mainly because of safety. With zero regulations, airlines would cut costs and use cheap parts, even if that risked crashes/deaths. You could argue that "some company will come along and make safety #1" but the fact of the matter is you risk completely destroying the industry if only a few companies care about safety, and the rest care about their profit.
The"invisible hand" does nothing but make companies super rich on the backs of others, but while that could be said about our system now, it ends up stifling competition in everything. Once somebody gains control of the market, its over, being nearly impossible to dislodge the company from its position of power. That is why the Sherman act was formed, that is why its a basic economic law across nearly every country. There is zero ethnics in business, and this is the equalizer.
Considering the latest economic issue, it seems like everything was pretty unregulated in banking, and now it still is. So what do we have in return? Complete vulnerability to the system if the system crashes. People being handed stupid amounts of credit that they can't pay off. Three credit card companies that run all credit, that can ruin anybodies credit for any reason.
Are there some regulations that need to be re-examined and loosened, yes, but to blow up the system, and let it go back to the dark days of US history, when only 3 companies owned just about everything is impossible. We are already reaching a point where people cannot continue to afford cars, insurance, health care, and school. Basically its turning back the clock, re-affirming that this nation cares not for the many, but for the few.
Now before you call me a crazy socialist, I would rather see people take more responsibilities for their fuck ups. Lawsuits ("Coffee is hot, what a novel concept"), parents not taking any responsibility for their children, people placing blame on anything but themselves, trying to bend the system to their own will. The government does need to just get out of our way, just go to the back corner and sit there, make sure things are running fine and just stay that way. We don't need you in our lives, in our bedrooms, just give us the chance to live our lives to our fullest extent and be done with it.
The opt-out idea would be fine, if people would accept it, but people (today) would bitch about how they deserve this and deserve that, despite not paying for it. I think that opportunity is lone gone at this point.
But lets start another discussion about that, this is about how fucked up our politicians are. Hell they even get paid before everybody else (yes I know, 27th amendment) but the need to lose money if they aren't working, like everybody else.
