I believe that part of the problem lies in the fact that the U.S. government has left behind the government of and for the people myth that was once so central to our identity, to become a government for corporations by corporations in which capitalism takes the central role. A la WTO, the U.S. government increasingly stands to protect commerce and profit-making at any cost, rather than to serve and represent the people. What should we call it? Corporacracy? There is no denying that money grants immense political power in capitalist, campaign-sponsoring, lobbying America. I argue that we should start demanding a separation of corporations and state as much as we demand a separation of church and state.
I have to acknowledge that Americans are often poorly informed about issues that affect them and demand very little of their government in terms of action or protective regulations. However, even when considerable numbers of people demand fair trade, mandatory recycling, higher mileage cars, labeling of genetically modified food, or, I don't know, say, accessible health care, initiatives are stifled over and over by powerful capital holders and corporations who would lose profits to such regulations. Furthermore, it seems many Americans, although they may agree with such needs, chose to trust the not-so-almighty market to eventually make their preferences prevail, rather than putting regulations in place themselves to protect people's health, lives, and freedom. Notice that I said putting regulations in place "themselves," because although they are government regulations, government officials are supposed to be there representing each one of us.
If the people's will supposedly rules in a democracy, then there should be no such fraction between the concepts of "government's regulations" and "the interest and wellbeing of citizens". Nonetheless, Americans seem to have regulation-phobia and a panic of government involvement, even when the goal is to protect themselves. Why are we so afraid of the government overstepping what we consider acceptable boundaries? We are supposed to be able to set those boundaries ourselves every time we vote, every time we write to our representatives, every time we sign a petition. Sadly, countless Americans have done none of those things in their lives. That is, they have never engaged in democracy, and therefore feel powerless "against" a government to which they have no relationship and in which they have no involvement. (Funny they still root for foreign invasions aimed at bringing democracy to others.)
I have come to believe that regulating corporations is a matter of national security. After reading books such as Rachel Carson's Silent Spring and the work of Vandana Shiva, I feel immensely more threatened by the pesticides, hormones, and modified genes in my food and water; by the depletion of our current energy sources; and by the imminent pollution and destruction of the entire biosphere and its precariously balanced ecosystems; than by potential terrorist attacks.
We must remain aware of the fact that corporations are fictional entities created to care only about the bottom line. They have no morals and seek profits without even contemplating their consumer's health (as long as potential health damages are rare enough or long term enough not to affect their sales), people's wellbeing (underpaid employees who can barely make a living, displaced populations, families deprived of their livelihoods, etc.), the continuity of life in this planet, or even their own long term sustainability (since often they simply go on for as long as they can until they deplete the natural resources on which they base their own capital making). Because of the for-profit-at-any-cost nature of our market economy, it is imperative that the government regulate corporations, get involved with public health, become more proactive at regulating products (how come asbestos, CFCs, and countless medicines were aloud in the market for so long before their harmful effects rendered them illegal?), require longer term safety studies, limit pollution, make corporations responsible for clean-up and safety, and, among many other things, protect citizens' freedom. That is, our freedom from being sued for unauthorized used by companies whose patented genetically modified seeds infested our fields without our knowledge (as in the case of Monsanto vs Schmeiser) - as well as our freedom to choose.
In my opinion, perhaps the most important regulation to advocate for is labeling. If we are unaware of what is in the products we purchase, or the processes by which they have been produced, we have no true freedom to choose, even if there are a variety of brands to pick from. Certainly, I wish corporations were not allowed to poison us or the environment (or even take the risk of poisoning if not enough long term research has been conducted). However, I expect that, at least, we should be able to choose which dangerous or even potentially risky substances we ingest or use in our houses or land. Whenever there is a risk involve, no matter how small, we have the right to choose whether to take it or not. In fact, we should be able to do choose by simple personal preference, even if the official claim is that no risks are involved. Therefore, foods containing genetically modified products; as well as meat, milk, and other products from animals that have been administered hormones, should be clearly labeled - so that consumers can opt to be free of them, if they so choose.
We need to pressure the government to protect our interests over the interests of corporations, to protect life over profits. Pressuring for government regulations to safeguard our health and freedom is not allowing government too much control. It is limiting corporations' freedom if and when it endangers people or other life forms, or limits individual's freedoms - just like we do with people who do the same to other people. As far as these and many other issues go, a political awakening that brings back empowerment to the people by fostering political engagement and the understanding that we are our government, rather than fearing our government as if it was a dictatorship, is the only way in which we can take action to protect ourselves, the generations to come, and the world we live in.
Published by Nadia Denov DeLeon
Born in Argentina in 1985, raised in Panama City, Panama. Graduate of Western Kentucky University. Dance and Fitness Instructor, Dance Ethnographer, Folklorist, Cultural/Arts Administrator, Arts Educator,... View profile
- FDA and Government Regulations May Hinder Cure for CancerWith so many governmental regulations, I wonder if we will ever see a cure for cancer. Every drug in the U.S. needs to be approved by the FDA, and the FDA requires clinical trials that typically cost up to several mil...
Catastrophe on Aisle 27: The Need for Federal Grocery RegulationsFed up with being repeatedly kicked out of the 10 items or less line, the author outlines a federally regulated, four-point plan to adressing the flagrant paucity of grocery sho...- What is the Proper Role of Government?The proper role of government is to do for its citizens what they cannot reasonably do for themselves as individuals.
- What is the Purpose of Government?God established government for the purpose of establishing justice.
- Charlotte Foreclosure Homes and Role of GovernmentCharlotte Foreclosure Homes acquired by government are due to unpaid tax or loan amount. They are much cheaper than bank foreclosed properties.
- The Immorality of Government Tsunami Relief
- Government Regulation of the Economy, 1865-1914
- Government Regulation Hinders Nuclear Power, Report Says
- Why Entrepreneurs Do Not Need Government Regulation
- Why Should the U.S. Government Regulate Our Savings
- Government Only Has Our Best Interests at Heart
- Government-Fostered Ownership



