Soviets and extremists
What, if any, do you consider the role of government? It seems, from every exchanged we've had concerning this so far, that your view includes only two extremes: Either we have total libertarian policies, or we're soviets.
I consider the role of goverment to be as minimal as possible. Army, police, courts. Local municipalities and divisions (like US states) are ok, as long as they have their own taxation system and people can move from state to state. The taxes that can not be avoided without moving out of the country should be minimized. It is mostly libertarian position.
Libertarianism is not an extreme position. Beyond that is, for example, anarchic capitalism where all services are provided by private companies. These systems also work, there are historical examples, but these forms of state seem to be unstable.
You often discuss policies that failed multiple times in many countries. You mention them as something good and to be implemented in US. Often these policies were tried in Soviet Union, or North Korea, or Cuba. This is why I often metion USSR. Everyone knows that USSR failed, but it seems very few care why it did fail. Moreover, the humanitarian mind often tends to think that if some measure is implemented under a different name, it will suddenly work. Once I was told that there are no socialist policies in US, because socialist party is insignificant there. Well, when the similar policies are implemented by both leading parties, who needs a party who is going to do similar things but has a name with damaged reputation.
I am worried that US intellectuals are often ignorant of history and are unaware of real stories behind problems with Soviet, European and asian socialist experiments. What Europe is trying hard to reform, and what Thatcher managed, with so much pain to the society, to reform partially in UK, is often seen as the ultimate good on the other side of the ocean. I do not speak about elementary economic education, even something like 1984 was either never read or understood.
So returning to your citation, consumers spend their money as they see fit, while citizens (in the context of citation) are those who spend someone else's money and someone else's lives in the way better than those people know themselves. "Obligations, responsibilities, and duties to their fellow human beings" is what led European Crusaders, German armies in the second world war, or what motivated communists when they were killing tens of millions of "consumers". Besides, anti-consumer rhetoric is a popular Soviet thing; maybe it's a good idea to translate some materials from soviet times, they may be very popular now in US.
Even more funnier look the situations when failures of socialist policies are blamed on "consumers" and new socialist policies are suggested as a cure.
I consider the role of goverment to be as minimal as possible. Army, police, courts. Local municipalities and divisions (like US states) are ok, as long as they have their own taxation system and people can move from state to state. The taxes that can not be avoided without moving out of the country should be minimized. It is mostly libertarian position.
Libertarianism is not an extreme position. Beyond that is, for example, anarchic capitalism where all services are provided by private companies. These systems also work, there are historical examples, but these forms of state seem to be unstable.
You often discuss policies that failed multiple times in many countries. You mention them as something good and to be implemented in US. Often these policies were tried in Soviet Union, or North Korea, or Cuba. This is why I often metion USSR. Everyone knows that USSR failed, but it seems very few care why it did fail. Moreover, the humanitarian mind often tends to think that if some measure is implemented under a different name, it will suddenly work. Once I was told that there are no socialist policies in US, because socialist party is insignificant there. Well, when the similar policies are implemented by both leading parties, who needs a party who is going to do similar things but has a name with damaged reputation.
I am worried that US intellectuals are often ignorant of history and are unaware of real stories behind problems with Soviet, European and asian socialist experiments. What Europe is trying hard to reform, and what Thatcher managed, with so much pain to the society, to reform partially in UK, is often seen as the ultimate good on the other side of the ocean. I do not speak about elementary economic education, even something like 1984 was either never read or understood.
So returning to your citation, consumers spend their money as they see fit, while citizens (in the context of citation) are those who spend someone else's money and someone else's lives in the way better than those people know themselves. "Obligations, responsibilities, and duties to their fellow human beings" is what led European Crusaders, German armies in the second world war, or what motivated communists when they were killing tens of millions of "consumers". Besides, anti-consumer rhetoric is a popular Soviet thing; maybe it's a good idea to translate some materials from soviet times, they may be very popular now in US.
Even more funnier look the situations when failures of socialist policies are blamed on "consumers" and new socialist policies are suggested as a cure.