Conservatives and Government

Thomas Frank on "The Wrecking Crew":

On the same topic, Free Exchange follows up on the post below this one:

...I think it's absolutely necessary to think clearly about what has gone wrong and what ought to change. One assessment might be that Mr Friedman's ideas were fundamentally flawed—that there never should have been such a substantial push for liberalisation. Another is that Mr Friedman was largely correct, but when his ideas were embraced and adopted, his followers found themselves at a loss as to how to respond. As a result, they continued to press for liberalisation, well beyond an "optimal" level, because it continued to be politically expedient. And still another is that Republicans embraced free marketeering as politically convenient but never gave it the rigourous policy support liberalisation deserved—the impure Bush theory.

Democrats, and economists generally, need to be clear about which of the above they believe or do not believe and why. They also need to be careful not to overpoliticise the issues, simply for the sake of electoral gain. It may be that some new regulatory practices are needed, and some new liberalisation is needed; in fact, that's almost certainly true. Democrats may reject that wishy-washy sounding diagnosis, however, in favour of the cleaner "making markets work" theme, which may ultimately correspond to a general walking back of liberalisation.

I have trouble with any ideological reading of the economics, because the two (ideology and economics) so rarely fit well together. I don't want to elect a free-market supporter or an interventionist. I want to elect someone who will carefully consider the issues and determine that here the government ought to assign pollution property rights, while here the government should reduce licensure, and so on. I want, in short, someone with enough intellectual heft to know the difference between good policy and good politics.

If the economists are unwilling to make these distinctions, I have little confidence that the candidates ever will.

Comments

[robertdfeinman]

This sounds like another in the increasingly common theme among conservatives that it isn't the premises that are wrong, but the implementation.

Denying that there is an ideological basis to the conservative agenda is also dishonest.

Conservatism is all about process: less government, fewer taxes, freer trade, fewer regulations. There are no goals. Since there are no goals there are no objective standards with which to determine when the "optimum" has been reached. Has a conservative ever said, "taxes are now low enough"?

The liberal position is all about goals, process is just a way to get there. For example, regulations over monopoly power are adequate when no firm or combine has a dominant market position. Health and safety regulations are strict enough when accidents are reduced to "acts of god" rather than workplace deficiencies.

Taxes are high enough when the tasks set for government by the people are being accomplished.

Ultimately the goal is for everyone to have a decent life and be able to achieve whatever their innate abilities permit them to in life.

Ask a conservative what their goal is.

[bakho]

Assessment One: there never should have been such a substantial push for liberalisation. Assessment Two: Mr Friedman was largely correct, but when his ideas were embraced and adopted, his followers found themselves at a loss as to how to respond.

Assessment 3. Special interests with a lot of money used their influence to rewrite the rules in ways that favored the special interests. Politicians beholden to the special interests to fund their reelection campaigns let the fox in the henhouse.

When bills written by lobbyists, for lobbyists were handed to Congressmen, introduced as "legislation" and passed into law by "so-called" conservatives, don't we arrive at CORRUPTION?

So the stated goals of "Mr Friedman's liberalisation" were easily corrupted by special interests for their own purposes, which have nothing to do with liberalisation and everything to do with corruption. Rewriting the regulations was not done to improve the regulations and improve the economy, it was done at the behest of special interests so they could make short term gains by screwing the rest of us. The press NEVER identifies the Bush administration with corruption. Yet it is the most corrupt government since Grant.

[Ninja Zombie]

Robertdfeinman:

As a conservative, my goals for the government are to protect freedom, internalize externalities and (possibly) provide public goods.

Conservatives have goals too, we just don't agree with all of your goals. For instance, I think your goal to have only "acts of god" as workplace accidents is too strict. I'm willing to accept that some jobs are inherently dangerous, and that workers should decide for themselves if the risks are acceptable. When I was a bike messenger, I knew the risks (we all got hit at least once a year) and considered them acceptable.

*Has a conservative ever said, "taxes are now low enough"?*

As a conservative, I would say they are low enough when they provide just enough money to achieve the goals I mentioned above, and nothing more.

There certainly are conservative nitcases, just as there are liberal ones. Ask an Earth First type "what level of environmental regulation is sufficient?" Most of us have goals too. They are just different from yours.

[robertdfeinman]

Sorry Ninja your libertarian statement isn't coherent.

"I'm willing to accept that some jobs are inherently dangerous, and that workers should decide for themselves if the risks are acceptable."

You see, workers can't decide for themselves because they don't have the countervailing power to business. So society sets rules that protect the weak against the strong. If you personally are willing to accept a high risk job for low pay then you are a fool, but there is no reason that your foolishness should be imposed upon others. Why have bike messengers? Because putting all the risk on the weakest part of the business is considered acceptable. Bike messengers are expected to skirt the law to get through quicker than traffic permits.

A realistic delivery system would give messengers safer transport and charge enough so that those doing the task don't take on the risk. If packages don't get through fast "enough" in a less risky environment then, perhaps, the entire business model needs to be rethought.

What kind of goal is "protect freedom". How about the freedom from injury?

Try thinking through your ideas to the end instead of parroting the half-baked ideas of libertarians, they won't hold up.

[Patricia Shannon]

robertdfeinman
Very well put.

[Patricia Shannon]

Ninja Zombie says...

Robertdfeinman:

As a conservative, my goals for the government are to protect freedom, internalize externalities and (possibly) provide public goods.

What does "internalize externalities" mean? Some examples, please.

[AllenM]

Well, let's just be honest about it now.

Ideology is far more profitable as an adjunct to employment than economics.

Nobody from the Cato Institute *ever* asks what is the optimal level of regulation.

Why should they? After all, they raise tremendous amounts of money from people who want to escape all onerous regulation and hide behind all the regulation that protects their businesses.

Now, the country libertarian up the page obviously doesn't believe in much regulation. Well, let's just skip licensing doctors. He can sue if his leg doesn't heal properly after being run over by the neighbor.

Hope he has enough money to fund the lawsuit.
If not, well, then, the free market obviously worked, after all he didn't *deserve* any compensation if he couldn't afford to extract it.

Bah. There is so little effective regulation in this country it is laughable.

Pass laws that people want enforced, then enforce them.

[Bruce Wilder]

"I want, in short, someone with enough intellectual heft to know the difference between good policy and good politics."

I want someone with enough whatever to make good policy good politics.

[Ninja Zombie]

Robertdfeinman:

"Coherent" and "correct" are two different things. Perhaps my statement is incorrect, but it's certainly coherent (you understood it, and argued against it).

*You see, workers can't decide for themselves because they don't have the countervailing power to business...If you personally are willing to accept a high risk job for low pay then you are a fool, but there is no reason that your foolishness should be imposed upon others.*

So I'm just a fool who can't make my own decisions? Well, glad I've got you to protect me from myself.

What paternalistic BS. I actively sought out the bike messenger job, and I had other options including a safe office job. That's my countervailing power: the power not to take the job. If the job sucked badly enough, then no one would do it. But in fact, the job was great: it's pleasant to do, it has great perks (office girls love bike messengers) and the pay was adequate.

I never went out and imposed my "foolishness" (a synonym for choices you wouldn't make?) on others. I never forced anyone to do anything. I just delivered packages for people who sought out my services.

In any case, that's tangential to the point I was making. My goal is for the government to protect my freedom. By "freedom", I mean "freedom to do as I wish unless it harms others against their will". I have a goal, as do most conservatives. It's just different from yours.

Patricia:

Externalities are costs imposed on third parties against their will. Suppose I brew rum and sell it to Pirate Zombie, while emitting pollution. The pollution is a cost that is paid by you, not me and Pirate Zombie.

"Internalizing the externality" is any mechanism which causes and Pirate Zombie to pay that cost, rather than you. A pollution tax, for instance.

[RW]

Ninja, coherency in the context of argument has very little to do with whether your opponent understands you (although that is not an insignificant detail) and a great deal to do with whether your argument hangs together logically, whether or not it is internally consistent and/or consistent with the stated organizing principles.

For example your argument appears to conflate the concept of license, the ability to do whatever you want, with the concept of freedom but the two concepts are not only not equivalent they are frequently at odds with each other and your addition of "unless it harms others against their will" is consistent with neither in any case because license resists all constraints and freedom or liberty has little to do with constraint since it is dependent upon consent.

Government can not "protect your freedom" within the framework you appear to be describing; to the degree coherency can be extracted from your screed, government could only add or subtract constraint, and freedom or liberty is not really at issue because there is no sense of common purpose, agreement or consent in your argument.

[robertdfeinman]

RW:
I'm going to use your framing of license vs freedom in future debates with libertarians. I think you made the libertarian fallacy clear with this distinction.

[david]

"I have trouble with any ideological reading of the economics, because the two (ideology and economics) so rarely fit well together."

Worth calling out this statement. For whatever discipline, it's a sign of trouble. When they say it's not about the money, it's about the money, etc.

[Lafayette]

Article: I have trouble with any ideological reading of the economics, because the two (ideology and economics) so rarely fit well together.

We all do and for good reason.

Ours, since the middle of the last century, has been largely defined by Keynsian thinking (as regards its workings). If we look at economic activity with an historical perspective, it is obvious that this New World of ours, constituted of new paradigms is significantly different from the past. Its evolution has been historically significant in only the past two decades.

Never has Our World been of such economic proportions, so influential has globalization become - with dual polarity having been replaced by multi-polarity only in the past ten years or so.

Our economic perspective too much change. We cannot look only upon the US as "leader of the pack", meaning what we do is best also for the world. That's simply idiocy has been proven fallacious, which is obvious to all (except ourselves).

There is needed much more coordination in terms of national policy making that must have, inevitably, also an international component -- since that is the way our world works ineluctably. This will require a real change of leadership, particularly in Washington.

We cannot continue with past notions (and past notrums) of our place in the world as "kick-ass cop". That will obtain Uncle Sam nothing but common opprobrium. A younger generation, willing to undertake a more global approach to national policy making is what, imho, is very much the necessity.

We are no longer at the helm of Planet Earth. That job has got a lot more difficult, there now being multiple captains of the ship. And, for all the palaver (at G7s or G8s) there does not seem to be much mutual communication or even common purpose.

NB: And, btw, the small country of Georgia has been enlisted presently as the messenger boy between two nations that have been unable to establish a common means of understanding one another. That pocket-war is less about Russification and more about lead-head not understanding certain New Realities.

[RW]

Robert, you're welcome to use it as you see fit (I lay no claim to uniqueness). I confess I did not recognize the distinction between license and freedom for years myself nor the rather juvenile nature of conflating the two ideas but the matter was cleared up for me somewhat by the end of a particularly grueling, all-night bus trip in East Africa.

The entry in my journal that evening (somewhat cleaned up) was:

"I greet my seat-mate and tell him I hope to find a hotel but he responds that there is a pan-African conference in town and rooms will be difficult to find. But I know there will be no problem tonight because, just right now, I've had enough of motion and weariness. There is a fairly consistent mythology surrounding the concept of freedom in the West, that it is critically defined by choice and the ability to do what you want, but in Africa one learns that the ability to do whatever you want is emptiness, increasingly there must be less and less that seems worth doing. What matters is recognizing necessity and the greatest freedom is to be embedded in life including the ability to rest without fear of trouble in a place you know: Tonight I want a piece, however small, of that freedom very much and will pay the price of a tourist hotel (including gratuity for service I will not receive and mark-ups for baksheesh and currency exchange) without a tinge of protest even though it really is highway robbery and the Wachaga smugglers would probably have given me a better deal if I only could have figured out a way to negotiate with them without revealing my critical weakness; that I was traveling alone and was vulnerable."

[Lafayette]

Article: I have trouble with any ideological reading of the economics, because the two (ideology and economics) so rarely fit well together.

We all do and for good reason.

Our economic perspective, since the middle of the last century, has been largely defined by Keynesian thinking (as regards its workings). If we look at economic activity with an historical perspective, it is obvious that this New World of ours, constituted of new paradigms is significantly different in this new millenium. Its evolution has been historically significant in only the past two decades.

Never has Our World been of such economic proportions, so influential has globalization become - with dual polarity (US – Soviet Union) having been replaced by multi-polarity only in the past ten years or so.

Our economic perspectives too have changed. We cannot look only upon the US as "leader of the pack", meaning what we do is best also for the world. That simple idiocy has proven fallacious, which is obvious to all (except perhaps ourselves). Just doubling the world's Supply of labor has brought about massive dislocations of work. The entry of once third world countries into a decent middle-class existence has resulted in an exacerbated Demand on the earth's resources.

The West was patently unprepared for both.

There is needed much more coordination in terms of national policy-making that must have, inevitably, also an international component -- since that is the way our world works ineluctably. This will require a real change of leadership, particularly in Washington, and particularly a serious reformation of perspectives.

We cannot continue with past notions (and past notrums) of our place in the world as "kick-ass cop". That will obtain Uncle Sam nothing but common opprobrium. A younger generation, willing to undertake a more global approach to national policy making is very much the necessity.

america is no longer at the helm of Planet Earth. That job has become a lot more difficult, there now being multiple captains of the ship. And, for all the palaver (at G7s or G8s) there does not seem to be much mutual communication or even common purpose.

NB: And, btw, the small country of Georgia has been enlisted presently as the messenger boy between two nations that have been unable to establish a common means of understanding one another. That pocket-war is less about Russification and more about lead-head not understanding certain New Realities. Russia is again a major world power and must be reckoned with, something lead-head refused to understand.

[reason]

Robert Feinman,
I think you framed your debate with Ninja Zombie. He may have freely chosen to take a risk (socialising some of the cost) but I am dead set certain he didn't take the job BECAUSE of the risk (i.e. he would have willingly done the same job if it was less risky). And he had no personal bargaining power to reduce the risk. It makes sense for society to increase general welfare in this case by INCREASING choice for risk adverse citizens.
As for what is freedom, yes that is difficult to define. And "unless it harms others against their will" is impossible, we almost always harm people in some way against their will whenever we act, it is just that we make subtle trade offs that increase the general level of freedom. Freedom is relative not binary.
And that is the key problem I have with the first paragraph of the Free Exchange post - the binary framing - it is either that or that or that. Well I vote for none-of-the-above.

[reason]

I want, in short, someone with enough intellectual heft to know the difference between good policy and good politics.
And I want an electorate that is knowledgable enough and reflective enough that there is no difference.

[piglet]

"As a conservative, my goals for the government are to protect freedom, internalize externalities and (possibly) provide public goods."

How odd that conservatives, most of the time, argue and (if they have the power) act against internalizing externalities. They cry "tax" or "red tape" whenever it is suggested to make polluters pay. Give us one example of a conservative advocating higher gas taxes to internalize the (environmental and social) externalities. Explain how McCain's "Drill Drill Drill" program is conservative in any recognizable sense. What McCain promises is to lower gas prices (unrealistic, of course) by destroying some more environmental capital, which is the opposite of "internalizing externalities".

And "Protect Freedom"? Guantanamo.

[piglet]

I don't think there's anything wrong with working as a bike messenger. I just hope that your employer fully insured you against the consequences of accidents on the job. I don't know whether this is required by law but I suspect that without government regulation, employers will be tempted to skimp on the cost of insurance.

I do not accept the argument that employees accept the job at their own risk. First, if you become disabled and there is no insurance, society will have to jump in (privatize profits, socialize losses, is a typical outcome of conservative policy). Second, the gradient of power between employer and employee is so steep that it is illusory to assume that the employee can do without some legal protection.

[Ninja Zombie]

Piglet: I, a conservative, do in fact advocate higher taxes on gasoline. However, I can accept that many conservatives believe pollution regulations are already sufficient.

Regarding Guantanamo, I agree with you there. But your argument is specious: should I bring up Hillary's support for torture the next time a liberal talks about human rights? Or should I just accept that she differs from most liberals on some issues, just as Bush differs from most conservatives on some issues?

As for my bike messenger job: we had collision insurance and workers comp, though no health care. Plus we got comfy office jobs while we recovered. Regarding the "gradient of power", what does that mean? The only power I've ever heard of an employer using is the power to offer money for labor. Could you explain what extra power employers have?

[piglet]

"I, a conservative, do in fact advocate higher taxes on gasoline. However, I can accept that many conservatives believe pollution regulations are already sufficient."

Please, name a single conservative politician who advocates higher gas taxes. Give me a few recent examples of when conservative politicians advocated "let the polluter pay" policies. Give me an example from McCain's campaign platform that is consistent with what you define as a goal of conservatives, namely internalizing externalities.

"I can accept that many conservatives believe pollution regulations are already sufficient"

I'm sorry but you are totally inconsistent. You just said, internalizing externalities was one of the primary goals of conservatism. Now you say that although practically all politically powerful conservatives actively oppose your lofty goal, that is still okay for you. Either you live in a dream world or you are here to pull a stunt. Either you are lying to us, or you are lying to yourself.

[piglet]

"we had collision insurance and workers comp, though no health care. Plus we got comfy office jobs while we recovered."

Very reassuring ;-) And do you think your employer would have offered worker's comp if it wasn't mandated by law? And what about Long Term Disability, was that covered? You can get hurt and become disabled in an accident without nessecarily colliding with another vehicle, you know.

[Ninja Zombie]

Piglet:

As for McCain, he's the "maverick", remember? Dems and the media love him, repubs hate him cause he is a RINO. Nevertheless:

*Give me an example from McCain's campaign platform*

http://www.johnmccain.com/Informing/Issues/da151a1c-733a-4dc1-9cd3-f9ca5caba1de.htm

"John McCain Proposes A Cap-And-Trade System That Would Set Limits On Greenhouse Gas Emissions..."

*I'm sorry but you are totally inconsistent...practically all politically powerful conservatives actively oppose your lofty goal*

The point of disagreement is a not the goal, but how to achieve it. I believe the current law is too lax in general, too strict in some particular areas. Other conservatives (though perhaps not McCain) believe it is generally more strict than necessary.

Similarly, I believe my city (NYC) has too many cops, and think we should cut our police department. Does this mean I disagree with the goal of reducing murder? Of course not. I think we have more cops than needed, and the money could be better spent elsewhere.

As for the bike messenger job: what we call "collision" means "on the job injuries." During my time, it was always a collision with an idiot in a car ("I didn't see him right in front of me in his bright orange shorts!"). As for workers comp, they certainly would provide it (or something similar) even if not required. Collision wasn't legally required, so why provide that? Pay above $5.35 wasn't legally required either, yet they gave that to us...

If they didn't take care of us, we'd leave. So I'm really not sure where your "power gradient" comes into play.

[Patricia Shannon]

When I couldn't get a job in IT for several years because of my age, and had to work at a low-wage job, I was free to go blind from cataracts. How wonderful.

When I couldn't get a job during the depression of 1990-1992, I was free to lose weight, which I didn't need to do, because I couldn't afford enough food. Whoop-de-do.

[piglet]

"As for workers comp, they certainly would provide it (or something similar) even if not required."

Of course. If employers voluntarily provided full work injury insurance, why do you think workers comp has had to be mandated by law, early in the last century? O sure, because all those government bureaucrats had nothing better to do than "burden" employers with regulation that was to-ta-lly unnecessary. In case you really believe this crap: a friend of a friend of mine was, on the job, run over by her employer's tractor-trailer. She was lucky to survive. Her employer brought her to an ER and that was all as far as he was concerned (of course she needed expensive rehab). Luckily my friend's mother is a lawyer and was able to remind him of his legal responsibilities. That happened in the 21st century.

"John McCain Proposes A Cap-And-Trade System That Would Set Limits On Greenhouse Gas Emissions..."

Conservatives (or as I would say "so-called conservatives") have controlled most of US government for most of the last decade and have reliably torpedoed every effort to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. To argue that McCain's Cap-and=Trade proposal is a valid example of "conservative" policy is more than a stretch. The worst part is that McCain isn't even serious about it. When you advocate oil drilling no matter what the environmental cost for the express purpose of reducing the gas price, so that Americans have less of an incentive to conserve energy, then you cannot be serious about reducing GHG emissions.

"The point of disagreement is a not the goal, but how to achieve it."

Before today, I have never heard a conservative declare that "internalizing externalities" was a goal of conservatism. Chances are, when you ask a randomly selected conservative, whether in your neighborhood bar or in Washington, they won't even understand what you are talking about. I think you are in an unusual state of illusion over the reality of the conservative movement in the US. If you really believe in what you say then you have little in common with 99% of conservatives.

says...

*I have never heard a conservative declare that "internalizing externalities" was a goal of conservatism.*

It wouldn't be surprising if you never heard the phrase "rent seeking" or "demand curve" either in newspapers or the bar. I figured basic econ terminology was safe to use on a blog called "Economists View". If you met me in a bar, I'd probably use different terms.

Concerning workers comp: my former employer provided more than the legal minimum. They also provided more pay than the legal minimum. So yes, in their case the law (both "minimum benefits" and "minimum wage") didn't matter. In any case, I'm not objecting to workers comp (1), merely robertdfeinman's silly idea that all jobs should be as safe as office jobs, and that I need him to protect me from my own choices.

(1) I think it makes a fine default. One should have the right to contract it away, but that's a minor issue since virtually no one will actually do so.

[piglet]

"figured basic econ terminology was safe to use on a blog called "Economists View". If you met me in a bar, I'd probably use different terms."

You just don't get it. I said that most *conservatives* wouldn't even understand the concept of internalizing externalities, not only because they are dumb but because it is decidedly not, and has never been, a goal of conservatism to force polluters to pay for the damage they do. This is a concept that is typically held up by liberals and derided (as "evil tax big government") by conservatives.

[Ninja Zombie]

Piglet:

I get it. Anyone who disagrees with you is obviously stupid. That's why I need people like you to protect me from myself. I'm just too dumb to assess the risks of my job, and decide if the tradeoff is worthwhile.

Incidentally, you want more conservatives talking about externalities?

Milton Friedman (http://www.thecorporation.com/media/Friedman.pdf)

Tyler Cowen (http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/PublicGoodsandExternalities.html)

Ayn Rand (vaguely a conservative) describes the regulation of externalities as a legitimate function of government in Atlas Shrugged.

These are a few that spring to mind, I'm sure I can find others.

Incidentally, getting out of the pollution arena, there is also punishing criminals, driving regulations, resource depletion (yes, privatization is a way of internalizing that externality), and restriction of immigration (the claim is that illegal aliens create harmful externalities, e.g. use the ER and don't pay). These are all examples where conservatives believe certain acts have harmful externalities, and want to restrict them in some way.

But I guess it's much easier just to think anyone who disagrees with you is stupid and evil, right? It saves you the trouble of considering their arguments, and possibly changing your views.

[reason]

Ninja Zombie...
No I think you are misunderstanding. We hear what some conservatives say, but then we have seen what conservatives actually do when they are in government. Conservatives seem to like pigou taxes in theory, just not in practice. Your side has a serious credibility problem. This is not just me talking by the way, this is exactly what Paul Krugman has been saying for years, and Krugman has a very good record of having been right.

[piglet]

Evidently this doesn't lead anywhere but let me recall what I said earlier:

"Please, name a single conservative politician who advocates higher gas taxes. Give me a few recent examples of when conservative politicians advocated "let the polluter pay" policies."

I was referring to politicians, not academicians. As reason says, I am talking about what conservatives do when they are in a position of power. Whether Rand and Friedman are even "vaguely conservative" is a matter of debate (Friedman's economic concepts have been appropriated by the conservative movement but only very selectively) but anyway, what counts is the acting and not the talking and we have had ample opportunity to observe conservatives in power these last, well, 40 years.

[John V]

Ninja,

While I find your comments thoughtful and helpful in cutting through the biased misconceptions, Friedman and Cowen are libertarians, not conservatives. I'm a libertarian and would never refer to them or myself as a "conservative". Perhaps you are actually a libertarian who uses the words interchangeably or perhaps you are a conservative with libertarian leanings on economic issues...I don't know. But either way, it's not the same thing....regardless of whether policies seem identical on some issues. Often, the rationale, even if the policy is the same, is totally different. That's just for starters.

As Piglet mentioned above, conservatives have selectively co-opted some of Friedman's ideas. That's fine. But that doesn't make Friedman a conservative. Just like it would be wrong to call a Friedman a Modern Liberal if liberals were to co-opt some of his modern-liberal-friendly ideas on social policy, war and peace, corporate welfare, drug policy and so on. The thing on that last point is that liberals are already saying many of the same things and would rather do so without substantiating their point with Friedman because he is, after all, a classical liberal and a libertarian (and that's just not cool for them, I suppose).

Yes, some conservatives may be classical liberals/libertarians. But that doesn't mean that the opposite is true. If fact, it's not.

[piglet]

It is in fact intereasting which of Friedman's ideas have been championed by Republicans and which have been totally ignored. His squarely liberal ideas, like advocating liberal drug policies and high estate taxes, are not widely discussed by most of his admirers and I wonder why (actually I don't).

On the other hand, few conservatives realize that Friedman's radical free-market ideology, which many of them have embraced, runs counter to the traditional and family values that conservatives are known to preach on Sundays. Earlier generations of conservatives were very much aware of how destructive unfettered capitalism acts on the traditional institutions they espouse. (Just ask the Pope, whose conservative credentials are hardly in question). Krugman isn't alone in observing that parents in GOP-controlled America have far less time for their children than their more social democratic European or Canadian counterparts. So much for "family values". I can only conclude that the word "conservative", at least in the context of US politics, has lost any recognizable meaning. It has become a code word for "preach against gays while licking the ass of Corporate America and make sure the rich get ever richer".

[John V]

"not widely discussed by most of his admirers"

Depends which "admirers" you're talking about. If you're referring to conservatives, well, I'm not surprised either. If you're referring to libertarians, that's not entirely accurate.

The contradiction over capitalism and conservative values is great discussion topic and something covered by Cato's Brink Lindsey in Age of Abundance.

As for whether such a system hurts the ability to be virtuous
and raise a loving, healthy family, I do not agree at all. But, yes, it does make it harder to shelter people and stop them from having more choices and experiences and desires...good and bad.

[Lafayette]

piglet: I don't know whether this is required by law but I suspect that without government regulation, employers will be tempted to skimp on the cost of insurance.

Nothing would surprise me about US labor law, but in Europe it is well understood that the "condition of any labor" is the responsibility of the company.

One does not assume that the risk of performing a task for a company (the consequence of which is remuneration) requires that the individual involved assume also the risks involved.

[Lafayette]

Sterile debate

This thread has gone down a rat-hole it justly deserves, by focusing upon labels.

Some have cited the notion that what a person or a political party does is more important than what labels are applied to it or what it says it will do (towards pandering for votes). This is correct.

Any sufficiently intelligent person understands that what you do is far more important than any classification of one's nature by arbitrary and highly moot labeling.

In other words, the debate is sterile.