First I need to correct the use of 'we'. I am assuming from previous posts that you are American, I am Australian. However, you are certainly correct in saying that many if not all current western capitalist democracies are beholden to the corporate companies they are supposed to govern, however I would argue that this is not at all a result of big government simply because big governments don't really exist in modern democracies anymore. Big government doesn't result in government serving as proxy for corporatism or any of the (many) ism's simply because it has the power to not be dependent on any of them. Government's like the ones we have in our respective countries become lapdogs for the capitalist system when they don't have the means available to them to answer the peoples needs themselves.
As for your example of monopolies on HMO's, the situation in the U.S. has arisen precisely because of a fear of too much government influence (i'm sure you've seen the Moore film) in health care. When government takes on the responsibility of health care then the people no longer need to fear greedy corporate companies exploiting their health. Corporatism cannot function under the veil of big governments because their influence becomes irrelevant.
Finally, your example of the 'one size fits all' approach to local matters is of course a concern, it is important that the people's needs are met at every level, but that is why having federal representatives at a local level is a better method of communication than splitting power between federal, state and council levels. If people from a particular community can elect someone from amongst themselves to represent their needs, not on the basis of party allegiance but for their reputation within that community and then let those people have the power to be a representative to a federal council (in much the same way that the Soviet's were formed in the beginning of the Bolshevik revolution) then more can be done, because power isn't limited to the typical designations of local councils.
Moore's film contained numerous inaccuracies and outright falsehoods/fabrications. Sanjay Gupta, our current nominee for US Surgeon General, did an extensive segment picking apart all the places where Moore either used bad stats or made stuff up. Even among health people who agree with Moore's politics, they've been quick to point out his methods are shoddy. Please don't treat him as an authoritative source on the US health system.
I disagree with your separation of big government and corporations. A country's economy is integral to its existence, therefore corporations that operate in that economy will always exert influence on the managing government. Even if government controls all industry (in which case corporations wouldn't exist), all that does is merge the two into the same entity. A government that has "the means available to them to answer the peoples needs themselves" will still need to operate an economic system of some kind.
And also remember that money buys influence and power no matter if it's capitalist or socialist (look at how the EU has done the bidding of the RIAA in implementing copyright law and the actions of Stalin in the USSR). Government officials will tend to do the bidding of those with money. The best defense against this is to keep government minimal (and to have checks and balances to keep it that way), so that it can't be used as a tool by the influential to unfairly expand their power.
In the 50's and 60's, competition between insurance companies and health providers kept costs low and help drive innovation in medicine. HMO's used government to upset this and gain unfair control of the market, driving out private insurers. (HMO's in the US are very different from private insurers and play by different rules.)
On your point about federal representation, the system you describe is what we're supposed to have in the US (representative democracy). Our government was designed to work from the ground up: locals do as much as they, states do what localities can't, and the feds do what individual states can't. This is outlined in the US Constitution in our 9th and 10th amendments, where the broadest powers are reserved to the people and states. One current problem is that we have a bottom-up government trying to operate like a top-down government, leading to our gross inefficiencies.
As for party allegiances, it's reasonable to assume different people will have different ideas on how to solve problems. Parties (ideally) function as simple alliances based on those who agreeing ideologies. Today our two main parties are pretty much the same, but that's because they've both forgotten their ideological roots.
As for your example of monopolies on HMO's, the situation in the U.S. has arisen precisely because of a fear of too much government influence (i'm sure you've seen the Moore film) in health care. When government takes on the responsibility of health care then the people no longer need to fear greedy corporate companies exploiting their health. Corporatism cannot function under the veil of big governments because their influence becomes irrelevant.
Finally, your example of the 'one size fits all' approach to local matters is of course a concern, it is important that the people's needs are met at every level, but that is why having federal representatives at a local level is a better method of communication than splitting power between federal, state and council levels. If people from a particular community can elect someone from amongst themselves to represent their needs, not on the basis of party allegiance but for their reputation within that community and then let those people have the power to be a representative to a federal council (in much the same way that the Soviet's were formed in the beginning of the Bolshevik revolution) then more can be done, because power isn't limited to the typical designations of local councils.
Reply
Moore's film contained numerous inaccuracies and outright falsehoods/fabrications. Sanjay Gupta, our current nominee for US Surgeon General, did an extensive segment picking apart all the places where Moore either used bad stats or made stuff up. Even among health people who agree with Moore's politics, they've been quick to point out his methods are shoddy. Please don't treat him as an authoritative source on the US health system.
I disagree with your separation of big government and corporations. A country's economy is integral to its existence, therefore corporations that operate in that economy will always exert influence on the managing government. Even if government controls all industry (in which case corporations wouldn't exist), all that does is merge the two into the same entity. A government that has "the means available to them to answer the peoples needs themselves" will still need to operate an economic system of some kind.
And also remember that money buys influence and power no matter if it's capitalist or socialist (look at how the EU has done the bidding of the RIAA in implementing copyright law and the actions of Stalin in the USSR). Government officials will tend to do the bidding of those with money. The best defense against this is to keep government minimal (and to have checks and balances to keep it that way), so that it can't be used as a tool by the influential to unfairly expand their power.
In the 50's and 60's, competition between insurance companies and health providers kept costs low and help drive innovation in medicine. HMO's used government to upset this and gain unfair control of the market, driving out private insurers. (HMO's in the US are very different from private insurers and play by different rules.)
On your point about federal representation, the system you describe is what we're supposed to have in the US (representative democracy). Our government was designed to work from the ground up: locals do as much as they, states do what localities can't, and the feds do what individual states can't. This is outlined in the US Constitution in our 9th and 10th amendments, where the broadest powers are reserved to the people and states. One current problem is that we have a bottom-up government trying to operate like a top-down government, leading to our gross inefficiencies.
As for party allegiances, it's reasonable to assume different people will have different ideas on how to solve problems. Parties (ideally) function as simple alliances based on those who agreeing ideologies. Today our two main parties are pretty much the same, but that's because they've both forgotten their ideological roots.
Reply
Leave a comment