# does this explain the whole conservative/ liberal ideological divide? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [March 12, 2009, 6:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-this-explain-the-whole-conservative-liberal-ideological-divide/489236 "2009-03-12T18:29:58Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 8
**Author:** ![Evil\_Economist](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/c89c15/32.png) [@Evil\_Economist](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Evil_Economist)\ **Post date:** [March 14, 2009, 1:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-this-explain-the-whole-conservative-liberal-ideological-divide/489236/141 "2009-03-14T01:39:18Z")
> [@NoJustice](#): > > I suppose I have no choice but to step aside. I appologize for interferring with your boxing match against conservative shadows. Your opinions aren’t necessarily related to conservativism. Lots of conservatives recognize that the government can correct market externalities. Conservatives and liberals may differ on their opinion of the breadth of the role government should pay, or whether, in a specific case, government intervention is worthwhile. Read Milton Friedman or William Buckley if you’re interested what conservative intellectuals had to say about market externalities. If I remember correctly, Friedman (nobel prize in economics, noted conservative) wrote a textbook which explained market externalities and the role of the government in solving them. ---
**Author:** ![Evil\_Economist](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/c89c15/32.png) [@Evil\_Economist](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Evil_Economist)\ **Post date:** [March 14, 2009, 1:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-this-explain-the-whole-conservative-liberal-ideological-divide/489236/142 "2009-03-14T01:41:28Z")
> [@IdahoMauleMan](#): > > Certainly not. > > Are you asking for my opinion, or a legal interpretation of the Constitution, or something else? Your opinion. I already know what a legal interpretation of the constitution would say. Also, to which question does your comment of ‘certainly not’ apply? ---
**Author:** ![IdahoMauleMan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/71c47a/32.png) [@IdahoMauleMan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/IdahoMauleMan)\ **Post date:** [March 14, 2009, 1:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-this-explain-the-whole-conservative-liberal-ideological-divide/489236/143 "2009-03-14T01:48:52Z")
> [@Evil\_Economist](#): > > Your opinion. I already know what a legal interpretation of the constitution would say. > > Also, to which question does your comment of ‘certainly not’ apply? Social Security. Sorry, I answered the second question first, and vice-versa. ---
**Author:** ![IdahoMauleMan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/71c47a/32.png) [@IdahoMauleMan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/IdahoMauleMan)\ **Post date:** [March 14, 2009, 2:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-this-explain-the-whole-conservative-liberal-ideological-divide/489236/144 "2009-03-14T14:40:04Z")
> [@Evil\_Economist](#): > > How about after that? Are roles adopted by the government throught the actions of legitimately elected officials acting on a mandate of the people legitimate roles of government? Or is it only a legitimate role of government if it became a role of government prior to 1787? > > Is it a legitimate role of government to provide social security? For your first question, a short list off the top of my head… - A bit before 1787 - A bit during 1787 - A bit after 1787 1. Before 1787…Establishment of property rights and the rule of law. Fundamentals necessary for risk taking, investment and the creation of wealth. In other words, fundamentals required for the advancement of a modern society. 2. At 1787 (actually, 1789 if I remember correctly)…The genius here was the system of checks and balances in government, as well as a nice enumeration of citizens’ rights in the first 10. The 2nd Amendment theoretically provides a check on the government and military as a whole. Also, the notion that a 51+% majority can’t eliminate certain protections that the minority hold for themselves and are inviolate. Although this latter point is continually challenged, as we debate often on this Board. The genius in 1789 was also articulating how the burden needs to be put on government to prove a case that it can take from, and restrict freedoms of, its citizens. And not the other way around. This also is continually under challenge. 1. Post 1789…Ricardo’s theory of comparative advantage. My personal favorite. Not that this was codified in law anywhere, of course, but it reinforces that free exchange between individuals, even when they cross sovereign boundaries, creates benefits for all. Sort of a re-stating of Adam Smith in a special form. Exchange includes capital, goods and people (immigration). Post Industrial Revolution, when most people moved away from subsistence living, strong evidence that a few, fundamental investments in the productivity of a nation can pay for themselves multiple-fold and they are to the benefit of all. They increase the competitiveness and wealth-creation ability of the nation which ultimately translates into staying power and a global strategic advantage. When possible, people should take care of these by themselves if they have the resources to do so. They will do so, since it is in their best interest. But it is in the rest of the citizenry’s self interest to chip in for the small % of cases where this is not possible. - Primary and (probably) secondary education - Insurance against catastrophic failure events with high severity, e.g. cancer - Large infrastructure investments of national importance that have huge transaction costs on the front end, making it impossible for the private sector - Accounting for costs of public externalities (a catchall term for a lot of things described here) I would also throw in a basic social safety net. But that is often a red herring in these discussions. The amount of $$ that directly goes into the pockets of the indigent is a trivial portion of the national budget. One could argue that charity could pick this up, if the government wasn’t taking so much of our money for other, worthless things. But let’s not go there right now. Also, evidence in the form of multiple 10’s of millions dead, and a few wars, that communism and ‘heavy’ socialism do not work. By eliminating property rights, the rule of law, and the checks and balances inherent in the US system, they destroy incentives to take risks and invest. They foster corruption and inefficiency amongst the ruling class. When people are not making decisions on their own behalf, and trading off the benefits, costs and risks according to their own personal utility profiles, wealth is destroyed. Which is why the investments I describe above in education, healthcare, etc. should be simple wealth transfers in the form of vouchers, or even straight cash without strings, and not via government as a delivery mechanism. The decision-making should be left in the hands of the individual. A couple of other random, second-order subjects for debate, post 1789… - The creation of limited-liability companies that can pool capital for large ventures, with investor protections. I think this is a Good Thing. Any large modern private venture, beyond the scope of a family-owned proprietorship, owes a significant portion of its success to this innovation and the laws surrounding it. - The creation of fiat money and fractional-reserve banking, regulated by a central bank. The abandonment of a gold standard. The need for government to get involved in money or finance at all. Lots of good grist for discussion here. Arguments on both sides. Andrew Jackson and Murray Rothbard took one side. Lots of people took the other. We’re cleaning up after this mess right now, so it’s timely. That’s a free form rambling. I’m sure I missed a few points here and there. Hope that’s what you were looking for. ---
**Author:** ![IdahoMauleMan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/71c47a/32.png) [@IdahoMauleMan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/IdahoMauleMan)\ **Post date:** [March 14, 2009, 3:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-this-explain-the-whole-conservative-liberal-ideological-divide/489236/145 "2009-03-14T15:16:58Z")
> [@erislover](#): > > Without government intervention, there were no labels on food. This has been the dominant example. People cannot make informed choices without information, and the market did not provide that information. Thankfully, we have other means at our disposal. Help me with this one. 1. If food labels were made voluntary, and some went away tomorrow, are you asserting that commerce would grind to a halt? That food manufacturers and consumers would stare at each other in a Mexican standoff indefinitely, with consumers starving and food manufacturers going bankrupt? 2. I drove by a used car lot this morning. It’s been in business for at least 10 years. I took a look at one of the cars in the lot. Then I went home, looked at the guy’s website, and read the description of one of the cars that I looked at. Are you asserting that this ‘car label’ (the food equivalent) is mandated by law? Because it isn’t. But somehow, transactions still seem to take place on this guy’s lot. I’m confused. I thought government mandates were required to correct information asymmetry and ensure efficient commerce. 1. Despite Bright & Shiny’s assertions, there are no laws regulating what EBay’s sellers say about their products. I’m especially sure there wasn’t any law when Pierre Omidyar first set it up back in the 1990’s in the Bay Area. But yet, despite that, commerce has exploded on EBay and many other online web sites. How is that possible? Information asymmetry is through the roof on Ebay transactions, with sellers being remote avatars and buyers being unable to touch or feel the products. How can commerce even happen? Doesn’t the government need to step in, to correct information asymmetry here? What is it waiting for? There are efficiencies to be gained, dammit! Let’s tell Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid to get going on that! ---
**Author:** ![Jackmannii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jackmannii/32/311_2.png) [@Jackmannii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jackmannii)\ **Post date:** [March 14, 2009, 3:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-this-explain-the-whole-conservative-liberal-ideological-divide/489236/146 "2009-03-14T15:35:06Z")
> [@Lumpy](#): > > Does the entire ideological divide between conservatives and liberals on all the issues they differ on reduce to a single axiomatic difference in worldview: conservatives believe in personal moral responsibility, and liberals believe in impersonal socioeconomic forces? Well, yes. But you’re forgetting that one side is viciously, amorally, irretrievably Evil and the other is the embattled, mankind-loving fount of truth and justice. And that truly explains sociopolitical conflict. Religion dominates this board far more than you’d realize at first glance. ---
**Author:** ![erislover](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/71e660/32.png) [@erislover](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/erislover)\ **Post date:** [March 14, 2009, 3:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-this-explain-the-whole-conservative-liberal-ideological-divide/489236/147 "2009-03-14T15:48:51Z")
> [@IdahoMauleMan](#): > > Help me with this one. > > 1. If food labels were made voluntary, and some went away tomorrow, are you asserting that commerce would grind to a halt? That food manufacturers and consumers would stare at each other in a Mexican standoff indefinitely, with consumers starving and food manufacturers going bankrupt? Of course not. Just because my choice is not as well-informed as it could/should be does not make me incapable of action. I’m not Buridan’s ass. > [@](#): > > 1. I drove by a used car lot this morning. It’s been in business for at least 10 years. I took a look at one of the cars in the lot. Then I went home, looked at the guy’s website, and read the description of one of the cars that I looked at. > > Are you asserting that this ‘car label’ (the food equivalent) is mandated by law? Because it isn’t. But somehow, transactions still seem to take place on this guy’s lot. I’m confused. I thought government mandates were required to correct information asymmetry and ensure efficient commerce. Why must everything be so extreme with you? Just because there is information asymmetry doesn’t mean the government must intervene. No one in this thread has said so. Ever. On the example of used cars specifically I even admitted there was not much the government could do. (Some governments tried, but current data seems to show that it had little to no effect. This doesn’t surprise me.) > [@](#): > > 1. Despite Bright & Shiny’s assertions, there are no laws regulating what EBay’s sellers say about their products. I’m especially sure there wasn’t any law when Pierre Omidyar first set it up back in the 1990’s in the Bay Area. > > But yet, despite that, commerce has exploded on EBay and many other online web sites. How is that possible? The mechanism for feedback made getting better information practically costless. This helps assure buyers in the face of information asymmetry. You’ll note there are mechanisms in place to help assure sellers about buyers, as well. > [@](#): > > Doesn’t the government need to step in, to correct information asymmetry here? The slope is not so slippery. In fact, it isn’t even a slope. Each market should be examined on its own merits. Sometimes, corrective action might help. ---
**Author:** ![IdahoMauleMan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/71c47a/32.png) [@IdahoMauleMan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/IdahoMauleMan)\ **Post date:** [March 14, 2009, 3:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-this-explain-the-whole-conservative-liberal-ideological-divide/489236/148 "2009-03-14T15:56:20Z")
> [@erislover](#): > > P1. Of course not. Just because my choice is not as well-informed as it could/should be does not make me incapable of action. I’m not Buridan’s ass. > > P2. Why must everything be so extreme with you? Just because there is information asymmetry doesn’t mean the government must intervene. No one in this thread has said so. Ever. On the example of used cars specifically I even admitted there was not much the government could do. (Some governments tried, but current data seems to show that it had little to no effect. This doesn’t surprise me.) > > P3. The mechanism for feedback made getting better information practically costless. This helps assure buyers in the face of information asymmetry. You’ll note there are mechanisms in place to help assure sellers about buyers, as well. > > The slope is not so slippery. In fact, it isn’t even a slope. Each market should be examined on its own merits. Sometimes, corrective action might help. P1. OK. So…why is it necessary again? P2. How is this extreme? It’s the classic example of information asymmetry. The used car problem. I deliberately chose it so that it wasn’t extreme. But I do like extreme examples from time to time. They help to bound the problem and extract mutual agreement from both sides of the debate, by saying that ‘Yes, IMM, I agree. At that end of the spectrum the answer is X. But I am asserting that on my end of the spectrum the answer is Y.’ That’s progress amidst a debate, isn’t it? Because then you’ve narrowed the scope of the problem-solving to talk about where along the spectrum the pendulum swings from X to Y, and why it swings. But I’m surprised you think the used-car example is an extreme. P3. Exactly. That’s exactly my point. There are lots of mechanisms that EBay puts in place. They were put in place by their own volition, in a private market, to further everybody’s interest. Sellers and Buyers. Ebay itself. Everybody is acting in their own interest in a free market. The government didn’t have to mandate that. Many posters above, including you, assert that in other markets the government must step in to mandate it. Why? ---
**Author:** ![erislover](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/71e660/32.png) [@erislover](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/erislover)\ **Post date:** [March 14, 2009, 4:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-this-explain-the-whole-conservative-liberal-ideological-divide/489236/149 "2009-03-14T16:21:27Z")
The example wasn’t extreme. The idea that because there is information asymmetry the government must intervene is extreme. > [@](#): > > P3. Exactly. That’s exactly my point. There are lots of mechanisms that EBay puts in place. They were put in place by their own volition, in a private market, to further everybody’s interest. Sellers and Buyers. Ebay itself. Everybody is acting in their own interest in a free market. And who, exactly, has suggested that this was impossible? The point is **it doesn’t always happen**. In such cases, we _may_ desire government intervention. ---
**Author:** ![IdahoMauleMan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/71c47a/32.png) [@IdahoMauleMan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/IdahoMauleMan)\ **Post date:** [March 14, 2009, 4:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-this-explain-the-whole-conservative-liberal-ideological-divide/489236/150 "2009-03-14T16:42:39Z")
> [@erislover](#): > > The example wasn’t extreme. The idea that because there is information asymmetry the government must intervene is extreme. > > And who, exactly, has suggested that this was impossible? The point is **it doesn’t always happen**. In such cases, we _may_ desire government intervention. Thanks for the post. Um, OK. I think. Not sure where you’re going with this. So… 1. When there are lots of people demanding something in a free and competitive market, and 2. It’s economically possible for wealth to be created by satisfying that demand via voluntary transactions, and 3. There aren’t public externalities to deal with You’re arguing that sometimes it just doesn’t happen, and government must step in? The government has some special insight that risk taking, profit-seeking businesses who could fill the void do not have? Hmmmmm. I don’t buy that. Sorry. But I’m willing to be educated. Look closely at the examples you may have in your head, at the moment. As well as the examples we have been debating in this thread. My hypothesis is that somewhere along the line, they don’t satisfy the 3 criteria above. The usual path is for a small, special interest such as - A rent-seeking entity looking for regulatory capture (e.g. a licensing guild) or - An aggrieved party seeking monetary or intangible damages (Madoff’s victims, people who get sick buying tainted bread) demand that government ‘do something’. They pool their resources and clout and tell their story to the world. An elected official is glad to step and say ‘Absolutely, I’ll do something. I’ll solve this problem for you. I’ll set up \’ to provide oversight, backed by force of government.’ Then he gets elected. Then there is a claim that somehow Agency X is addressing a public externality. That’s a big Rubicon to cross. I would argue in most cases that is a fallacy, as I have been arguing for the last two pages of posts. But it usually doesn’t take much to hop across that Rubicon with one, quick little step. Then, the 99% of the public who isn’t really affected by this growth of government is too busy to care that Agency X just got initiated, or shrugs at the notion that an extra $2.50 of their taxes each year will go to fund it. Which is an unfortunate sin of omission, and where the bar of slippery soap starts to squirt away. Because of course, there are thousands of those little bars of soap that squirt away each year, and they add up to economic deadweight. To mix metaphors. And once those agencies get set up, it takes a meteor strike from outer space to dislodge them. But like I said, I’m happy to be educated. Throw out a few examples if you will and we can kick them around. ---
**Author:** ![BrightNShiny](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/7bcc69/32.png) [@BrightNShiny](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrightNShiny)\ **Post date:** [March 17, 2009, 11:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-this-explain-the-whole-conservative-liberal-ideological-divide/489236/151 "2009-03-17T11:21:39Z")
> [@IdahoMauleMan](#): > > 1. Despite Bright & Shiny’s assertions, there are no laws regulating what EBay’s sellers say about their products. Given that you’ve made economics arguments straight out of the Soviet central planning handbook, I suppose I shouldn’t be surprised that you obviously have no idea what you are talking about. There’s no magical exemption for Ebay sellers. They’re subject to the same exact laws that everyone else is. For example: Here’s the FDA requiring ebay to pull the plug on sales of [perscription suncreen](http://www.redorbit.com/news/health/187144/fda_prods_ebay_into_pulling_sunscreens/). As you can see, the FDA, like every other government agency has full authority to regulate Ebay transactions. Here is a [Michigan case](http://www.informationtechnologylaw.com/materials/dedvukaj.pdf) (warning pdf), involving the sale of original paintings. The defendants were hauled into court for their misrepresentations about the paintings, fraud, and breach of contract. Your assertion that there are no laws regulating what sellers can say on Ebay about their products is flat-out nonsense. > [@](#): > > Internet forums such as eBay expand the seller’s market literally to the world and sellers > know that, and avail themselves of the benefits of this greatly expanded marketplace. It should, > in the context of these commercial relationships, be no great surprise to sellers – and certainly > no unfair burden to them – if, when a commercial transaction formed over and through the > internet does not meet a buyer’s expectations, they might be called upon to respond in a legal > forum in the buyer’s home state. \*\*Sellers cannot expect to avail themselves of the benefits of the > internet-created world market that they purposefully exploit and profit from without accepting > the concomitant legal responsibilities that such an expanded market may bring with it. \*\* _Dedvukaj v. Maloney_, 447 F. Supp. 2d 813, 822-23 (E.D. Mich. 2006) (emphasis added) But don’t take my word for it. Let’s go ask [Ebay](http://pages.ebay.com/help/policies/user-agreement.html) what law governs the transactions that take place on it: [QUOTE=Ebay User Agreement] We do not transfer legal ownership of items from the seller to the buyer, and nothing in this agreement shall modify the governing provisions of **California Commercial Code § 2401(2)** and Uniform Commercial Code § 2-401(2), under which legal ownership of an item is transferred upon physical delivery of the item to the buyer by the seller. Unless the buyer and the seller agree otherwise, the buyer will become the item’s lawful owner upon physical receipt of the item from the seller, in accordance with California Commercial Code § 2401(2) and Uniform Commercial Code § 2-401(2). [/QUOTE] And here’s a link to the [California Commercial Code](http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=com&group=02001-03000&file=2401-2403) which contains all sorts of laws and regulations governing how you can sell, advertise and receive payments for goods. An Ebay transaction is just like any other transaction in the US, and it is regulated in the exact same way (with the exception of certain tax and jurisdictional issues). The moment you pointed to Ebay as your ideal market is the moment you lost this argument, since you have pointed to a regulated market as your ideal. > [@](#): > > But yet, despite that, commerce has exploded on EBay and many other online web sites. How is that possible? Information asymmetry is through the roof on Ebay transactions, with sellers being remote avatars and buyers being unable to touch or feel the products. How can commerce even happen? Doesn’t the government need to step in, to correct information asymmetry here? > > What is it waiting for? There are efficiencies to be gained, dammit! Let’s tell Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid to get going on that! Yeah. There’s absolutely no information assymetry correction on Ebay. Let’s take a look, shall we. Here’s Ebay’s own rules and regulations [regarding listings](http://pages.ebay.com/help/policies/listing-ov.html). > [@](#): > > Listings must not misrepresent items. > Except as noted in the specific policy as exceptions, sellers cannot: > > ``` > List items in inappropriate categories. > Misrepresent the item location from which their item will be shipped. > Include brand names or other inappropriate keywords in a title or description. This is known as keyword spamming. > Have misleading titles that do not accurately describe the item for sale. > > ``` > > Except as noted in the specific policy as exceptions, sellers cannot: > > ``` > Offer a catalog from which buyers may directly order. > Allow buyers a choice of significantly different items > List a single item but offer additional identical items for sale in the item description. > Include separate payment surcharges that buyers pay to use ordinary forms of payment. > Misuse the Reserve Price option. > Charge excessive shipping. > > ``` All of these rules are designed to correct the information assymetry problems inherent in an online marketplace. Your precious Ebay folks obviously have taken their pages from the Pelosi/Reed handbook! If I were to actually post all of Ebays rules, I’d have to take up several posts to do it. What’s annoying about all of this is that I actually had to waste my time to dispute your nonsense. Can you not even do some basic research before you show up in threads spouting this junk? ---
**Author:** ![BrightNShiny](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/7bcc69/32.png) [@BrightNShiny](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrightNShiny)\ **Post date:** [March 17, 2009, 11:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-this-explain-the-whole-conservative-liberal-ideological-divide/489236/152 "2009-03-17T11:35:07Z")
> [@Kimstu](#): > > Another factor here is that **it’s dead easy** for the individual consumer to determine what the specific content is in a copy of the New Yorker. Pick it up off the newsstand, flip through the pages, and you know; the cost of this assessment by the individual consumer is practically nil. **Kimstu** , somehow I was thinking of newspapers that you get out of a newsstand, rather than a magazine like the New Yorker. In the magazine case, I agree, the cost of verification is pretty low, so that might be an area where not as much regulation is necessary. ---
**Author:** ![BrightNShiny](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/7bcc69/32.png) [@BrightNShiny](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrightNShiny)\ **Post date:** [March 17, 2009, 12:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-this-explain-the-whole-conservative-liberal-ideological-divide/489236/153 "2009-03-17T12:21:21Z")
Doing a little more poking around on [Ebay’s website](http://pages.ebay.com/help/policies/food.html) > [@](#): > > The sale of food is regulated by the federal government and most state governments. Sellers who list food and food-related products should familiarize themselves with these laws before listing such items on eBay. What? I thought Ebay was some magical land where the laws that apply to the rest of us don’t apply to Ebay sellers. Someone should tell Ebay, because they are actually telling their sellers to go familiarize themselves with the government’s laws. Crazy! But that’s food, you say. Surely, for something such as [clothing](http://pages.ebay.com/help/policies/used-clothing.html), it’s a libertarian free for all: > [@](#): > > Used clothing (except underwear) may be listed on eBay as long as the clothing has been thoroughly cleaned according to the manufacturer’s instructions. Listings that contain inappropriate descriptions will be ended. What? I can’t buy used underwear! Or unwashed clothing! What’s going on here? If I want to buy used underwear, why won’t Ebay let me? Ok, but surely I can sell a copy of my latest manifesto on [Ebay](http://pages.ebay.com/help/policies/encouraging-illegal-activity.html), right? > [@](#): > > eBay prohibits the sale of items or links to items that encourage, promote, facilitate or instruct others to engage in illegal activity. eBay also prohibits buyers from requesting or encouraging sellers to break any applicable laws. In addition, eBay may remove listings as requested by law enforcement to cooperate with any investigation or to prevent harm to eBay and its members. Wow! I had no idea libertarians think an ideal marketplace is one which restricts their speech. Amazing the things you learn here. ---
**Author:** ![erislover](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/71e660/32.png) [@erislover](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/erislover)\ **Post date:** [March 17, 2009, 1:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-this-explain-the-whole-conservative-liberal-ideological-divide/489236/154 "2009-03-17T13:40:51Z")
> [@BrightNShiny](#): > > What? I can’t buy used underwear! Or unwashed clothing! What’s going on here? If I want to buy used underwear, why won’t Ebay let me? It’s the government’s fault. ---
**Author:** ![msmith537](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/d9b06d/32.png) [@msmith537](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/msmith537)\ **Post date:** [March 17, 2009, 5:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-this-explain-the-whole-conservative-liberal-ideological-divide/489236/155 "2009-03-17T17:59:17Z")
> [@Lumpy](#): > > Does the entire ideological divide between conservatives and liberals on all the issues they differ on reduce to a single axiomatic difference in worldview: conservatives believe in personal moral responsibility, and liberals believe in impersonal socioeconomic forces? I would modify that slightly to say that “conservatives believe in individualism while liberals believe in collectivism.” As it applies to major points of contention: **Economics:** Conservative - The sum of individual choices made by consumers and producers, free of outside interference, will produce the maximimum benefit to society. Liberal - Many of the benefits to society can be maximized through government assistance, regulation or mandate. **Gun Control:** Conservative - Individuals have the right to provide for their own defense Liberal - The government will ensure your safety **Foreign Policy** Conservative - A strong US is better positioned to dictate the terms of our national interests Liberal - Our national interests are best served through cooperation This ideology manifests itself in a particular way as it applies to our civilizations social dynamic. Conservatives tend to be either your basic white affluent businessmen types or your rural/suburban, white Middle America types. Basically people for who being an “individualist” more or less has been a benefit since they are just like everyone else. So they ascribe a lot of their success to their “individualism” and hard work because society tends to reward them for it. Liberals tend to be your minorities or your highly educated idealistic types. The first group tends to be people who are often oastracized or disenfranchised and and their individual labors are often either not appreciated or provide no real economic reward. Your educated, idealistic types often come from well off backgrounds where they have benefited from the system and tend to idealize and overemphasize it’s ability to protect and provide for it’s people. So for example, a very driven and successful entrepreneur would tend to be conservative. He would rely on his ability to build businesses and would tend to not want the government taxing him to provide services for less industrious people. A smart successful lawyer from a reasonably well off family might tend to be liberal. He may entered the law out of a desire to help people and may have recieved some government loans for law school. From his point of view, the government is a tool for bettering the lives of it’s citizens. ---
**Author:** ![NoJustice](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/ecb155/32.png) [@NoJustice](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NoJustice)\ **Post date:** [March 17, 2009, 6:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-this-explain-the-whole-conservative-liberal-ideological-divide/489236/156 "2009-03-17T18:52:43Z")
> [@IdahoMauleMan](#): > > Exactly. That’s exactly my point. There are lots of mechanisms that EBay puts in place. They were put in place by their own volition, in a private market, to further everybody’s interest. Sellers and Buyers. Ebay itself. Everybody is acting in their own interest in a free market. You are clearly delusional. This can’t possibly have happened. Things like this NEVER happen. Remember _“There is centuries of evidence that they have NEVER happened.”_ **BrightNShiny** : All your arguments are entirely correct. They are also entirely irrelevant. Like **Evil Economist** , you seem hell-bent on refuting arguments nobody has made. Nobody said there was no government regulation affecting what Ebay users are allowed to sell. Nobody said there was no government regulation affecting what Ebay users are allowed to say. Nobody said Ebay is exempt from any kind of laws or regulations. Nobody had said anything about Ebay being an ideal market. Nobody has claimed that Ebay does not have rules about what claims users make on Ebay or about what they can buy and sell on Ebay. All that has been claimed is that in order for E-commerce to function well, new problems of information asymmetry had to be overcome which were not solved by government regulation. Ebay, in it’s own interests, created their own system to solve these problems. Thus proving that a market **can** solve problems of information asymmetry for itself. ---
**Author:** ![BrightNShiny](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/7bcc69/32.png) [@BrightNShiny](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrightNShiny)\ **Post date:** [March 17, 2009, 7:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-this-explain-the-whole-conservative-liberal-ideological-divide/489236/157 "2009-03-17T19:33:23Z")
> [@NoJustice](#): > > **BrightNShiny** : > All your arguments are entirely correct. They are also entirely irrelevant. Like **Evil Economist** , you seem hell-bent on refuting arguments nobody has made. > Nobody said there was no government regulation affecting what Ebay users are allowed to sell. Riiight. [QUOTE=IdahoMauleMan] 3. If there are many, many transactions via this seller, there would likely be on-line or other consumer appraisal systems to give feedback on his performance and honesty. EBay does billions of dollars worth of transactions each week without **the government stepping in to ‘ensure’ every seller verifies what they’re doing.** How does that happen? \*\*It should be massively inefficient, shouldn’t it? At least according to your theory. \*\*But in fact, its the opposite. It has exploded into one of the most liquid, efficient markets in the history of mankind. Hmmmmm… (empahsis added) [/QUOTE] **IMM** is clearly making the claim that Ebay is less regulated than the normal transactional market. All of my posts about Ebay are to refute that notion. > [@NoJustice](#): > > Nobody said there was no government regulation affecting what Ebay users are allowed to say. Nobody, except **IMM** : [QUOTE=IdahoMauleMan] 3. Despite Bright & Shiny’s assertions, **there are no laws regulating what EBay’s sellers say about their products.** (bolding added) [/QUOTE] How else am I supposed to read that? [QUOTE=NoJustice] Nobody said Ebay is exempt from any kind of laws or regulations. Nobody had said anything about Ebay being an ideal market. Nobody has claimed that Ebay does not have rules about what claims users make on Ebay or about what they can buy and sell on Ebay. [/QUOTE] I’ll give you the word “ideal,” since that has a specific meaning in economics. I should have said **IMM** ’s “exemplary” market. My point here is that **IMM** pointed to a regulated market and claimed that “according to my theory” it should be illiquid and inefficient. However, Ebay supports my theory, not contradicts it, since it is a regulated market. Additionally, I’ve never claimed (despite **IMM** ’s rather dishonest assertions) that a lack of information would make a market illiquid. I’ve responded to **IMM** ’s posts directly, and you are the one making incorrect claims about what has been said in this thread. > [@](#): > > All that has been claimed is that in order for E-commerce to function well, new problems of information asymmetry had to be overcome which were not solved by government regulation. Ebay, in it’s own interests, created their own system to solve these problems. Thus proving that a market **can** solve problems of information asymmetry for itself. While Ebay’s user rating tools and the like are valuable in helping to provide additional information assymetry correction, that is not the only way the information assymetry problem is reduced on Ebay. So, no, that doesn’t prove that the “market can solve problems of information assymetry for itself.” At most, it shows, that a combined regulatory approach with additional private sector regulation and information tools work together to reduce problems of information assymetry. ---
**Author:** ![erislover](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/71e660/32.png) [@erislover](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/erislover)\ **Post date:** [March 17, 2009, 7:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-this-explain-the-whole-conservative-liberal-ideological-divide/489236/158 "2009-03-17T19:46:30Z")
> [@msmith537](#): > > So for example, a very driven and successful entrepreneur would tend to be conservative. He would rely on his ability to build businesses and would tend to not want the government taxing him to provide services for less industrious people. > > A smart successful lawyer from a reasonably well off family might tend to be liberal. He may entered the law out of a desire to help people and may have recieved some government loans for law school. From his point of view, the government is a tool for bettering the lives of it’s citizens. For generalizations, it seems ok, but I find it a little strange that you’ve picked the contrast that you did. It reminds me more of the old joke about how conservatives are liberals who had their wallet stolen and liberals are conservatives that have been to jail. I believe the paper linked earlier has been the most enlightening thing I’ve read on this topic in a long, long time. I intend to get back to it in another thread at some point. ---
**Author:** ![NoJustice](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/ecb155/32.png) [@NoJustice](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NoJustice)\ **Post date:** [March 17, 2009, 8:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-this-explain-the-whole-conservative-liberal-ideological-divide/489236/159 "2009-03-17T20:36:23Z")
> [@BrightNShiny](#): > > IMM is clearly making the claim that Ebay is less regulated than the normal transactional market. All of my posts about Ebay are to refute that notion. I think it’s clear that’s how he sees it, but the quote you provided doesn’t actually make that claim. You’ve made a big fuss about him supposedly misrepresenting your arguments. Perhaps he was just making the mistake of assuming your arguments were meant to be relevant to his claims rather than just a refutation (and a poor one at that) of what you percieve his attitude to be. > [@BrightNShiny](#): > > Nobody, except **IMM** : > > [QUOTE=IdahoMauleMan] > 3. Despite Bright & Shiny’s assertions, there are no laws regulating what EBay’s sellers say about their products. _(bolding added)_ How else am I supposed to read that? [/QUOTE] I’ll tell you how… most quotes have a little arrow symbol next to the name (which you seem to selectively avoid when it comes to quoting **IMM** ) when you click it, something magical happens, it takes you to the actual post where you can see a statement in the context it was originally written. **IMM** was responding to **erislover** ’s implication that providing of information must be mandated by the government in order to happen. > [@BrightNShiny](#): > > My point here is that **IMM** pointed to a regulated market and claimed that “according to my theory” it should be illiquid and inefficient. However, Ebay supports my theory, not contradicts it, since it is a regulated market. He pointed to a market which had a serious problem of information asymmetry which was NOT sufficiently addressed by government regulation. You are once again arguing against your perception of his attitude rather than the actual claims he made. > [@BrightNShiny](#): > > I’ve never claimed (despite **IMM** ’s rather dishonest assertions) that a lack of information would make a market illiquid. I’ve read through the entire thread several times now, I appologize if I’ve missed it but where exactly did he,assert that you claimed a lack of information would make a market illiquid? > [@BrightNShiny](#): > > I’ve responded to **IMM** ’s posts directly, and you are the one making incorrect claims about what has been said in this thread. Actually, you seem to be, like **Evil Economist** , meerly shadow-boxing. > [@BrightNShiny](#): > > While Ebay’s user rating tools and the like are valuable in helping to provide additional information assymetry correction, that is not the only way the information assymetry problem is reduced on Ebay. Once again… nobody has claimed otherwise. > [@BrightNShiny](#): > > So, no, that doesn’t prove that the “market can solve problems of information assymetry for itself.” It doesn’t prove that a market can solve ALL problems of information asymmetry without any government regulation, but then, nobody’s made that claim. ---
**Author:** ![BrightNShiny](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/7bcc69/32.png) [@BrightNShiny](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrightNShiny)\ **Post date:** [March 17, 2009, 8:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-this-explain-the-whole-conservative-liberal-ideological-divide/489236/160 "2009-03-17T20:55:30Z")
> [@NoJustice](#): > > I think it’s clear that’s how he sees it, but the quote you provided doesn’t actually make that claim. You’ve made a big fuss about him supposedly misrepresenting your arguments. Perhaps he was just making the mistake of assuming your arguments were meant to be relevant to his claims rather than just a refutation (and a poor one at that) of what you percieve his attitude to be. And I made the mistake of assuming you had actually read the thread. [QUOTE=NoJustice] I’ll tell you how… most quotes have a little arrow symbol next to the name (which you seem to selectively avoid when it comes to quoting **IMM** ) when you click it, something magical happens, it takes you to the actual post where you can see a statement in the context it was originally written. **IMM** was responding to **erislover** ’s implication that providing of information must be mandated by the government in order to happen. [/QUOTE] He responded by making an erroneous factual assertion, which I corrected. If you choose to arbitrarily assign different meanings to his plain words, that’s not my problem. [QUOTE=NoJustice] I’ve read through the entire thread several times now, I appologize if I’ve missed it but where exactly did he,assert that you claimed a lack of information would make a market illiquid? [/QUOTE] Yet, somehow, after reading the thread several times now, you missed this: [QUOTE=IMM] [Your argument is that somehow government must step in above and beyond these laws and certify that yes, indeed, the seller is delivering X. Otherwise no transactions would take place and commerce would suffer.](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=10932009&postcount=52) [/QUOTE] He claimed that I said that no transactions would take place in a market suffering from information assymetry problems. [QUOTE=NoJustice] Actually, you seem to be, like **Evil Economist** , meerly shadow-boxing. [/QUOTE] Hysterical, coming from you. [QUOTE=NoJustice] Once again… nobody has claimed otherwise. [/QUOTE] Sure. In your alternate bizzarro thread. [QUOTE=NoJustice] It doesn’t prove that a market can solve ALL problems of information asymmetry without any government regulation, but then, nobody’s made that claim. [/QUOTE] Here’s you (do I need to link, it’s only a few posts up). [QUOTE=NoJustice] All that has been claimed is that in order for E-commerce to function well, new problems of information asymmetry had to be overcome which were not solved by government regulation. Ebay, in it’s own interests, created their own system to solve these problems. Thus proving that a market can solve problems of information asymmetry for itself. [/QUOTE] Maybe you should write more clearly so that we can understand what you’re actually trying to say, rather than having to divine it. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-this-explain-the-whole-conservative-liberal-ideological-divide/489236.md?page=7) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-this-explain-the-whole-conservative-liberal-ideological-divide/489236.md?page=9)