[From Feb 27, 2014comment on Walter E. Williams’ Facebook post:]
I respect libertarian views (and I agree with some of them), so I object when my views are characterized by many in this forum as “evil” and “socialism”. I think we can debate without using pejoratives.
My views incorporate the notion of the “commons” – that is, those resources that come from the earth and those that come from research and invention funded by the public. Nobody has the right to monopolize these resources. To guarantee that, the elected governments establish rules and regulations so that all the public enjoys the fruits of those resources and so that those resources are not diminished for the sake of profit or greed. The commons can be used by private enterprise, even to making a profit, but they cannot be allowed to exploit them without limits. I consider the mineral deposits, air, water, soil, highways, air traffic control, air waves, internet, and a host of others to be part of the commons, to be controlled by public, not private enterprise.
Can you imagine what privatizing these would do? Private industry would treat them as profit-making enterprises (and usually focus on the short term). There would be no “system” in the highways, airways, airwaves, internet, etc, because individual industries would be controlling them to their exclusive advantage as much as they could. This would be chaos. Governments don’t have to operate these, but they must control them. Many of these already are operated by private industry – roads, public buildings, etc, are constructed by private industries but controlled and paid for by the taxpayer.
These functions are useful to the general public, even though some individuals will not use some of them. And because governments control how they operate for the public good, all the public should pay for them. Usage fees are something else. Even public works (parks, forests, etc) have usage fees beyond the general funds used to build them. That’s why you should pay for air traffic control event though you don’t fly. That’s why I, with no kids, should pay for public education for other peoples’ kids. The founders’ Letter of Transmittal, when submitting the new Constitution to the Congress for a vote, recognized this:
Individuals entering into society must give up a share of liberty to preserve the rest. The magnitude of the sacrifice must depend as well on situation and circumstance, as on the object to be obtained. It is at all times difficult to draw with precision the line between those rights which must be surrendered, and those which may be preserved; …
I would rather have elected governments coordinate, regulate, and pay for these functions than private industries because governments are not beholden to shareholders, profits, exorbitant executive salaries, etc, and they (ideally) have a long-term public-interest view.
As for “welfare”/”well-being”, “welfare” is used in the Constitution (“promote the general Welfare”), not the other term. Perhaps this does, as you say, refer to the welfare of the republic. But aren’t the people the republic? If the government is not promoting the welfare of the people, then the republic has no meaning. Liberals do not completely equate welfare with benefits, nor do most of them offload care for the needy to the government any more than do conservatives. Problems with welfare benefits programs for individuals, families, and businesses abound, and they must be solved. But turning all enterprise over to private hands will not solve this. I believe we as a society should provide opportunity and strive to eliminate the proclivity to keep some people downtrodden, without enriching the greedy and the lazy. Just where the lines are to be drawn here is difficult (as the founders recognized), so it must be debated in a venue of reason, not name-calling.