Mediaboss Marketing

When the former administration expressed its desire for greater accessibility to health care, it was condemned as socialism. When it proposed regulations to rein in profiteering in financial institutions, again, these were railed against as socialism. There are many other examples. Yet no one admits that any and all corporate protections are a form of socialism--an intervention by a government designed to aid proponents of free enterprise.

So it really isn't free enterprise. Without corporate socialism, energy companies would ultimately have to contend with competition. Without corporate socialism, only extremely large farms would be able to withstand the ebb and flow of markets and the environment. Without corporate socialism, certain industries would not be propped up while others are left to flounder and fail.

It isn't really the evils of socialism that is at issue, is it? It's who a legislative body chooses to enrich. Protecting jobs is important. Protecting contributors to an economy is important.

But when a legislature opts to intervene on behalf of a company or an industry, with no guarantee of any quantity of jobs, or contributions to the common good, or agreements to the preservation of a natural environment, we are left to believe that the primary function is simply to enrich those who derive the greatest profit from these enterprises, and everyone else be damned.

The average citizen of this state gains little security from these interventions. The companies are still free to reduce payrolls, damage the environment, and behave in every manner contrary to the public good. And to ignore the validity of other perspectives, especially for long-term effect, is fundamentally dishonest.

Unrue lives in Fargo.

View post:
Letter: Proposed moratorium on wind development is a form of socialism - INFORUM