Philip asks:
Are there any areas where government intervention may be unnecessary and/or crossing the line? Or does the end effect ultimately justify the means?
For example, when President Obama had the government take control of of General Motors, new changes were made and put into effect and by early 2010, G.M. had finally made a profit for the first time since 2007.
Also, what about an individual or group of people interfering or deeming it necessary to intercede and make aware of or try to change something? Is the outcome the same or does it have its bad with the good?
An example of this would be when Tiffany Bredeck, one of the authors of this blog, decided to go to Minneapolis with some friends to protest against Target and its donated support to a political campaign that was against gays/lesbians.
Well, Philip, I believe there are areas where government intervention is necessary and areas where it is not necessary or even recommendable. If others are harmed against their will, then the government should use its power to protect them with their consent. The government should be a guardian and an organizer run by the people for the people, not a tyrant run by despots for despots. Anarchists often oppose any form of government, but we can see how a large society like Somalia is functioning, or rather not functioning, without much of a government. There has been an ongoing civil war since 1991. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Somali_Civil_War) My beliefs are similar to that of the Preamble to the United States Constitution:
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
Therefore, instances in which the government should intervene include but are not limited to issues of murder, rape, theft, women’s rights, civil rights, corporate malfeasance, environmental degradation, and so on.
In the case of General Motors, which is a corporate entity and not a person with human rights, laid off thousands of workers and planned to lay off thousands more. The impact of the layoffs was reflected in Detroit’s dismal economy, and affects other economies to a lesser extent. In order to “promote the general Welfare”, it was necessary for the government to intervene. The question is how. Is the corporation an asset or a liability? Should the government give the requested loans or take over, or both? How much was the corporation responsible for the collapse? I believe that if the corporation is reckless (or exploitative), the government should not trust it with loans that may be further wasted. If it is a potential asset and the corporation is mainly responsible for the collapse, the government should take over to “promote the general Welfare”. If it is a liability, the people would be better off if the government used the “loan money” to create new jobs and provide training. On the other hand, if it was only partly its fault and it is a possible asset, the government should give it loans and temporarily own part of it as collateral on the condition that they hire people, improve, and pay back the loan, similar to what banks do. If it doesn’t hold up its end of the bargain, the government should permanently keep it’s shares of the company if not take over the whole company. If it is a liability, the government should do the same as mentioned above.
Thus, since I believe it was partly General Motors’s fault for the collapse by making poor quality cars and that it’s a potential asset, I think the government should’ve given it loans and temporarily own part of it as collateral on the condition that they hire people, improve, and pay back the loan, which is similar to what Barack Obama proposed. Since General Motors did keep up its end of the bargain more or less, there should not be a total takeover, though the government should continue owning its part of the shares until the debt is paid off completely. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Motors_Chapter_11_reorganization#Background)
However, since the big banks were primarily responsible for their own collapse, via cheating people out of their money and making unsound insider trades (which is illegal), and since they’re potential assets, the government, instead of giving them a bailout, should’ve taken over and broken them up into smaller, local, and perhaps private entities (since there already is a federal bank which spends much of our money for the wrong causes) with regulation so that we don’t put all our eggs in one basket. Even after bailing them out, they were still fighting Wall Street/financial reform. They are plain crooks so it would be for the “general Welfare” that the government take over.
I don’t think it’s a simple matter of the ends justifying the means. Both the ends and means have to be justified, and I believe the situational system I described above satisfies both those requirements.
The area where I don’t think the government should interfere is individual liberty, as long as those liberties don’t harm others without their consent. Examples include but are not limited to: drugs, alcohol, abortion, prostitution, same-sex marriage, etc., and they should be regulated where appropriate to ensure safely. In the cases of drugs, alcohol, and prostitution, for example, they are potentially harmful to the individual but instead of infringing on their liberties, society should simply discourage it. Prohibition has never worked. If, however, their life is in danger, I believe a humane society has a moral responsibility to help them where possible. I believe there is a government intervention scale where, for instance, murder calls for very high intervention, corporate irresponsibility high intervention, drugs call for moderate intervention, same-sex marriage very little intervention (aside from legal paperwork), and it goes without saying that natural rights, such as walking and breathing, should entail absolutely no intervention.
Regarding an individual or group trying to raise awareness or change something for the better, I not only believe this is acceptable, but a social and moral obligation if it aims to improve society. Someone who is indifferent does not deserve the liberties and civilization our predecessors fought so hard for. Would we be where we are if Martin Luther King, Jr. never fought for civil rights or if Elizabeth Cady Stanton and Susan B. Anthony never fought for women’s suffrage? And It should not stop with them. There are still numerous injustices. We must continue the to work towards a better and more just society if we wish to earn our keep. As Shirley Chisholm, the first African-American woman to be elected to Congress, said, “Service is the rent we pay for the privilege of living on this earth.”
The question arises, however, when one considers which matters are for the better, which are for the worse, and which are optional. I propose that matters of equality, liberty, and general well-being should always be fought for, not just for others but for oneself. Martin Luther King, Jr. once said, “Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.” Nonetheless, many fight for what they believe is for the better but are misguided and are instead pushing for the worse, such as those who argue against reproductive freedom and same-sex marriage. One can say they are not acting out of the kindness of their heart but out of fear, delusion, selfishness, pride, greed, etc., which has led to numerous atrocities in the past as well as the present, such as segregation, religious warfare, and witch hunts, which are not only not necessary but are condemnable. Thus, actions must be based on sound reason. What guides me is the maxim that everyone wants to be happy. Finally, matters that are optional include but are not limited to optionally preaching about a religion, soliciting carpet washing, or advertising one’s frivolous business. It can be for good, bad, and/or neutral, but it is up to the listener to opt to rightfully accept or refuse the offers, and the person or group making the offer should not harass people. This is in contrast to matters of civil rights, for example, where it is mandatory for activists to keep pushing for what’s right and not give up until discrimination is outlawed.
I find what Tiffany Bredeck did in Minneapolis and continually does everyday highly honorable, noble, and righteous. It is necessary. She promotes equality, liberty, and general well-being just as William Lloyd Garrison and Gloria Steinem do. Who can say today, except perhaps fringe radicals, that abolition is wrong or that women should not be able to own property? It is my hope and belief based on history that in the next few decades, people would look back and ponder, “Who can say today that same-sex marriage is wrong or that women shouldn’t have reproductive freedom?” It may be a somewhat slow process, but it is a process that has borne plenty of fruits today, and it would only be fair to do for others in the future (as well as ourselves in the present) what others have done for us in the past. As the popular song goes, “Love is what makes the world go ’round.” I am astonished how much love, wisdom, and dedication Tiffany has to offer, and I have believe that we are making a positive difference, that causes that advocate for justice and well-being will prevail, those that merely solicit will have its good and bad, and that causes which advocate for dividing and conquering will fail.
