Said liberals being a figment of conservatives imaginations. You address this to no-one.
What you misinterpret as equal results is really an attempt to achieve equality of opportunity, which is being deliberately mischaracterized by Republican politicians, and aparently seeping into the belief systems of the conservative faithful as a result.
No sensible person is working for equality of results. Even liberals know that socialism was a failed experiment. While there a a few non-sensible people at either end of the spectrum,
it’s unfair to attribute the beliefs of the whacko fringe to the sensible majority.
What kwildcat said, with this observation: checks & balances, folks, checks & balances. Power has to be distributed, not concentrated. It doesn’t have to be distributed fairly or anything, it just has to be distributed. That way the actors are forced to form alliances & coalitions that make material the saw about “politics making strange bedfellows”. Once power becomes concentrated, it’s too late.
That necessarily means that sometimes the successful are forced to do things that they otherwise wouldn’t, to their dismay and the dismay of their allies. No getting around it.
All right, let me take a stab at this. I believe that the following is especially instructive:
I would argue that to a conservative, this is both acceptable and desirable. The fact that the capable naturally and predictably maximize their wealth is socially advantageous, for by making and employing their resources well, they are behaving in a way that maximizes their comparative advantage. Those who are not able to rise to the top of a free enterprise society shouldn’t, because if they did, their lesser abilities would naturally be of less benefit to society.
How this is better for society is obvious. In a competitive market, producer and consumer surplus are accrued each time a trade is made. The superior an individual is at managing capital (both physical and human), the more productive he is. Therefore, more surplus-generating trades take place. Individuals can purchase quality goods at a low cost, and the maker of these goods becomes fabulously rich. The fact that very few of such tycoons exists is a matter of moral indifference to the conservative, who values unrestricted personal agency more than equality.
What are the primary social inequalities and their relative importance in your opinion?
No conservative in this thread has stated that less intervention is always a good thing.
I understand the point you’re trying to make with this scenario (at least I think I do). However I don’t think it’s quite as simple as what you have described.
The reason that many kids are unable to gain well paying jobs is, as you note, due to a lack of education. While funding is certainly an issue for many poor school districts I’m not sure that I would claim that it’s the primary one. According to this cite federal educational spending has increased 22.6% in constant dollars over the last two decades with only a slight increase in student performance. That isn’t to say that additional funding is useless (see the studies here) but reform and accountability are a MUST when discussing more funding for schools.
Additionally I would assume that the graduates would migrate to those areas which most appeal to them economically, geographically, politically, socially, etc. It seems unlikely that these new graduates would decide to return to the economically depressed town of origin in enough numbers to lure new businesses looking to utilize a new labor pool.
Lastly, the move of manufacturing overseas is due in large part to structural changes in the way U.S. companies do business. There may be some local recapture of manufacturing jobs but overall it seems unlikely that that trend will be reversed.
You may object to these points on the grounds that your hypothetical was for illustrative purposes only. However the problems with making broad general pronouncements on the effectiveness of a particular government action is that they ignore the specific details which complicate the and make it difficult to realize. My point in raising those specific objections was not primarily to rebut your illustrative point (which I think I understood) but rather to make one of my own. Namely that intervention often doesn’t take into account the complexities of reality which are ubiquitous.
Now, this isn’t a mandate for inaction. Change is inevitable and an entity that can’t adapt is doomed to extinction. Rather it’s a vote for measured, rational changes with an eye towards respecting the power and flexibility of the market. For instance I would certainly be interested in any examination of the structural reasons behind the growing economic inequality in the U.S., the continuing rise of medical costs, or the real increases in college education. Allocating more money for welfare, educational, and social programs without an understanding of the changes that have occurred is IMO counterproductive. I’m not saying that liberals are attempting to pass legislation in ignorance. It, does, however seem like (for whatever reason) that more attention is being paid to the amount of money devoted to a problem than to it’s original causes.
Of course. This is why I titled the thread “Conservatism”, and not “libertarianism” (well, one of several reasons). What I’m talking about is the functioning of a mixed economy. It’s a rules-based system. You set up rules for living, and then step back and allow humans to organize themselves around them. The free market is an organizing force - it’s a way for free people to exchange information about their desires so they can work together.
The main points here are: 1) It is very damaging to change the rules once an equilibrium has been reached, and this damage must be factored into decisions to have the government meddle in the economy, and 2) The government is a very crude instrument when it comes to deciding what the ‘correct’ allocation of resources is, because government is flawed in many, many ways. The one way I illustrated in the OP is that it lacks information. This alone is a devastating flaw, but it’s only one of many flaws of government.
So my position is that I accept the need for *some intervention in extraordinary cases, but I recognize that government is dangerous, inefficient, expensive, and tends to grow without bound. Therefore, my default position when examining a new government program or regulation is that it is a very bad idea unless you can convince me otherwise.
I’ll answer some messasges in a bit - it’s supper time.
But Hayek’s point is that socialism does NOT reduce human suffering - it increases it. It slows growth, creates poverty, but more important it creates a march towards totalitarianism unless it is scaled back.
And yes, one defense against this in a democracy is elections, and in fact what has happened in many cases is that the march towards totalitarianism is halted by the election of conservative governments who choose the path of rolling back the state. Reforms are made, taxes are cut, regulations are eased, welfare is reformed, etc. A perfect example of this would be Margaret Thatcher in Britain, who was elected at a time when the government was really starting to spiral out of control. She made sweeping reforms, privatized numerous state industries, rolled back regulations, got unions under control, cut taxes, etc.
But then it seems that inevitably the people clamor for more government at some point, the conservatives get kicked out, and the whole cycle starts over again. Maybe that’s just the way social democracy works - a gradual march towards a fascist, regulatory state, until the people become frightened or the economy is wrecked, followed by an election of a reform government that undoes the worst excesses.
In the meantime, the constant flux of new regulations, changes in the tax codes, removal of old regulations, additions of new ones, etc. ad nauseum act as a severe drag on the economy.
Thanks for the response - hopefully Sam will address some of the issues I’ve raised…
In general, I agree - but I think where the debate may lie between liberals and conservatives is in the meaning “government should not attempt to legislate economic prosperity for an individual.” I think some liberals would chime to state that a goal is not to achieve some sort of economic parity (equality of outcomes), but to ensure that the rules in place (initial conditions) are the same and fairly administered for everyone. Now, I quite agree that it’s a common perception by many (including me) that liberals tend to favor policy/laws that restrict economic prosperity for some (in the form of higher taxes and more regulations). But I think that some liberals would argue that this is necessary to ensure that the initial conditions (the rules) are the same for everyone. Again, I think a key understanding is not on the outcomes, but on the initial conditions and the (political) processes that help establish what those initial conditions are. I think liberals (to some extent) are more aware of the fact that the government plays an important role in determining the initial conditions (I’m not saying that conservatives don’t - it’s just my perception that liberals tend to be more aware of this).
I agree - However, I think a defining point between liberals and conservatives would be the degree of inequality acceptable. Conservatives (I’m presuming) would not be uncomfortable with a greater degree of inequality than liberals.
I don’t know what you mean by applying for an exemption from a market-driven solution.
There are no solutions that are as efficient as the market.
We can tolerate some inefficiencies in the interest of other goals besides efficiency. Thus I expect most conservatives (as opposed to most libertarians) who would support wheelchair paths. But, in general, conservatives resist the urge to tinker with the market place. Conservatives do not think that the desire to accomodate the handicapped establishes a principle that can be used to support the Dean who wants to force people to exercise “for their own good”.
The whole sorry history of socialism is the history of principle over practice.
No, liberals have no monopoly on this. But the conservative tendency to distrust big government leads us (IMO) to question big government solutions more than liberals.
Check the history of “free” health care government programs for examples. Liberals are always proposing expanding government spending on health care because people have the right to “free” health care.
While it is true that the competitive market is Pareto optimal, it is also true that it simply does not exist. The unwillingness to compromise on simple principles of neoclassical economics is also characteristic of a lot of conservative thinking.
No. You’ve done a fine job. All those examples occur where the Government has taken over.
The government has all the flaws liberals attribute to big business, but none of the controls. Those are all great examples of the self-serving and corrupting power of government.
Wrong on both counts. Conservatives believe that the government needs to intervene to maintain fair trade practices specifically because those with the ability will manipulate the system to their benefit and exercise monopoly control. Such control impinges on the freedom of the citizens. Protecting those freedoms is the government’s mandate.
Secondly, the sidewalk analogy is not an accurate representation of a “market driven solution,” so as far as I can tell it illustrates nothing.
In a market situation, the construction company that installs the sidewalks doesn’t decide where to put them.
Ok, there seems to be a central theme here to those arguing against conservatism.
This theme seems to be that conservatives advocate an approach that is hands off to such a degree that power will inevitably congregate into the hands of the few.
They cite all the problems that come with wealth and power, and that conservatism flawed by allowing such a concentration.
In truth, we advocate no such thing. We beleive the government’s job is to protect the freedom’s of its citizens. Monopolies and unfair trade practices diminish the freedom of the citizens. The government must by necessity regulate and interfere with business to the extent necessary to ensure to ensure an open market (monopolies are not open markets,) and enforce fair trade practices.
We beleive that this government activism is inherently a bad thing, for several well-established reasons.
Government activism tends to have unintended consequences.
Power and control centralized within the government is just as dangerous and corrupting, if not more so, than in the hands of individuals/corporations.
Each time the government does something or controls something that is a little more freedom that we lose, a little more responsibility that we lose, and a little more power that we grant to a central authority.
The government does not do as good a job satisfying our needs as we can do for ourselves.
The other issue I seen being thrown around is that conservatism tolerates inequality, or finds it acceptable.
As far as I’m concerned this is a simple ad hominem or false attribution.
This is like saying “liberals like poverty and seek to maintain it. This is why they spend billions on poverty perpetuating programs like urban housing projects and generational welfare.”
If I may generalize, I think one of the reasons that our country has been as successful and innovative as it has been is because the framers of our constitution were dreadfully frightened of a powerful activist and centralized government.
In designing a government they spent the bulk of their time limiting it powers and decentralizing. I think they did this with very good reason. They had good cause to fear the self-serving and corrupting power of government.
Now, I would imagine that many liberals tend to be afraid of the exact same thing for the exact same reasons. Only, the entity there are afraid of losing their freedoms to isn’t government, it’s big business, and the concentration of wealth (and hence power) in the hands of the few.
Certainly this is a valid concern.
I think that the liberal idea of having the government take ever and ever increasing responsibilities to combat this is inherently self-defeating.
And if over a period of time, this approach leads to a concentration of power/wealth in the hands of a few - what then? I think that some liberals would argue this point - that the rules in place are creating a situation where wealth/power and becoming concentrated into the hands of a few.
I should point out that I’m not arguing the liberal position - I think liberals need to explain their argument more convincingly that they feel a greater degree of government intervention is required (at least with regards to the market). While I think your assumption that the type of economy/society that conservatives favor is true (doesn’t necessarily result in the concentration of wealth/power into the hands of a few), one can’t therefore automatically assume that it hasn’t/couldn’t/won’t. The point is (and why there is a so much debate regarding this) that no one really knows. Conservatives marshall evidence that the system doesn’t result in said outcomes, while liberals marshall evidence that it does.
I think some liberals would state that conservatives tolerate inequality to a greater degree (as a result of the system they endorse) than liberals, not that conservatives tolerate inequality entirely (although some liberals will claim that - not me, however). I don’t really think it a simple ad hominem attack/false attribution if a liberal presents evidence that bolsters his/her claim that conservatives tolerate a greater degree of inequality (e.g by using data such as the growing income gap in the US over the last 10-15 years).
Your example really isn’t comparable. I think a better one would be the “liberals tolerate to a greater degree (as a result of a system they endorse) more government waste and inefficiency than conservatives do.” Again, I don’t think it would be an ad hominem attack if it can be demonstrated that poverty levels haven’t gotten better despite more government intervention.
Scylla, this is where your view of reality seems to diverge with mainstream conservatism. Simply, the law of comparative advantage renders it essential that certain inequalities exist, since not everyone is equally skilled in performing certain tasks, and since not all tasks are equally remunerated.
It would not be to the capitalist’s comparative advantage to collect trash, and likewise it would not be to the trash collector’s comparative advantage to manage huge sums of money. It is inherent in the system, Scylla, and conservatism seems quite at peace with this. Hell, I, a liberal, feel comfortable with this as well. Nothing short of large-scale wealth redistribution is going to change this, which, incidentally, is not something I support.
I don’t believe you can have it both ways. I won’t argue with you if you believe that inequality is inevitable, but I will argue with you if you try to have your cake and eat it, too.
Furthermore, while I completely agree with the below:
I also believe that none of it is on the conservative agenda. For example, the oil & gas industry gave 78% of its total resources to the Republican party in the 2000 election cycle. This industry is characterized by monopoly, unfair trade practices, horrendous externalities, moral hazard, and assymetric information. In other words, in Scylla’s world, this is the anti-conservative industry. I think the question that this donation scheme raises is obvious. This pattern of electoral giving is consistent for the past ten years.
I think that if I were living in Scylla’s world, I would also be a conservative. In a world of fairness and freedom, there would simply be no need for governmental activism, for corporations would observe the spirit of the laws, clean up after themselves, and not be corrupted by their transnational power. I am sure that it comes as no surprise to anyone that I do not believe that such a world exists. Thus I reject nearly wholesale modern conservatism, which involves every bit as much governmental activism as liberalism. The only difference between them is that the recipients of the fruits of such activism are different.
Not to give “liberals” a black eye by dredging forth an outrageous example, but…
Most of the countries in Africa have what Mr. Stone might be able to call “conservative” government. No big entitlements, no income taxes, no space program, etc. They have mastered the art of small government!
The ruling elite are willing to let corporations do what they will for a reasonable fee. Let’s send a fact finding team to Senegal to ask the people how awesome the free market really is.
I am thinking that whatever “conservatism” you may think these governments embody is cancelled by the massive expropriation and wealth redistribution policies of said governments, not to mention rampant price-fixing and institutionally overvalued currencies.