Dangerous Minds

The most dangerous mind, to me, is one that can justify cohersion. Reading a letter in New York Times, it was disconcerting how someone could write so vehemently about the laxity of Alan Greenspan's federal regulations. The writer even commented on the fact that states had regulatory juristiction, but tried to pawn the responsibility off on the federal reserve. I must paraphrase because I cannot remember how it was actually phrased, but he likened the federal reserve to a leader among equals. To me, equals are equals but perhaps my understanding of equality is off. I have been very disappointed in the Republican party from the onset of my awareness of politics, but the Democrats are becoming ever more vile in their pursuit of persecution. An entity's true character shows when its opponent is down, and the Democrats by and large have shown their eagerness to not only kick their opponent while down, but to spit on them as well. The letter I referred to spoke of stronger regulation, but that is simply under-estimating the intuition of humanity. People will always find a way to exploit the system they are in, in an attempt to improve their chances of success. Stronger regulation simply impedes the adaptability of our market to adjust to the exploitations that take place. As seen in our political system today, strong regulations do not allow for safer, more representative government. It has effectively cut off the people from being able to influence the governance of their own affairs. For a political ideology to be able to manifest itself in politics today, it must first be contorted and mutilated to fit within a party's guidelines, and then it is battered and maimed by the resentments of the opposing party for the sake of opposition rather than reason. And yet, the absurdity of such a system has manifested itself and rather than be recognized and revised, it has been justified and encouraged. By the opinion expressed in the letter, it seems that some confused individual is attempting to spread such infectious pestilence into the market place. I do not say that socialism is wrong, communism is wrong, or capitalism is wrong, but I do say that for a system to work, it must be implemented completely. Adaptation from one system to the next could even be possible, but it must be in the complete commitment to one system at a time. Regulation in a free market gives exploitation a bastion to work within. Capitalist interests in a communist or socialist structure eats away at the infrastructure as a degenerative disease. Historical evidence gives such a correlation, and I emphasize correlation because I will not attempt the assertion of a cause. Again bashing the letter, it criticized Alan Greenspan's lack of assertion of cause, and I say that is precisely why I would give credit to Greenspan over the author of the letter. To assert one single cause in any environment is impossible and ignorant. To find possible causes and their correlations, with the understanding of progress is by far a better way of advancing in a relatively positive way in an overall scheme. This is, of course, is my opinion and is by no means an authority of any kind, but I hope that it at least shows validity to an argument that seems to be suppressed for reasons unbeknownst to myself.