First of all, I guess I'm slightly confused about Kierkegaard. We talked about how he was raised on a strict policy by his father who believed wielded the "Wrath of God"; does this mean Soren was abused growing up? I mean, I know it was a different time period and attitudes were different but abuse is abuse. I suppose, just from my personal perspective, I don't understand how someone could be tormented as a child, yet still uphold such a devout faith in Christianity. Unless of course he was so loyal out of fear. Also, his idea of existentialism has strengths and weaknesses, as we discussed in class. For instance, it is good to understand the nitty-gritty details of stuff. I should know, being anal retentive with my need for control on every little thing. However, I do also see where Hegel comes from with his more panoramic view of the world. It's important that we remind ourselves to still be able to see the forest through the trees.
And then there's Marx... The dude is pretty interesting. He is really the first philosopher that we've discussed that had a radical emphasis on political and economic structure. Sure, there was Plato with the Ideal Society (not to be confused with LBJ's Great Society) and there was Locke with natural rights, but Marx really proposes a major change in the way we talk about economics and politics. Obviously raw Communism and Marxist ideals don't work, but I do think some socialist tendencies are fine and even good for a society. For example, consider the issue of healthcare. As it currently stands, it is a largely privatized business, that will become exponentially more privatized if Trump"care" passes. This, I believe, is not good for society. By promoting an open market with health insurance, it'll derail the regulations on coverage and the pharmaceutical industry. More despicable acts like Martin Shkreli's price hike on AIDs medication or the hyperinflation of Epi-pens would occur. It's better to have government involvement in large businesses like the financial sector, so as to prevent another global meltdown like what was witnessed in 2008. While a complete command economy doesn't work, a mixed economy where the government controls or at least influences some aspects of the economy is crucial in providing a fair balance (at least in a perfect world, that is. Then again, there's lobbying- basically a legal form of bribery- but that's a completely different matter).
It's all a question of how much a mixed economy people can handle vs. what the politicians want.
ReplyDeleteWell of course, but this is largely a matter of uneducated masses in my opinion. People misconceive the idea between some of the socialist policies that "radicals" like Bernie Sanders propose and pure Communism, the Red Plague. Ignorance is bliss, as I've truly realized in debate between Trump supporters.
DeleteThe larger issue however, is lobbying and the proliferation of Dark Money in Super PACs, thanks to Citizens United. Lobbying, though Mr. VanErmen refuses to admit it, is bribery. Saying that lobbyist are simply trying to gain "access" to policy-makers is simply doublespeak. In 2015, the Koch brothers spent a total of 800 million dollars in lobbying and their Super PAC. That is completely unfair and truly tips the balance towards the upper-class as they have "access" to people in charge of our laws. Play the game, "The Fiscal Ship", you can not only balance the budget, but actually generate revenue to pay off the debt if one takes a more socialist approach to Fiscal policy. If we're able to adequately tax the fat cats and provide more balance in our economy, we wouldn't have such rampant debt.