Yeah, this is what happens when people defer to government authority as a consequence of looking to government to solve all their problems. This leftist shift will only make the situation worse.
Would you rather leave this to capitalist corporations or the free market? I mean, maybe we should just have lots of Blackwaters running around performing "protection" services for the highest bidder.
"Capitalist corporations" are the direct result of corporate states serving corporate law. The irony in your comment is strong. Blackwater and its derivations became powerful specifically because of [the many] having their labor (e.g. taxation) and choice (e.g. systemic control) forcefully deferred to [the few] of the state (in its singular, arbitrary version of existence). The rest of the US military is already nearly wholly dependent on so-called private interests. Realistically, there is no difference between private and public entities on this same platform. Either an entity is accountable to such oligarchical 'control' or it is not.
> Free market
Like most terms that become distorted and perverted through political propaganda, a "free market" can have wildly different meanings. You may find that you support a freer market.
A free market as some people define it is one in which groups of trade (businesses) are less powerful because "corporations" would not exist in law. People would exist. Business would exist. Legal buffers from responsibility of actions would not exist. Those buffers currently afford the largest corporations of today the luxury of exploiting people and land through the use of government -- not only protecting directors from their violent actions but also increasing the platform where police/military force serves their corporate law. In a free market where abstract entities are not state-protected, all actions fall under the same domain of scrutiny. Frameworks of law as far as business is concerned would be relegated to protecting people from direct contractual fraud or abuse, only to the extent financial or physical damage is actually taking place. Therefore, egregious economic fines and prison sentences for non-violent actions that disobey corporate law would be a token of more brutal eras. Systems of this sort are often paired with models that give people, the public, more direct control over the flow of their own labor/money, thereby making it harder for abusive or surreptitious entities (e.g. every war/surveillance company) to gain vast power through the current top-heavy, centralized money pools of a government's taxation. A transition to more human freedom such as this isn't possible overnight; but it is worth aspiring to in the evolution of governmental systems. That's humanist.
Other people define a "free market" as a system in which corporations are still greatly protected yet even less susceptible to recourse by people. That's problematic.
However, it's narrow to use a term like leftist. An arbitrary left vs. right political spectrum is completely fallacious and antiquated. There are only cosmetic differences for beliefs built upon the same underlying ideology of an allegiance to a current state system. People with philosophical backbones strong enough to have independent thoughts do not fall into rigid scales. They have varying thoughts and tolerances. Such political terms continue to become undefined, propaganda, and contradictory depending on the person using them.
Who else is supposed to "solve" this mess? Yelling at the government to change its behavior isn't very effective overall, but extraordinarily more effective than yelling at society as a whole.
On the other hand, for some people there only seem to be two options: Government has no power or the government has all power. No middle ground. No trying to design more effective policies.
