Loading ...from elsewhere on the web:
For most of my life, most Democrats believed in free markets. They believed that free markets were imperfect, and needed a level of regulation much higher than I think they need, but they were practical people who thought markets should be more or less free, with just enough regulation to control externalities.
These people also believed that taxation, and welfare, should have limits. They wanted what they considered a ‘more compassionate’ state, in which those who do well share some of their income with those who do poorly in order that all Americans can achieve some level of comfort, and enjoy some form of the American dream. I disagreed with them in terms of how much we should be taxed, how much we should give those in need, and what exactly the safety net should look like, but we had the same basic goals and could carry rational discussions with some level of agreement.
I could talk with these people about when, where, and why to regulate. When we agreed that regulation was necessary, we could talk about how to regulate. We did not always agree, but there was enough common ground to carry out a thoughtful and constructive dialogue, and we could generally find places to compromise. We were generally on the same team with the same basic goals. We just had different ways to accomplish those goals.
In terms of welfare, we generally agreed that dependency is a poor solution to poverty, and that whatever the social safety net looked like, it’s job was to catch those who fall, but not to support people for their entire lives.
Those Democrats are still out there, but they are becoming few and far between. Today’s Democrat by and large believes that limited regulation is insufficient – that government must control, if not own, the economy, and that the purpose of welfare is to provide as comfortable a life as humanly possible to anyone who, for whatever reason, does not work. They want people to be free from economic burdens such that they can pursue their passions, but they believe that the fruits of all labors are communal, and that there exists an intellectual and moral elite who should control how those spoils are consumed.
I have no common ground with these people at all.
This country was once ruled by an intellectual and moral elite, who had the power to free the people from economic burdens, taking communally the fruits of the people’s labors, and spending it communally. His name was King George III.
Today’s liberals do not want a king. They want a democratic version of state control.
None of them have ever been able to convince me how having a thousand dictators a mile away is an improvement over having one dictator one thousand miles away. If we must have an authoritarian state, why not have King George III?
Socialists can go to hell. Tell George I said ‘hello’ when you get there.