People have lived in misery for most of human history, oppressed by ruthless tyrants, without basic rights or freedoms. Only recently have the concepts of liberty and equality been applied by enlightened leaders, opening an era of art, science and relative peace. Today, certain people want to turn back the clock by consolidating power in the elite few who control the major corporations and financial institutions. Without government to restrain the barons of unchecked capitalism, humanity's forward progress will grind to a halt and the tyrants will again rule the day.
Holders of the above point of view tend to vote Democratic, watch MSNBC or CNN, read the New York Times, drive a hybrid and feel a little guilty when they fly on an airplane.
Or...
People have lived in misery for most of human history, oppressed by
ruthless tyrants, without basic rights or freedoms. Only recently have
the concepts of liberty and equal rights been applied by enlightened leaders, opening an era of art, science and relative peace. Today, certain people want to turn back the clock by consolidating power in an elite few who control government institutions. Without economic and personal liberty guaranteed for every individual, humanity's forward progress will grind to a halt and the tyrants will once again rule the day.
Holders of this point of view tend to vote Republican, watch FoxNews, read the Wall Street Journal, own a gun and feel a little guilty when they take something from the government that they have not earned.
One easy, but lazy, conclusion to draw is that both story lines are true...that the two extremes create a happy middle. Sure, very few would disagree that much progress could have been made without both a strong central government as well as motivated wealth creators in the private sector. But stopping the analysis there simplifies political philosophy to not much more than a volume knob, increasing or decreasing the amount of government. It's a good first order model, but far from complete.
Important questions should be answered, such as defining the proper role of government in society and its limitations. Before we discuss the degree to which government should be involved in something, we should decide whether it should be involved at all. And once we decide such things, we should stick with that decision no matter how tempting it might be to apply a quick fix. Government has an exclusive monopoly on the initiation of the use of force (the military and police). It's wise to create firewalls between the private sector and the public domain to defend against any future misuse of power. If history has taught us anything, it's that bad people are attracted to the job of running countries.
Of course, such analysis is a little too "black and white" for some people who will argue that a little government involvement helps everything and without which there would be chaos. The idea that government can keep the peace and defend individuals against force and fraud without "regulating" is unthinkable. Liberals sleep better knowing government is involved. This keeps conservatives awake.
There is also a vague sense that democracy itself is the defense against tyranny. If government goes "too far", we'll just vote the bad guys out of office and put in a better crop of leaders. But in practice, that only works for major transgressions. Politicians that do dozens of little things to line their own pockets, along with their cronies, tend to get reelected time after time. And how diligent are we really, as citizens, watching over our elected officials? We simply don't have the time. It would be much better to know that they don't have the authority or power to cause too much trouble in the first place.
Power must and will reside somewhere. Consolidated and centralized in a government that also has the military and police? Or widely distributed among free people making decisions every day according to their best interests, with government defending them against force and fraud? As a people, we decide by which story line we follow.
