Freedom or Agency?

There is a difference between Freedom and Agency. We have the agency to choose to live in a society that takes away a portion of our freedom in the form of taxation. You might not like the fact that your money is being used to help people to their feet, and I might not like the fact that my money is being used to fund the spread of our empire. Occasionally, there will be a swing to one direction or the other where more money will be used in one cause or another, but that doesn't mean that you or I should stop paying our taxes just because the cause we like least is getting more attention than we think it deserves. There are very few Liberals that want to see our country end up as a purely communist or even socialist society, but when there is obvious uncontrolled oppression, like what the health insurance industry has created, we can compromise and set up a single payer system, that unlike other similar systems would allow people to purchase the drugs or treatments that wouldn't be covered by the base level insurance.

When the Constitution was written, the population was much smaller and they didn't have medical technologies that were anything like what we have today. To claim to know what our founding fathers would say and do in our current situation is presumptuous and ignorant. A purely free market has never existed, and if it did, it would be just as flawed as communism or any other politico-economic system that ever was. Monopolies would exist, price gouging would be rampant, and employees would be lucky to earn a fraction of what they deserved. This is already practically the case, and we have laws designed to protect us from such abuses. To look at anything that even has a tinge of socialism as being inherently destructive to our society and analogous to a nitro boost on the way towards communism, is what will keep this nation from reaching its fullest potential. Just because the full blown socialist societies of the past were failures, doesn't mean there can't be a mix that will better suit us. Of course things should be mostly free market, but when it comes to something like healthcare, the motivation to make profit will always keep people from getting the coverage they need, at a price they can afford. If everyone deserves life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, then everyone deserves to at least have a basic level of medical care, without having to lose their homes or go bankrupt. Most of the cost is deferred to society any way, so producing an efficient system that is government funded, and non-profit run, will allow everyone to be covered and more capital to circulate.

Why Does it Have to Be One or the Other?

What I don't understand is why people continue to think in such a political and/or economic dichotomy. It is thinking from the very edges of either spectrum that prevents any purposeful change from taking place. The free market isn't some perfect system incapable of causing it's own share of problems, and socialism alone can be just as dangerous. The problem is greed, which is destructive no matter what kind of economic or governmental system is put in place. The fact that corporations exist is reason enough to enact effective regulations. This is because corporations are government created entities, and would not exist in a purely free market. The only way to make sure an entity which exists outside the framework of a free market economy stays "in bounds" in its dealings, is by using thoughtful, effective government regulation.

Progress is great, but to have it speed out of control is extremely dangerous. It's like building a car, but leaving out the brakes and the steering wheel. Such a vehicle will eventually crash, and we certainly saw the frightening proof of this with our economy these last few years. The sad thing is, we will remain on the road to ruin if we continue to allow the two-headed monster that is our corporate controlled government to conduct business as usual.