As you said, this is a key point of disagreement, and it's one of the fundamental divides -- if you believe that government can never be as efficient as the private sector, most democratic policies are going to be unacceptable. And if you believe that, then you're a sensible Republican as opposed to sheeple. I'd feel much happier about the country if the people outvoting me were at least doing it based on reasoning such as you're using. I disagree with it, but that sort of disagreement is a real democracy instead of a beauty pageant.AxeMental wrote:Myth, I think we are close in agreement. There are a few key differences that seem to devide us however. 1. Your statement that the government can sometimes allocate goods and serivces better then a free market economy. That is false. Unless their is corruption going on (where govt. contracts are being bought).
I'll tell you why I disagree. Even the libertarians believe that in certain areas government does a more efficient job than the free market - maintenance of roads, police, and fire are all completely acceptable even for the most hard-line libertarian because there is plenty of historic evidence in American history that these don't function under the private market. They were under the private market during colonial days and (in the case of fire) quite a bit longer. Have you seen Gangs of New York where the private fire company sits by and lets a fire spread to the buildings that they don't cover? That's truly the way it worked at that time. The libertarians don't argue with facts; they tend to be pretty hard-nosed realists when it comes to economics.
Monopoly is another example of a free market failure. When a company dominates a market, its legitimate profit interest (which got it there, which is good, and which it should not be asked to change) is no longer based on competition. When companies dominate markets they charge more for less; this is clearly observable in history - it happened many times with oil and transportation during the late 1800s when there were only a few railroads, which created many regional markets that operated as good laboratories for observing economic conditions. Monopoly is a point where the free market ceases to operate properly. Inefficiencies are created, and the supply/demand curve suddenly has a premium added to it.
The free market also requires consumers to be well informed and to act on every cost that impacts them, no matter how tiny. In practice (which is the bottom line), consumers ignore many costs that are actually "efficient" for them to address. The environment is one of these. I'm no tree-hugger, I'm talking about things like heavy smog, toxic fumes, etc. Although the cost is high in the aggregate, each individual consumer generally does not take these costs into account where a regulatory agency, looking at the data, will act efficiently. As long as the cost of the regulatory agency fits the cost/benefit analysis, it should be put into place.
I'm not doing a great job of explaining this. Another problem in economics is called the marginal value of wealth. Economics assumes that a dollar is a dollar. But Donald Trump in actuality places a lower value on a dollar than someone who's living paycheck to paycheck. This also can cause market inefficiencies.
You're wrong on a couple of counts. There is a distinction between pragmatism (willingness to compromise to get what you want incrementally) and the neo-conservative line which is never to compromise at all. Pretty much all Americans are willing to be non-conformist in foreign policy in terms of our goals. Democracy is speading nicely under the stewardship of both republican and democratic presidents, as you say, since Teddy. That's not where the distinction is. Nixon was virulently criticized by neoconservatives for compromising with China to gain incremental advances. Neoconservatives take an all or nothing approach. Foreign policy has been turning more hard line in the Republican party, mainly in the back rooms. Both Reagan and Bush senior were much more moderate than their staffs, advisors, cabinets, etc. Iran-contra is a good example of neo-conservative approach, as opposed to the deal with China. I agree with you that Republicans stand for strong military and law enforcement and always have - the distinction is what you do with them.2. I 100% disagree with your Neo-conservative / conservative destinction. It does not exist. It is a myth. Republicans have ALWAYS ALWAYS ALWAYS believed in 1. A strong military (not nec. large, our military is small given our nations wealth and size and stature), 2. Strong police (once again, this does not mean a large number of police, it means tough punishiments for crimes, so it does mean alot of prisons) It is the democrats that would have you living in a police state. Republicans tell private citizens to be self reliant. 3. a globally non-conformist attitude toward the fight of communism and the spread of American style capatalism....right on!!! Thats not Neo-conservatism, thats just plain Republican going back to before Teddy. What you seem to miss are what we call Moderate Republicans (they were compromisers). And, never forget, those compromisers had to do so, after all the Dems ran the congress and we were in a cold war.
Even today, Bush is giving the Dems way to much power (letting Kennedy write the Education Bill?)
As to who wants the police state, as Mistere said to me ... are you kidding?
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/200 ... usat_x.htm
http://www.epic.org/privacy/terrorism/fisa/
http://www.cato.org/dailys/08-21-03.html
I'll point out that the last link is to the Cato Institute, the opposite of liberal in all respects.
See above. Government doesn't do better than supply and demand, I agree absolutely. But supply and demand fails in several situations, under the natural laws of economics. Government's role is to reestablish the free market where it fails to operate as a result of transaction costs or unique situations like monopolies.Just remember, the governement can NEVER do things better then private economy via supply and demand.
Well, we both agree that there is a lot that's messed up out there. I'm going to reduce my posts on these topics just because it's more fun to think of gaming stuff. I've said most of my piece already. I'm also a little calmed down from my "heads on pikes" position now that my congressional representative has been officially indicted. It soothes me.