Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I've never bought in to the Adam Smith line of thinking when it comes to capitalism and free markets, and I never will. It's too treacherous.
I "buy" into a concept of a free market that seems to differ in many respects to what latter-day Republicans reckon as a free market. You don't claim small government while running the government and steering lucrative contracts and bending the rules in favor of the biggest campaign donors. That is called corporate welfare. That is not a free market. Then you have monstrosities like Wal-Mart and the chain restaurants that follow them, that pretty much create a retail and service sector monopoly in many small markets, with government sitting back and enjoying the guaranteed tax revenue while the citizens send all their money out of their town. That is not a free market, and it's not very "small and local" concerning government. We build, metaphorically, an impermeable wall between big and small in business, with the government being a tool in making sure the big boys stay big and get taken care of if they screw up, and the small ones small and on their own if they're forced out of business.
And this is what some people still have the nuts to call "conservatism."
"If the Republican party would stick to what matters, fiscal issues, they would do a heck of a lot better at the polls. They wouldn't have to be worried about looking like hypocrites every time one of them has an affair, or when (gasp!) one of their unmarried daughters turns out to be gay or pregnant."
I "buy" into a concept of a free market that seems to differ in many respects to what latter-day Republicans reckon as a free market. You don't claim small government while running the government and steering lucrative contracts and bending the rules in favor of the biggest campaign donors. That is called corporate welfare. That is not a free market. Then you have monstrosities like Wal-Mart and the chain restaurants that follow them, that pretty much create a retail and service sector monopoly in many small markets, with government sitting back and enjoying the guaranteed tax revenue while the citizens send all their money out of their town. That is not a free market, and it's not very "small and local" concerning government. We build, metaphorically, an impermeable wall between big and small in business, with the government being a tool in making sure the big boys stay big and get taken care of if they screw up, and the small ones small and on their own if they're forced out of business.
And this is what some people still have the nuts to call "conservatism."
It's "conservatism" because we really don't have an alternative, so, in effect, conservatism can take on the meaning it has now. Like you said, your idea of a free-market differs from what's actually materialized. The government, unfortunately, has been subsidizing this process, and that is what disturbs me the most. They are just as greedy as the corporate conglomerates, so it's a symbiotic relationship, in the end.
From those of us who think neither the dems or 'pubs should be dictating morality, normalcy, or any other social behavior.
Stick with crimes, fiscal policy, foreign policy, and infrastructure. I don't want any other government 'help.'
Which social issues? Are we talking along the lines of gay marriage or abortion, or more along the lines of welfare, healthcare, or war? Personally, I do not believe a party could survive for long on just a fiscal or economic platform. You need a well rounded base, and in order to gain one you need diverse goals and platforms in order to attract supporters.
Lets look at the current GOP - They have a focus more or less on social issues, while more practical issues take a backseat. The primaries and general election showed us that Republican support does not come from a religious base, and those votes still require pandering in order to sway their votes to the Republican side. Case in point - McCain's landslides over Huckabee and Romney, and of course Palin as the VP choice.
Social issues should still remain on the platform, however, they should not be allowed to steal the spotlight.
Originally posted by godsavethequeens
Exactly, which is why I feel government intervention is necessary in that regard. I've never bought in to the Adam Smith line of thinking when it comes to capitalism and free markets, and I never will. It's too treacherous.
I don't know if you've ever read "The Wealth of Nations" but I was surprised at how he's to the left of modern day conservatives on a lot of issues. For instance, he supported progressive taxation and universal public education as a way to correct the potential excesses of the capitalist system. He also believed that companies and the wealthy have responsibilities to the rest of society.
About social issues: I think abortion should stay because I think that's a human rights issue as opposed to social. The rest can go though.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
