American Gothic wrote: Mon Jul 26, 2021 7:39 pm
do you not know any or live among them as I do
...They said to the Mexican who spent his life in factories and grew up in a house without any food...
constitutionally limited and smaller government with more personal freedom works
that's why Millions want to come here and not Cuba
The question isn't one of limits or no limits, it's where the best place to put those limits is at any given point in time. Obviously, none of us is advocating for totalitarianism and the insinuation that someone on the left is trying to turn WASPs into slaves every time a person in a position of power says "stop being a dick to marginalized people" is fallacious at best.
The problem is that if you don't limit the freedom of the powerful, then they use their power to limit the freedom of the not powerful. Limiting the powers of government (which is a proxy for the wealthy elites who have the financial capability to be elected to positions of power) protects the individual from having his freedom limited by wealthy elites, yes, but using government as a tool to ban slavery limits the freedom of people to own slaves so that nobody has to worry about their personal freedom limited by being made a slave. Establishing a wage floor limits the freedom of the ultra-wealthy so that the vast majority of people gain the freedom to make ends meet, have quality housing, and build some kind of savings. I didn't gain the ability to work my ass off to get my MSW until after I managed to get a union job that paid real money instead of the Monopoly money most modern American jobs pay relative to the cost of living.
Sure, a lot of people have cheap access to devices, but it's balanced by the fact that a lot of those devices have become the bare minimum to get through school and have a job. You can't hardly interview for a job without an internet connection these days. And possessions are hollow and meaningless when we're still punished more harshly for the equivalent crimes, brown women are still bearing the brunt of sexual violence (regardless of what white women want to believe), and, disproportionately, voting stations in precincts where politicians know we're located are the ones being understaffed and shut down. Many of us are still concentrated in suboptimal environments because politicians generations ago decided that's where it was right to lock us away through measures like redlining and deliberately put freeways through the few of our neighbourhoods that managed to thrive because "it's only brown people, who cares? Better them than Edina." And generations of WASPs choose to ignore it because "it's not my problem" while the people who grow up in these environments have nothing better to look forward to then a minimum-wage job at McDonalds.
But they got to buy an iPhone that one time!
The problem, as I see it, is that the right sells potential freedom, not realized freedom, and it's under the pretense of "not choosing winners and losers." It's like that episode of Star Trek where Picard said his duty was to let the planet blow up so as to not play god. Well, inaction was a decision. He was already playing god. He decided the people on the planet would die and rationalized away his decision to make his fee fees fuzzier. Government
always picks winners and losers, even when it chooses
not to act. You can use that power to give powerful people the ability to limit the freedom of others on the pretense of "liberty," or you can use that power to maximize the real liberty of the vast majority. No government is perfect and reality is always somewhere in between. I choose the "real liberty" side of the spectrum, because someone who is totally free is someone who has the power to make others not free. We came here to get away from the likes of kings.