Chapter 13 Liberalism vs Liberalism

Tonight is the regular monthly Liberal Party meeting.Much the same as before.The focus is still on signatures.Because the most important thing in political activities is to participate in elections.It will all be for naught if there is no Liberal candidate on the November ballot. When we met in April, Jim suggested that we set aside some money and pay the fee-based signing companies to collect signatures for us.I am opposed to this approach, because those companies charge at least two dollars for a signature, and our Montgomery County Liberal Party has a total of just over 1,000 funds. It is impossible to demolish houses and sell land on this, at most five or six hundred dollars , then only 300 signatures can be bought, which is just a drop in the bucket for the 30,000 signatures needed for the entire Pennsylvania.I don't think it's wise that we burn ourselves out and vomit blood to death, but it doesn't help much.Jim said, "Signing is the most important thing we can do. I would be ashamed if in the end we failed and we didn't try our best." I said, "I agree that we have to do our best But I still think that money must be spent in the most effective way." Jim didn't insist anymore.

I didn't go to the meeting in May.At that meeting, Jim brought up the suggestion again, and offered to donate $400, hoping that the Montgomery County party would distribute $400 as well.After a vote, the plan was passed. This evening, I filed my accounting report.The recent income is good. We have received a membership fee of more than $500 from the state Liberal Party.Now our total funding is nearly 2,000 US dollars. I don't know how others feel. Anyway, I feel a little smug, as if I have become rich or at least entered the stage of well-off.Part of the funds was raised at the fundraising party at the end of last year. At that time, donors were assured that they would only be used to collect signatures for the election.The printing of the signature form cost more than 300 US dollars, and now there are more than 200 left.Add in the $400 each from Jim and the Montgomery County Party, and we have more than $1,000 that can be used to collect signatures.

Probably because it is already the beginning of July, and there is only one month before the deadline for signatures on August 2, everyone's sense of urgency is getting stronger.At the same time Jim said that he might be able to find companies that signed for $1, or $1.50.Even if it can't help the Pennsylvania Liberal Party get the signatures for the election, at least it can ensure that local candidates can get on the ballot.Because as Americans often say, "All politics is local politics." Local candidates are actually more important than politicians such as the president and senators. They are really closely related to our lives.Local Liberal candidates only need 2,000-plus signatures to get away with it, and spending money on it can pay off.So I offered to throw in another $300 now that we had new income.We authorized Jim to contact the signing company and, as the case may be, decide whether to invest the $300.

As a result, this meeting was held as a rally of unity, a rally of victory.After the meeting, everyone went clubbing as usual.Our topic starts with the movie "Fahrenheit "9.11"" which has caused a lot of controversy recently.Let me tell you that I read from the email group of Kerry supporters that a woman from the Chester County Democratic Party Committee was arrested by the police when she was distributing voting registration forms in a movie theater.Somewhat surprised, Jim asked, "Where did she distribute it?" I said, "The parking lot of the movie theater."

"That's the private property of the cinema!" I replied: "The email said that she thought she was handing out registration forms in a public place, so when the police asked her to leave, she refused. The police had to arrest her." Jim chuckled. "What a Democrat!—they always treat other people's private property as everyone's public property!" Apparently, the Liberals don't look favorably on the Democrats either.It's just that because the Republican Party is on stage now, most of the attacks are directed at the Republican Party.But thinking about it, when Clinton was president, they didn't say bad things about the Democratic Party.My position is somewhat in between classical liberalism (libertarianism) and neoliberalism (liberalism).The main reason may be that as a Chinese, the idea of ​​average in Chinese culture is deeply rooted in my bones, coupled with the education I received when I was a child, under the influence of subtle influences, I always feel that it is a truth to "don't worry about scarcity but about inequality".There were only 4 of us at the bar tonight, Chuck sat for a while and left, Jeff didn't talk much, so Jim and I started a dispute over doctrines.The point, of course, was the debate between him as a die-hard Liberal and my liberal streak.The first is about "equality".

(I is me below, J is Jim) I: I think the welfare system still needs to exist.We must take care of those who are vulnerable. J: I didn't say that vulnerable groups don't need to be cared for.I just don't think we need to go through the government to do this.Government is very inefficient.do you know?Only one-tenth of the taxes collected for social welfare are actually sent to the poor, and most of them are consumed in government departments. I: I believe it.You know I'm a staunch opponent of big government, the least trusting of government.But what about the poor if the government doesn't do it?

J: If it were up to me, I would do this: the government would stop taxing benefits and let me invest the money to expand my business.In this way, the economy will be more prosperous, and I can hire more people. This is the real help to the poor, so that they can have the opportunity to support themselves, instead of waiting for relief. I: Well, even if you are right, what about those who are born with disabilities or who are unable to work? J: We can get private charities to help them. I: It is impossible to do good welfare with charities, because people are selfish, and everyone prefers to keep money for themselves. Who is willing to donate so much money to charities?It is necessary to use the coercive means of the government, that is, to collect taxes, to ensure that the poor can receive relief.

J: Then you don't know how powerful American charities are.In the United States, billions of dollars are donated to charities every year.This is after everyone has paid their taxes.If we don't have to pay those welfare taxes, how much more donations should we make?The key point is: you are forced to pay taxes, whether you are sincerely willing to help others or not, you must pay, or you will go to jail.This is humiliating to us.The donation is voluntary, and you will feel happy when you donate, because you know that someone will be helped by you, which is completely different from the feeling that you are forced to pay taxes.We know that we all have compassion, that we have a biological instinct to help those who are less than us.Fully voluntary grants without a heavier tax burden

Charity donations will trump government welfare systems, and we will feel very differently. I: But, you can't just consider our feelings, and you can't just look at efficiency.You have to also think about those poor people.The government's welfare system is reliable, but charities, who knows if they will go bankrupt tomorrow?Who knows how many donations they will receive next year?People don't live by bread alone, they also have a state of mind.Under the government's welfare system, the poor know they'll still be getting handouts next year, while charities can't guarantee that.We can't just fill their stomachs, we should also ensure that they don't live in fear.

J: You don't have to worry about that.How long has the Red Cross existed?How much did they do?They do more than the government!Whenever a disaster occurs, such as a fire, a tornado, etc., the Red Cross is always the first to stand up to help the victims, and people are always willing to help them.For these charities, we don't have to worry about them disappearing, and we don't have to worry about them not receiving donations.It is human nature to help others. I: What do you think of those high-welfare countries, such as Sweden? (Actually, I had another question at the time: I agree that helping others is human nature, but the greatest human nature is to survive. When the economy is bad and self-protection is not enough, don’t rely on the government’s coercive means, just rely on charities , do the poor really get enough help?—Take it to him next time.)

J: I haven't been to Sweden, but I have been to Denmark.These Nordic countries impose frighteningly high income taxes.In Denmark, 75% of your income goes to the government! I: Yes, I have heard that too.It's a contradiction, I think, that the people there live comfortably, but their economy is far less dynamic than in the United States. J: They also have some big companies, but they are all trying to transfer abroad.However, the government has set strict laws, stipulating that companies must pay high fines for transferring companies abroad. I: Then don't they complain? J: Ordinary people don't complain.They think it's good because they don't know there are other options.They have lived in such a society and have taken it for granted. I: To be honest, I don't think it's too bad.Pay a lot of taxes, enough to make you discouraged, but everything is guaranteed.On the other hand, the Liberal Party, although all the reasons are sound, but I always feel that it is too radical and difficult to realize.Freedom is not just about individual decision-making, it means that individuals are responsible for their own decisions.Most people are afraid to take responsibility for their own decisions, so they need the government to call the shots.Most people don't even believe that they can call the shots. J: That's why a lot of Liberals are engineers, because they believe in logic. I: Not all engineers think so.I once met a computer engineer from Texas who said that the idea of ​​the Liberal Party is good, but Americans are not smart enough to implement it.Perhaps only after New Hampshire's Operation Liberal State succeeds, and they put libertarianism into practice, will we know if it actually works. ——But even so, there are not many things they can change, only some systems within the scope of state power, and we still have nothing to do with the federal government. J: There are already many things, like state taxes, like education. I: It's better for the Liberals to form a country by themselves! — Does New Hampshire have the right to be independent from the United States? J: Of course.The United States is just a union of states. For example, Pennsylvania's constitution states that under certain circumstances, Pennsylvania can secede from the United States.As long as the majority of the people agree, there is no reason why a state cannot become independent. I: Then why did the Civil War break out? J: That was an illegal war!Now we read in the history books that Lincoln said that we want to free the slaves in the South and we want to abolish slavery.These are all lies.In fact, the war had nothing to do with slavery.The sole object of the war was to keep the South within the United States. I: This doesn't match my impression.If so, why is Lincoln still so revered today? J: Because he won!History is written on his terms. I: But more than 100 years have passed, even if there are those lies and excuses, they should all come to light. J: People always read this statement in history books and believe it. I: So, does a county in Pennsylvania have the right to be independent from Pennsylvania? J: I'm not sure about that.I know that it has happened before that a county of New Hampshire, adjoining Massachusetts, demanded to secede from New Hampshire, and join Massachusetts.In the end it didn't work out. I: In theory, if states can become independent from the United States, of course counties can also be independent from states. J: I don't know what the law says. I: This is also a question I have had for a long time.I always thought the Civil War was an illegal war.Putting aside the issue of slavery, legally speaking, the United States was formed voluntarily by the states, and of course they have the right to leave voluntarily.However, to be honest, judging from the actual effect, the Civil War was of great benefit to the United States. J: I don't think so.So what if there are two Americas?Maybe it will be better than it is now. I: First of all, if there were no Civil War and there were two United States, then when the United States expanded westward, it would not be able to act as a united country. Finally, on the current map of the United States, there will be four or five countries . J: Even if there are six Americas in the end, what will happen? I: Then the United States will lose its current status as a superpower, and it will not have the current unrivaled competitiveness in the world. J: Why? I: The first is scale.Second, from a historical point of view, the rise of the United States is inseparable from the two world wars.If the United States is divided, she cannot win two world wars so smoothly. J: So what does it matter?If there are six United States, then some of them may want to help Britain, some want to help Germany, and some do not want to help anyone, and in the end they will have no impact on Europe.Let Germany occupy all of Europe, then.Didn’t the Soviet Union still occupy the entire Eastern Europe? So what?Hitler was no worse than Stalin. I: (This is too much of a problem if you want to fight, so I changed the direction) Actually, the problem is not Europe, but if the United States is divided into six parts, then you will form another Europe, and the internal fighting will continue , as in Europe. J: Now there are dozens of countries in Europe, and they are not fighting each other.They can travel freely among each other and use a unified currency.America will only do better than them. I: That is now.You think about the scene 100 years ago.At that time, European nationalism was on the rise, and two world wars were fought in succession.Perhaps the eventually divided America will become a large community like Europe today, but before that, you may have to fight one or two American wars before you stop. J: No, it's different. I: What's the difference?There are many countries in Europe, so they fight; why should the United States be different?In the past, the world was full of force. J: But if North and South America were separated peacefully, do you think they would want to fight again?You think, if Lincoln waved his hand smartly when the South seceded from the Union, he said, goodbye and good luck!Such matters can be resolved peacefully, what else can't be resolved through negotiations? I: That's true. —Then the Liberals are against all wars? J: Yes. I: But if there is such a situation, such as this Iraq war, assuming that we have solid evidence that the Iraqi people are oppressed by the tyrant, they generally hope to overthrow the tyrant, but they suffer from insufficient strength.At this time, the United Nations passed a resolution and decided to send troops to rescue the Iraqi people.Don't you support such a war? J: Not supported.In my opinion, whoever wants to fight a war should do it himself, not in the name of the country.Do you want to save the people of Iraq?Then you donate money.If you happen to be a young man, put your guns on your shoulders and fight Saddam Hussein. I: That's not feasible!Individual organizations can never defeat the regular army!Can you go to Iraq with a gun and beat their planes, tanks, and artillery? J: You can also buy planes, tanks, and cannons.Didn't someone donate money? I: That’s true. American planes, tanks, and artillery are all produced by private companies. As long as you pay, they will sell them to you.But can an army of volunteers defeat the regular army? J: Why not?They will also undergo all training similar to that of the US military and be equipped with the same weapons. I: But what if you can't recruit soldiers?It is acceptable for everyone to contribute money and pay taxes, but you will hesitate a lot when you go to the front line. J: Isn't it Americans who are on the front line now?If everyone is unwilling to bear this sacrifice to fight the tyrant, it means that the government has no right to start this war.If the people feel that this war must be fought, then volunteers will emerge.You know, the morale of the volunteers is totally different than the military because they volunteer to do it, whereas the military is just doing a job. I: This idea is a bit like when the United States was first established, replacing the army with militias. J: Yes, I think the current problem in the United States is that it is farther and farther away from the constitution they originally established.The government is getting bigger and bigger and faster.These are unconstitutional.Look at that "Patriot Act" again!I want them to go back to America as it is under the Constitution. I: But, you have to know that the U.S. Constitution was "strictly" implemented for many years, and finally people made adjustments according to the situation to reach the current point.It’s not that you haven’t tried your ideal government, such as replacing the regular army with the militia, but it turned out to be unrealistic in the end. The United States has strengthened the federal government and established a powerful army.All these processes are inevitable.Even if you try the original America again today, it will still be the same result in the end. J: I don't think so.I think we can try again. I: For example, the right to hold guns, which was guaranteed by the Constitution.I also understand that guns are an important means of civil rebellion against the government, and that under normal circumstances, people will only use them for self-defense.But now, in this bar, can you and I sit like this if all the drunken men carry guns?We can't always assume that other people are sane and sane. J: Do you know how those people in the West did it?At the entrance of the bar, there is a "gun hanging place". All people who come in with guns must hang their guns there, otherwise the bar will not sell them alcohol. I: Well, if they won't unarm, then there are probably bars where you don't have to hang guns, but if you go there for a drink, then you'll have to do it at your own risk. J: Yes, you choose. I: This is a bit like an idea of ​​mine.My opinion is: the government will disappear sooner or later in the future, and it will be replaced by some security companies.These security companies are responsible for your safety and offer different terms at the same time. For example, this company does not allow you to carry a gun, but it is responsible for your overall security, while that company allows you to carry a gun, but there are many other regulations.These two companies compete with each other, and we choose the company that is more suitable for us and sign a contract with them.In this way, you and this security company have an equal cooperative relationship, instead of being oppressed by the government like now. J: That's an interesting idea. I: Similarly, there are companies with high benefits, that is, you pay high fees, but they guarantee your benefits, just like insurance.Then, there are companies with low benefits, you pay very little, but if you are poor, no one will help you.These corporate fees are equivalent to taxes, but now we have no choice.Every time you sign a contract with the company, you can discuss whether to renew the contract after four or five years, which is similar to holding elections every four years now.The point is that these companies compete with each other to pull Customers, they will definitely think about as much as possible for us, not like the government, which has a monopoly on these services, so will grow into a monster of a behemoth, self-sufficient expansion and exploitation, regardless of the real needs of the people. J: But what if there is a dispute between these companies? I: Then there will be a special arbitration company to handle it. J: What if the arbitration company's handling is unreasonable?Is there an avenue of appeal?What is the highest level of arbitration?Where does authority come from? I: There is no higher arbitration company.When you started the service of this security company, there was a clause in the contract, which stated that if the company had a dispute with other companies, which arbitration company would handle it.If you are dissatisfied with this arbitration company, you can choose another one. J: So how do you prevent corruption and cheating in arbitration companies? I: The key lies in the competition among arbitration firms.In the future world, with sufficient information, if an arbitration company makes an unreasonable arbitration, other companies and individuals will know immediately, and this company will soon lose customers and eventually withdraw from the market.With such pressure, they have to provide the best service possible.They have to maintain their credit or they won't make money.If things go on like this, those "bad" companies will be eliminated by the market. J: Well, interesting thought. I: In short, it is to commercialize everything, let profit drive it, and let those countries, governments, religions, and morals imposed on people go to hell! The idea about the future I mentioned is just a preliminary idea, and I haven't thought about the details myself.It's the Liberal New Paradise that Jim is advocating so much, I thought about it myself when I got home, and I found a big loophole in him: he asked the government to get out of everything except security, and everything was left to individual volunteerism to bear.On the surface, this is the extreme right, that is, advocating complete personal freedom and full individual development; but it has a secret connection with the extreme left.He always assumes that people have a heart of compassion, so social problems can be resolved through people consciously and voluntarily. This is the same as Marx’s assumption that people are extremely conscious after arriving in a communist society, labor becomes a human need, and everyone gets what they need What's the difference? I have a deep hatred for the government, but can't disagree that I'm afraid it's still a "necessary evil" at this stage.We sacrifice our liberties and rights to the government in exchange for security and other benefits.All we can do at present is to be vigilant that the government does not go beyond the scope of the powers we have given it, and does not violate our own rights as individuals.Perhaps, in the future, we can start to consider decoupling the government from the country, and let the concept of the country disappear, so that healthy competition among governments can be formed, and finally through competition, we can provide us with the best services.