Sarcastic wrote:...
As to the actual causes of our current economic situation, there are a lot of good sources out there that get very little to no run at all in the corporate media. Check out
Meltdown, by Thomas Woods. It's a pretty good start. Check out Ron Paul's
End the Fed. Check out
http://www.mises.org" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;.
As bh stated, libertarians aren't necessarily against regulation (there's no agreement, to be sure). I probably fuel some of the confusion around here between libertarianism and anarcho-capitalism because I'm still exploring the philosophy behind my beliefs and this place works as sort of a sounding board in that regard. There IS a difference between what I believe ultimately, where my philosophy ends up, and what I think government should look like in practical terms. For that, I apologize.
You are correct that deregulation (particularly Glass-Steagall) contributed to the recession/depression. So did regulation - the CRA is often cited, but more than that the Federal Reserve Act (1913) is the greatest culprit. Too much corporate greed? Agreed.
But how? Corporations sunk their claws into the government. I cannot see in what manner the solution to this problem, then, is MORE government. It is exactly the socially-sanctioned, "legitimate" power of government that they sought. Better government, you might say. Hey, that's great. Wouldn't it be wonderful for this noble, selfless man to emerge and save us (I personally am repulsed by this sort of lack of self-reliance, but for the sake of argument...
)? Obama was elected with as much fervent "hope" for "change" in politics as probably any pol in modern history - and look what he's brought you. Expanded wars, expanded encroachments upon your civil liberties (just read the article doublem linked to by Greenwald at Salon on Sunstein's ideas), faux-populist legislation like the health care giveaway...
Even if Obama were the real deal, let me ask you this - what happens when he leaves office? Let's say he came in to office and actually protected you from terrorists and corporations and all the boogie men the right and the left love to cower from. Naturally enough, in order to accomplish this, he would have had to accumulate a fair amount of power in his office. But now it's time for the good and noble man to retire and reflect on the greatest presidency America ever knew... And now someone else is sitting behind that desk, with all that power... (Edit to add: This is EXACTLY what has happened, come to think of it, each and every time we've elected a new president).
Of course, the alternative is that he could just stay in power. I mean, that way we don't have to worry about corrupt politicians taking over, right? That's the swamp in which autocracies are hatched... Read H.J. Laski's "Labour and the Constitution" in the New Statesman and Nation. No, he's not another libertarian crying about big gubmint. He's a 1930's progressive proposing that once the "good" party is elected, they ought not give that power up. And what of those crazies who want to speak out against such a "good" government, and who want the right to gather and oppose it, and vote against it?
As I said before - you cannot have it both ways. Government that "protects" you economically necessarily destroys your civil liberties.
I used to be a pretty dyed-in-the-wool leftist. Counter-arguments were lost on me, because I wouldn't consider them. I wasn't willing to explore the logic behind what I believed. I don't believe in any politician as savior, Ron Paul included. But one thing I have to give him credit for is the 2008 campaign he ran opened my eyes in a lot of ways...
