I definitely agree with the statement that too much or too little government intervention kills the free market.
I definitely don't know where the exact line is....
I definitely agree with the statement that too much or too little government intervention kills civil liberties.
I definitely don't know where the exact line is....
...I tend to be against government interference that will lead to negative economic growth.
Who is for Government Interference that will lead to Negative Economic Growth??
Do NOT underestimate Politicians ability to be Myopic about the Negative Impact to Economic Growth. Especially Democrats.
*Clinton argued on National TV, that if he did NOT get his Socialized Medicine Bill the Economy would never recover from the extremely minor none recession we were in, but he won election on portraying it as being the worst economy ever. Shortly after it was defeated, and Republicans took the Congress, we had a huge economic boom.
Especially if we do NOT know where to draw the line, are you NOT just handing Politicians a license to steal, to put in any intervention they want for any reason, as long as they have some argument, no matter how flimsy that it would somehow be benificial, or at least budget netrual, to the Economy?
Obama argued his Health Care Bill would be Budget Netrual, and the Congress played a lot of games to get the CBO to produce a Budget Netrual Score. Now that its passed, the Congress has already gone back and fixed the measures from those games, because they could never be left the way they were, and the Bill is a huge budget buster.
Where can you draw the line: How about the clear limited roles the government has in our Society, which includes the Free Market as well as our Civil Liberties.
We don't seem to have problem with the concept that we are a free people with garuanteed civil liberties, codified in limits on the government in the constitution to keep them from violating those rights. That government is limited in certain roles to enact and enforce law, which the primary purpose should be to protect that freedom.
You can argue if you want, we are NOT truly free, because any law interfers with people's freedom, and there is NOT a single Free Nation in existance, they all have laws. You're falling into the trap of being an absolutist.
Limit the role of government to its clearly defined roles that its there for, the necessary compromises that are necessary to protect peoples rights and freedoms, even if does mean in reality everyone is giving up a tiny bit of freedom to produce a system that is free and garuantees those freedoms.
Just like civil rights, those limitations and garuantees are in the constitution.
Government role in the Free Market, is to protect freedom of the market, and like civil rights, that freedom only extends to the point where it interfers with others freedoms. So Government intervening to prevent Lying, Cheating, Stealing in the Free Markets is a legitmate role.
The gray area is, like with Civil Law, some "REASONABLE" protections against being taken advantage of, and some "REASONABLE" level of government acting to promote the General Welfare without Intervening. Licensing, Consumer Protections, Standards & Measures, and resolving/regulating interstate commerce is within the proper role. Of course we will always argue about what is "REASONABLE" in that gray area, but I refer to often argued 1st Amendment Rights:
Freedom of Speech does NOT mean you can scream fire in a crowded theater. But, when we argue and settle those gray areas, its always to provide the benefit of the doubt to the people's right and away from the Government's role to limit that.
Yet, if we apply the same attitudes currently used by Government in the Free Market, we would see the gray area of that example being used to expand government's role of limiting free speech to be able to limit and regulate all speech, except screaming fire in a crowded theater.
