Relevant Conservatism in the Internet Era

This article will take approx 2 minutes to read.

As a conservative who is also supporting Barack Obama (Yes We Can) this fall, I’m fascinated watching the efforts both campaigns are making to reach out to an internet savvy Generation Y. With mixed results, mind you.

John McCain has been flogged for his gaffes surrounding the internet. Phrases likes, “I’m aware of the internet” are not gaining any points in the arena of internet geek public opinion. It is clear that Barack Obama is winning this critical demographic of 18-35 year olds with a grass roots campaign that encourages small several dollar donations from average web users and that the McCain campaign is desperate to appear relevant in their online outreach efforts.

However, it is not just McCain’s campaign. The Republican National Committee is going to its own great lengths to produce the appearance of relevancy in a hostile internet environment that is largely committed to the Democratic base.

Such was the effort of the RNC’s latest viral marketing campaign directed toward the Facebook generation. BarackBook is a spoof on the popular Facebook site and includes videos, a “MyFriends” section highlighting several “friends” of Obama involved in organized crime, political corruption and the often antagonized capitalistic market. The “news feed” uses typical Facebook prose to highlight these friends activities, “Barack Obama and Antoin “Tony” Rezko are now friends with Allison Davis“.

Picture 7.png

The problem is as it always is. This marketing attempt is leveraged toward a demographic that does not believe what the Republicans have to say. They’ve feel like they have been lied to for at least 8 years and maybe 15 if you go back to 1994 when the Republicans took over Congress.

Obama’s appeal comes from a desire for change. Techies are already disillusioned by the current administration. By throwing in real and relevant issues to the technology community, such as Ted Stevens “false statements” charges, the cost of energy, the inability to secure H1B Visas for foreign engineers (many who are more brilliant than American engineers), the high cost of energy needed to power massive server farms that keep us online, a “too-little, too-late” government involvement in the mortgage scandal that is forcing people out of work and creating a shortage of job opportunities in the tech space as well as the weak dollar that makes it difficult for American internet companies to do international internet business has created an environment where the internet technology world is hostile toward GOP, laissez-faire, status quo policies.

Republican efforts to appeal to a technology audience are encouraged, but should not be expected to change sentiment overnight. A return to traditional conservative roots where opportunities are provided for the willing and able, government removing themselves as much as possible from the lives of the citizens, and barriers to technology innovation lowered (tax incentives for innovation) would play well over time with the technology crowd. Participation in the internet space on blogs (with comments enabled and dialogue in play) on social networks like Facebook (not just hands off Facebook groups) would go a long way.

I’m not a Republican. I left the Republican party several years ago as it became clear the party left me. I am a conservative and see a real need for real change. I mean, throw out everything we know and rebuild kind of change. The kind of change that keeps conservatism relevant in 2008 and going into the next decade.

Comments

  1. Rayosun says

    Aaron, What does “conservatism” mean to you? Most people haven’t thought enough about the extremely important terminology of liberal vs. conservative to really know what they or anybody else means when they use those terms. I’ve given the matter lots of thought and define what I mean (and what I think they have meant over the centuries) at http://LiberalsLikeChrist.Org/definitions . I honestly think it will be worth your while.

  2. Rayosun says

    Aaron, What does “conservatism” mean to you? Most people haven’t thought enough about the extremely important terminology of liberal vs. conservative to really know what they or anybody else means when they use those terms. I’ve given the matter lots of thought and define what I mean (and what I think they have meant over the centuries) at http://LiberalsLikeChrist.Org/definitions . I honestly think it will be worth your while.

  3. Rayosun says

    Aaron, What does “conservatism” mean to you? Most people haven’t thought enough about the extremely important terminology of liberal vs. conservative to really know what they or anybody else means when they use those terms. I’ve given the matter lots of thought and define what I mean (and what I think they have meant over the centuries) at http://LiberalsLikeChrist.Org/definitions . I honestly think it will be worth your while.

  4. Rayosun says

    Aaron, What does “conservatism” mean to you? Most people haven’t thought enough about the extremely important terminology of liberal vs. conservative to really know what they or anybody else means when they use those terms. I’ve given the matter lots of thought and define what I mean (and what I think they have meant over the centuries) at http://LiberalsLikeChrist.Org/definitions . I honestly think it will be worth your while.

  5. Rayosun says

    Aaron, What does “conservatism” mean to you? Most people haven’t thought enough about the extremely important terminology of liberal vs. conservative to really know what they or anybody else means when they use those terms. I’ve given the matter lots of thought and define what I mean (and what I think they have meant over the centuries) at http://LiberalsLikeChrist.Org/definitions . I honestly think it will be worth your while.

  6. Rayosun says

    Aaron, What does “conservatism” mean to you? Most people haven’t thought enough about the extremely important terminology of liberal vs. conservative to really know what they or anybody else means when they use those terms. I’ve given the matter lots of thought and define what I mean (and what I think they have meant over the centuries) at http://LiberalsLikeChrist.Org/definitions . I honestly think it will be worth your while.

  7. Rayosun says

    Aaron, What does “conservatism” mean to you? Most people haven’t thought enough about the extremely important terminology of liberal vs. conservative to really know what they or anybody else means when they use those terms. I’ve given the matter lots of thought and define what I mean (and what I think they have meant over the centuries) at http://LiberalsLikeChrist.Org/definitions . I honestly think it will be worth your while.

  8. says

    I think the definition of conservative is lost on most, so I agree with thatthought. In a nutshell, a true conservative (or a paleo-conservative, if youwill) believes:1) The federal government should not meddle in the affairs of State andlocal government.2) A slightly-regulated private sector will always do better in science andinnovation than a highly-regulated private sector3) War should only be waged if declared under Constitutional provisions4) The United States was not meant to exist as an Imperialistic entity(non-intervention)5) Science and Medicine can be advanced through tax incentives and thatgenerally higher taxes serve only to prop up a centrally powerful governmentHonestly though, discussing platform issues is not really central to thediscussion brought up in this post.

  9. says

    I think the definition of conservative is lost on most, so I agree with thatthought. In a nutshell, a true conservative (or a paleo-conservative, if youwill) believes:1) The federal government should not meddle in the affairs of State andlocal government.2) A slightly-regulated private sector will always do better in science andinnovation than a highly-regulated private sector3) War should only be waged if declared under Constitutional provisions4) The United States was not meant to exist as an Imperialistic entity(non-intervention)5) Science and Medicine can be advanced through tax incentives and thatgenerally higher taxes serve only to prop up a centrally powerful governmentHonestly though, discussing platform issues is not really central to thediscussion brought up in this post.

  10. says

    I think the definition of conservative is lost on most, so I agree with thatthought. In a nutshell, a true conservative (or a paleo-conservative, if youwill) believes:1) The federal government should not meddle in the affairs of State andlocal government.2) A slightly-regulated private sector will always do better in science andinnovation than a highly-regulated private sector3) War should only be waged if declared under Constitutional provisions4) The United States was not meant to exist as an Imperialistic entity(non-intervention)5) Science and Medicine can be advanced through tax incentives and thatgenerally higher taxes serve only to prop up a centrally powerful governmentHonestly though, discussing platform issues is not really central to thediscussion brought up in this post.

  11. says

    I think the definition of conservative is lost on most, so I agree with thatthought. In a nutshell, a true conservative (or a paleo-conservative, if youwill) believes:1) The federal government should not meddle in the affairs of State andlocal government.2) A slightly-regulated private sector will always do better in science andinnovation than a highly-regulated private sector3) War should only be waged if declared under Constitutional provisions4) The United States was not meant to exist as an Imperialistic entity(non-intervention)5) Science and Medicine can be advanced through tax incentives and thatgenerally higher taxes serve only to prop up a centrally powerful governmentHonestly though, discussing platform issues is not really central to thediscussion brought up in this post.

  12. says

    I think the definition of conservative is lost on most, so I agree with thatthought. In a nutshell, a true conservative (or a paleo-conservative, if youwill) believes:1) The federal government should not meddle in the affairs of State andlocal government.2) A slightly-regulated private sector will always do better in science andinnovation than a highly-regulated private sector3) War should only be waged if declared under Constitutional provisions4) The United States was not meant to exist as an Imperialistic entity(non-intervention)5) Science and Medicine can be advanced through tax incentives and thatgenerally higher taxes serve only to prop up a centrally powerful governmentHonestly though, discussing platform issues is not really central to thediscussion brought up in this post.

  13. says

    I think the definition of conservative is lost on most, so I agree with thatthought. In a nutshell, a true conservative (or a paleo-conservative, if youwill) believes:1) The federal government should not meddle in the affairs of State andlocal government.2) A slightly-regulated private sector will always do better in science andinnovation than a highly-regulated private sector3) War should only be waged if declared under Constitutional provisions4) The United States was not meant to exist as an Imperialistic entity(non-intervention)5) Science and Medicine can be advanced through tax incentives and thatgenerally higher taxes serve only to prop up a centrally powerful governmentHonestly though, discussing platform issues is not really central to thediscussion brought up in this post.

  14. says

    I think the definition of conservative is lost on most, so I agree with thatthought. In a nutshell, a true conservative (or a paleo-conservative, if youwill) believes:1) The federal government should not meddle in the affairs of State andlocal government.2) A slightly-regulated private sector will always do better in science andinnovation than a highly-regulated private sector3) War should only be waged if declared under Constitutional provisions4) The United States was not meant to exist as an Imperialistic entity(non-intervention)5) Science and Medicine can be advanced through tax incentives and thatgenerally higher taxes serve only to prop up a centrally powerful governmentHonestly though, discussing platform issues is not really central to thediscussion brought up in this post.

  15. says

    Your definition of Conservatism is incongruous. You say you want governemt out of people’s lives, but you want the government to be involved in the mortgage scandal (hint: they are involved… their involvement is the problem). “where opportunities are provided for the willing and able” ? How is that Conservative? If the government steps out of the way, there will be plenty of opportunities in the market. The government doesn’t need to provide them. “barriers to technology innovation lowered (tax incentives for innovation)” ? How about we just get rid of the ridiculous idea of corporate taxes altogether? It’s a stupid concept, and it’s killing our competitiveness in world markets. The idea that the government should tax everyone and then “incentivize” the businesses they like by providing tax breaks is anti-Conservative. It’s a recipe for corruption. This is the stuff that makes the Ted Stevens of the world.Here is how Conservatism can help me:Lower or eliminate personal income taxesEliminate corporate income taxesEliminate tarrifs on everythingRefuse to tax the InternetCommit to a more open government, where information is freely available (on the Internet would be nice), and secrecy is criminalizedStay away from the Kyoto Protocol and other expensive displays of meaningless environmental showmanshipStop trying to run the world on my dimeIn other words, more freedom, more openness. Trust in the market, trust in the individual. Move away from a monolithic government shrouded in secrecy.

  16. says

    Your definition of Conservatism is incongruous. You say you want governemt out of people’s lives, but you want the government to be involved in the mortgage scandal (hint: they are involved… their involvement is the problem). “where opportunities are provided for the willing and able” ? How is that Conservative? If the government steps out of the way, there will be plenty of opportunities in the market. The government doesn’t need to provide them. “barriers to technology innovation lowered (tax incentives for innovation)” ? How about we just get rid of the ridiculous idea of corporate taxes altogether? It’s a stupid concept, and it’s killing our competitiveness in world markets. The idea that the government should tax everyone and then “incentivize” the businesses they like by providing tax breaks is anti-Conservative. It’s a recipe for corruption. This is the stuff that makes the Ted Stevens of the world.Here is how Conservatism can help me:Lower or eliminate personal income taxesEliminate corporate income taxesEliminate tarrifs on everythingRefuse to tax the InternetCommit to a more open government, where information is freely available (on the Internet would be nice), and secrecy is criminalizedStay away from the Kyoto Protocol and other expensive displays of meaningless environmental showmanshipStop trying to run the world on my dimeIn other words, more freedom, more openness. Trust in the market, trust in the individual. Move away from a monolithic government shrouded in secrecy.

  17. says

    Your definition of Conservatism is incongruous. You say you want governemt out of people’s lives, but you want the government to be involved in the mortgage scandal (hint: they are involved… their involvement is the problem). “where opportunities are provided for the willing and able” ? How is that Conservative? If the government steps out of the way, there will be plenty of opportunities in the market. The government doesn’t need to provide them. “barriers to technology innovation lowered (tax incentives for innovation)” ? How about we just get rid of the ridiculous idea of corporate taxes altogether? It’s a stupid concept, and it’s killing our competitiveness in world markets. The idea that the government should tax everyone and then “incentivize” the businesses they like by providing tax breaks is anti-Conservative. It’s a recipe for corruption. This is the stuff that makes the Ted Stevens of the world.Here is how Conservatism can help me:Lower or eliminate personal income taxesEliminate corporate income taxesEliminate tarrifs on everythingRefuse to tax the InternetCommit to a more open government, where information is freely available (on the Internet would be nice), and secrecy is criminalizedStay away from the Kyoto Protocol and other expensive displays of meaningless environmental showmanshipStop trying to run the world on my dimeIn other words, more freedom, more openness. Trust in the market, trust in the individual. Move away from a monolithic government shrouded in secrecy.

  18. says

    Your definition of Conservatism is incongruous. You say you want governemt out of people’s lives, but you want the government to be involved in the mortgage scandal (hint: they are involved… their involvement is the problem). “where opportunities are provided for the willing and able” ? How is that Conservative? If the government steps out of the way, there will be plenty of opportunities in the market. The government doesn’t need to provide them. “barriers to technology innovation lowered (tax incentives for innovation)” ? How about we just get rid of the ridiculous idea of corporate taxes altogether? It’s a stupid concept, and it’s killing our competitiveness in world markets. The idea that the government should tax everyone and then “incentivize” the businesses they like by providing tax breaks is anti-Conservative. It’s a recipe for corruption. This is the stuff that makes the Ted Stevens of the world.Here is how Conservatism can help me:Lower or eliminate personal income taxesEliminate corporate income taxesEliminate tarrifs on everythingRefuse to tax the InternetCommit to a more open government, where information is freely available (on the Internet would be nice), and secrecy is criminalizedStay away from the Kyoto Protocol and other expensive displays of meaningless environmental showmanshipStop trying to run the world on my dimeIn other words, more freedom, more openness. Trust in the market, trust in the individual. Move away from a monolithic government shrouded in secrecy.

  19. says

    Your definition of Conservatism is incongruous. You say you want governemt out of people’s lives, but you want the government to be involved in the mortgage scandal (hint: they are involved… their involvement is the problem). “where opportunities are provided for the willing and able” ? How is that Conservative? If the government steps out of the way, there will be plenty of opportunities in the market. The government doesn’t need to provide them. “barriers to technology innovation lowered (tax incentives for innovation)” ? How about we just get rid of the ridiculous idea of corporate taxes altogether? It’s a stupid concept, and it’s killing our competitiveness in world markets. The idea that the government should tax everyone and then “incentivize” the businesses they like by providing tax breaks is anti-Conservative. It’s a recipe for corruption. This is the stuff that makes the Ted Stevens of the world.Here is how Conservatism can help me:Lower or eliminate personal income taxesEliminate corporate income taxesEliminate tarrifs on everythingRefuse to tax the InternetCommit to a more open government, where information is freely available (on the Internet would be nice), and secrecy is criminalizedStay away from the Kyoto Protocol and other expensive displays of meaningless environmental showmanshipStop trying to run the world on my dimeIn other words, more freedom, more openness. Trust in the market, trust in the individual. Move away from a monolithic government shrouded in secrecy.

  20. says

    Your definition of Conservatism is incongruous. You say you want governemt out of people’s lives, but you want the government to be involved in the mortgage scandal (hint: they are involved… their involvement is the problem). “where opportunities are provided for the willing and able” ? How is that Conservative? If the government steps out of the way, there will be plenty of opportunities in the market. The government doesn’t need to provide them. “barriers to technology innovation lowered (tax incentives for innovation)” ? How about we just get rid of the ridiculous idea of corporate taxes altogether? It’s a stupid concept, and it’s killing our competitiveness in world markets. The idea that the government should tax everyone and then “incentivize” the businesses they like by providing tax breaks is anti-Conservative. It’s a recipe for corruption. This is the stuff that makes the Ted Stevens of the world.Here is how Conservatism can help me:Lower or eliminate personal income taxesEliminate corporate income taxesEliminate tarrifs on everythingRefuse to tax the InternetCommit to a more open government, where information is freely available (on the Internet would be nice), and secrecy is criminalizedStay away from the Kyoto Protocol and other expensive displays of meaningless environmental showmanshipStop trying to run the world on my dimeIn other words, more freedom, more openness. Trust in the market, trust in the individual. Move away from a monolithic government shrouded in secrecy.

  21. says

    Your definition of Conservatism is incongruous. You say you want governemt out of people’s lives, but you want the government to be involved in the mortgage scandal (hint: they are involved… their involvement is the problem). “where opportunities are provided for the willing and able” ? How is that Conservative? If the government steps out of the way, there will be plenty of opportunities in the market. The government doesn’t need to provide them. “barriers to technology innovation lowered (tax incentives for innovation)” ? How about we just get rid of the ridiculous idea of corporate taxes altogether? It’s a stupid concept, and it’s killing our competitiveness in world markets. The idea that the government should tax everyone and then “incentivize” the businesses they like by providing tax breaks is anti-Conservative. It’s a recipe for corruption. This is the stuff that makes the Ted Stevens of the world.Here is how Conservatism can help me:Lower or eliminate personal income taxesEliminate corporate income taxesEliminate tarrifs on everythingRefuse to tax the InternetCommit to a more open government, where information is freely available (on the Internet would be nice), and secrecy is criminalizedStay away from the Kyoto Protocol and other expensive displays of meaningless environmental showmanshipStop trying to run the world on my dimeIn other words, more freedom, more openness. Trust in the market, trust in the individual. Move away from a monolithic government shrouded in secrecy.

  22. says

    “In other words, more freedom, more openness. Trust in the market, trust inthe individual. Move away from a monolithic government shrouded insecrecy.”Mark, trust in the market got us the Freddie Mac, Fannie Mae, IndyMac andnumerous other FDIC bailouts, with more on the horizon.Trust in the market got us Enron.Trust in the market got us Ted Stevens being paid off by private oilcompanies.Trust in the market *is* generally a good thing but there needs to be a copon the beat. Capitalism is good, but as with anything, needs some regulationor it gets out of control.

  23. says

    “In other words, more freedom, more openness. Trust in the market, trust inthe individual. Move away from a monolithic government shrouded insecrecy.”Mark, trust in the market got us the Freddie Mac, Fannie Mae, IndyMac andnumerous other FDIC bailouts, with more on the horizon.Trust in the market got us Enron.Trust in the market got us Ted Stevens being paid off by private oilcompanies.Trust in the market *is* generally a good thing but there needs to be a copon the beat. Capitalism is good, but as with anything, needs some regulationor it gets out of control.

  24. says

    “In other words, more freedom, more openness. Trust in the market, trust inthe individual. Move away from a monolithic government shrouded insecrecy.”Mark, trust in the market got us the Freddie Mac, Fannie Mae, IndyMac andnumerous other FDIC bailouts, with more on the horizon.Trust in the market got us Enron.Trust in the market got us Ted Stevens being paid off by private oilcompanies.Trust in the market *is* generally a good thing but there needs to be a copon the beat. Capitalism is good, but as with anything, needs some regulationor it gets out of control.

  25. says

    “In other words, more freedom, more openness. Trust in the market, trust inthe individual. Move away from a monolithic government shrouded insecrecy.”Mark, trust in the market got us the Freddie Mac, Fannie Mae, IndyMac andnumerous other FDIC bailouts, with more on the horizon.Trust in the market got us Enron.Trust in the market got us Ted Stevens being paid off by private oilcompanies.Trust in the market *is* generally a good thing but there needs to be a copon the beat. Capitalism is good, but as with anything, needs some regulationor it gets out of control.

  26. says

    “In other words, more freedom, more openness. Trust in the market, trust inthe individual. Move away from a monolithic government shrouded insecrecy.”Mark, trust in the market got us the Freddie Mac, Fannie Mae, IndyMac andnumerous other FDIC bailouts, with more on the horizon.Trust in the market got us Enron.Trust in the market got us Ted Stevens being paid off by private oilcompanies.Trust in the market *is* generally a good thing but there needs to be a copon the beat. Capitalism is good, but as with anything, needs some regulationor it gets out of control.

  27. says

    “In other words, more freedom, more openness. Trust in the market, trust inthe individual. Move away from a monolithic government shrouded insecrecy.”Mark, trust in the market got us the Freddie Mac, Fannie Mae, IndyMac andnumerous other FDIC bailouts, with more on the horizon.Trust in the market got us Enron.Trust in the market got us Ted Stevens being paid off by private oilcompanies.Trust in the market *is* generally a good thing but there needs to be a copon the beat. Capitalism is good, but as with anything, needs some regulationor it gets out of control.

  28. says

    “In other words, more freedom, more openness. Trust in the market, trust inthe individual. Move away from a monolithic government shrouded insecrecy.”Mark, trust in the market got us the Freddie Mac, Fannie Mae, IndyMac andnumerous other FDIC bailouts, with more on the horizon.Trust in the market got us Enron.Trust in the market got us Ted Stevens being paid off by private oilcompanies.Trust in the market *is* generally a good thing but there needs to be a copon the beat. Capitalism is good, but as with anything, needs some regulationor it gets out of control.

  29. says

    “Mark, trust in the market got us the Freddie Mac, Fannie Mae, IndyMac andnumerous other FDIC bailouts, with more on the horizon.”Um, Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, and the FDIC are *government corporations*. They have nothing to do with a free market. IndyMac failed, yeah — but failure is part of life, and certainly part of a free market. Failure (or the threat of it) is necessary for competition. Of course, our mortgage market wasn’t and isn’t a free market. It’s propped up by our government — to whom failure comes naturally.Enron activity was illegal, not free market. They’re in jail now. The free market doesn’t make criminality go away.Ted Stevens got fat off of government power, not the free market. If you give people power, they’ll use it, sell it, etc. That’s a statement on the corruptive nature of power — nothing to do with the free market. In a capitalist system, Stevens wouldn’t have any government power worth selling.With the partial exception of IndyMac (partial because their failure is linked to a government-controlled market), you’re talking about criminal behavior, or normal governmental incompetence. Those things don’t need regulation, they need punitive measures and eradication, respectively.

  30. says

    “Mark, trust in the market got us the Freddie Mac, Fannie Mae, IndyMac andnumerous other FDIC bailouts, with more on the horizon.”Um, Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, and the FDIC are *government corporations*. They have nothing to do with a free market. IndyMac failed, yeah — but failure is part of life, and certainly part of a free market. Failure (or the threat of it) is necessary for competition. Of course, our mortgage market wasn’t and isn’t a free market. It’s propped up by our government — to whom failure comes naturally.Enron activity was illegal, not free market. They’re in jail now. The free market doesn’t make criminality go away.Ted Stevens got fat off of government power, not the free market. If you give people power, they’ll use it, sell it, etc. That’s a statement on the corruptive nature of power — nothing to do with the free market. In a capitalist system, Stevens wouldn’t have any government power worth selling.With the partial exception of IndyMac (partial because their failure is linked to a government-controlled market), you’re talking about criminal behavior, or normal governmental incompetence. Those things don’t need regulation, they need punitive measures and eradication, respectively.

  31. says

    “Mark, trust in the market got us the Freddie Mac, Fannie Mae, IndyMac andnumerous other FDIC bailouts, with more on the horizon.”Um, Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, and the FDIC are *government corporations*. They have nothing to do with a free market. IndyMac failed, yeah — but failure is part of life, and certainly part of a free market. Failure (or the threat of it) is necessary for competition. Of course, our mortgage market wasn’t and isn’t a free market. It’s propped up by our government — to whom failure comes naturally.Enron activity was illegal, not free market. They’re in jail now. The free market doesn’t make criminality go away.Ted Stevens got fat off of government power, not the free market. If you give people power, they’ll use it, sell it, etc. That’s a statement on the corruptive nature of power — nothing to do with the free market. In a capitalist system, Stevens wouldn’t have any government power worth selling.With the partial exception of IndyMac (partial because their failure is linked to a government-controlled market), you’re talking about criminal behavior, or normal governmental incompetence. Those things don’t need regulation, they need punitive measures and eradication, respectively.

  32. says

    “Mark, trust in the market got us the Freddie Mac, Fannie Mae, IndyMac andnumerous other FDIC bailouts, with more on the horizon.”Um, Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, and the FDIC are *government corporations*. They have nothing to do with a free market. IndyMac failed, yeah — but failure is part of life, and certainly part of a free market. Failure (or the threat of it) is necessary for competition. Of course, our mortgage market wasn’t and isn’t a free market. It’s propped up by our government — to whom failure comes naturally.Enron activity was illegal, not free market. They’re in jail now. The free market doesn’t make criminality go away.Ted Stevens got fat off of government power, not the free market. If you give people power, they’ll use it, sell it, etc. That’s a statement on the corruptive nature of power — nothing to do with the free market. In a capitalist system, Stevens wouldn’t have any government power worth selling.With the partial exception of IndyMac (partial because their failure is linked to a government-controlled market), you’re talking about criminal behavior, or normal governmental incompetence. Those things don’t need regulation, they need punitive measures and eradication, respectively.

  33. says

    “Mark, trust in the market got us the Freddie Mac, Fannie Mae, IndyMac andnumerous other FDIC bailouts, with more on the horizon.”Um, Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, and the FDIC are *government corporations*. They have nothing to do with a free market. IndyMac failed, yeah — but failure is part of life, and certainly part of a free market. Failure (or the threat of it) is necessary for competition. Of course, our mortgage market wasn’t and isn’t a free market. It’s propped up by our government — to whom failure comes naturally.Enron activity was illegal, not free market. They’re in jail now. The free market doesn’t make criminality go away.Ted Stevens got fat off of government power, not the free market. If you give people power, they’ll use it, sell it, etc. That’s a statement on the corruptive nature of power — nothing to do with the free market. In a capitalist system, Stevens wouldn’t have any government power worth selling.With the partial exception of IndyMac (partial because their failure is linked to a government-controlled market), you’re talking about criminal behavior, or normal governmental incompetence. Those things don’t need regulation, they need punitive measures and eradication, respectively.

  34. says

    “Mark, trust in the market got us the Freddie Mac, Fannie Mae, IndyMac andnumerous other FDIC bailouts, with more on the horizon.”Um, Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, and the FDIC are *government corporations*. They have nothing to do with a free market. IndyMac failed, yeah — but failure is part of life, and certainly part of a free market. Failure (or the threat of it) is necessary for competition. Of course, our mortgage market wasn’t and isn’t a free market. It’s propped up by our government — to whom failure comes naturally.Enron activity was illegal, not free market. They’re in jail now. The free market doesn’t make criminality go away.Ted Stevens got fat off of government power, not the free market. If you give people power, they’ll use it, sell it, etc. That’s a statement on the corruptive nature of power — nothing to do with the free market. In a capitalist system, Stevens wouldn’t have any government power worth selling.With the partial exception of IndyMac (partial because their failure is linked to a government-controlled market), you’re talking about criminal behavior, or normal governmental incompetence. Those things don’t need regulation, they need punitive measures and eradication, respectively.

  35. says

    “Mark, trust in the market got us the Freddie Mac, Fannie Mae, IndyMac andnumerous other FDIC bailouts, with more on the horizon.”Um, Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, and the FDIC are *government corporations*. They have nothing to do with a free market. IndyMac failed, yeah — but failure is part of life, and certainly part of a free market. Failure (or the threat of it) is necessary for competition. Of course, our mortgage market wasn’t and isn’t a free market. It’s propped up by our government — to whom failure comes naturally.Enron activity was illegal, not free market. They’re in jail now. The free market doesn’t make criminality go away.Ted Stevens got fat off of government power, not the free market. If you give people power, they’ll use it, sell it, etc. That’s a statement on the corruptive nature of power — nothing to do with the free market. In a capitalist system, Stevens wouldn’t have any government power worth selling.With the partial exception of IndyMac (partial because their failure is linked to a government-controlled market), you’re talking about criminal behavior, or normal governmental incompetence. Those things don’t need regulation, they need punitive measures and eradication, respectively.

  36. says

    Obviously, we’re arguing semantics but I think it illustrates the point thata free market left to its own devices *will* eventually lead to corruption.And that is what happened in all these cases.By the way, Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae are *not* government. They areprivately held, and partially government funded/subsidized.

  37. says

    Obviously, we’re arguing semantics but I think it illustrates the point thata free market left to its own devices *will* eventually lead to corruption.And that is what happened in all these cases.By the way, Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae are *not* government. They areprivately held, and partially government funded/subsidized.

  38. says

    Obviously, we’re arguing semantics but I think it illustrates the point thata free market left to its own devices *will* eventually lead to corruption.And that is what happened in all these cases.By the way, Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae are *not* government. They areprivately held, and partially government funded/subsidized.

  39. says

    Obviously, we’re arguing semantics but I think it illustrates the point thata free market left to its own devices *will* eventually lead to corruption.And that is what happened in all these cases.By the way, Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae are *not* government. They areprivately held, and partially government funded/subsidized.

  40. says

    Obviously, we’re arguing semantics but I think it illustrates the point thata free market left to its own devices *will* eventually lead to corruption.And that is what happened in all these cases.By the way, Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae are *not* government. They areprivately held, and partially government funded/subsidized.

  41. says

    Obviously, we’re arguing semantics but I think it illustrates the point thata free market left to its own devices *will* eventually lead to corruption.And that is what happened in all these cases.By the way, Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae are *not* government. They areprivately held, and partially government funded/subsidized.

  42. says

    Obviously, we’re arguing semantics but I think it illustrates the point thata free market left to its own devices *will* eventually lead to corruption.And that is what happened in all these cases.By the way, Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae are *not* government. They areprivately held, and partially government funded/subsidized.

  43. says

    They wouldn’t exist if the government hadn’t created them. They’re not part of a free market, and they wouldn’t operate the way they do if they were.Freddie Mac/Fannie Mae aren’t examples of corruption. They’re examples of what happens when the government subsidizes a market that can’t sustain itself. Not everyone can afford a house, but they were giving out loans (with an implicit Federal guarantee, as Government-Sponsored Enterprises) as if everyone was able to.The mortgage situation doesn’t illustrate anything about the free market, because it *isn’t a free market*. It’s a government-subsidized market. That’s not a semantic point. You’re trying to paint free markets as leading to “corruption” and using as an example a non-free market’s government-created bubble and implosion.If someone took on a sub-prime loan that they can no longer afford, that’s no one’s fault but theirs. That’s not corruption — that’s human stupidity. And screw them if they think that I should pay for their financial mistakes. The best service the government could do for them and for the country is to let them lose their houses and not do anything to *reenforce their stupid decisions*.

  44. says

    They wouldn’t exist if the government hadn’t created them. They’re not part of a free market, and they wouldn’t operate the way they do if they were.Freddie Mac/Fannie Mae aren’t examples of corruption. They’re examples of what happens when the government subsidizes a market that can’t sustain itself. Not everyone can afford a house, but they were giving out loans (with an implicit Federal guarantee, as Government-Sponsored Enterprises) as if everyone was able to.The mortgage situation doesn’t illustrate anything about the free market, because it *isn’t a free market*. It’s a government-subsidized market. That’s not a semantic point. You’re trying to paint free markets as leading to “corruption” and using as an example a non-free market’s government-created bubble and implosion.If someone took on a sub-prime loan that they can no longer afford, that’s no one’s fault but theirs. That’s not corruption — that’s human stupidity. And screw them if they think that I should pay for their financial mistakes. The best service the government could do for them and for the country is to let them lose their houses and not do anything to *reenforce their stupid decisions*.

  45. says

    They wouldn’t exist if the government hadn’t created them. They’re not part of a free market, and they wouldn’t operate the way they do if they were.Freddie Mac/Fannie Mae aren’t examples of corruption. They’re examples of what happens when the government subsidizes a market that can’t sustain itself. Not everyone can afford a house, but they were giving out loans (with an implicit Federal guarantee, as Government-Sponsored Enterprises) as if everyone was able to.The mortgage situation doesn’t illustrate anything about the free market, because it *isn’t a free market*. It’s a government-subsidized market. That’s not a semantic point. You’re trying to paint free markets as leading to “corruption” and using as an example a non-free market’s government-created bubble and implosion.If someone took on a sub-prime loan that they can no longer afford, that’s no one’s fault but theirs. That’s not corruption — that’s human stupidity. And screw them if they think that I should pay for their financial mistakes. The best service the government could do for them and for the country is to let them lose their houses and not do anything to *reenforce their stupid decisions*.

  46. says

    They wouldn’t exist if the government hadn’t created them. They’re not part of a free market, and they wouldn’t operate the way they do if they were.Freddie Mac/Fannie Mae aren’t examples of corruption. They’re examples of what happens when the government subsidizes a market that can’t sustain itself. Not everyone can afford a house, but they were giving out loans (with an implicit Federal guarantee, as Government-Sponsored Enterprises) as if everyone was able to.The mortgage situation doesn’t illustrate anything about the free market, because it *isn’t a free market*. It’s a government-subsidized market. That’s not a semantic point. You’re trying to paint free markets as leading to “corruption” and using as an example a non-free market’s government-created bubble and implosion.If someone took on a sub-prime loan that they can no longer afford, that’s no one’s fault but theirs. That’s not corruption — that’s human stupidity. And screw them if they think that I should pay for their financial mistakes. The best service the government could do for them and for the country is to let them lose their houses and not do anything to *reenforce their stupid decisions*.

  47. says

    They wouldn’t exist if the government hadn’t created them. They’re not part of a free market, and they wouldn’t operate the way they do if they were.Freddie Mac/Fannie Mae aren’t examples of corruption. They’re examples of what happens when the government subsidizes a market that can’t sustain itself. Not everyone can afford a house, but they were giving out loans (with an implicit Federal guarantee, as Government-Sponsored Enterprises) as if everyone was able to.The mortgage situation doesn’t illustrate anything about the free market, because it *isn’t a free market*. It’s a government-subsidized market. That’s not a semantic point. You’re trying to paint free markets as leading to “corruption” and using as an example a non-free market’s government-created bubble and implosion.If someone took on a sub-prime loan that they can no longer afford, that’s no one’s fault but theirs. That’s not corruption — that’s human stupidity. And screw them if they think that I should pay for their financial mistakes. The best service the government could do for them and for the country is to let them lose their houses and not do anything to *reenforce their stupid decisions*.

  48. says

    They wouldn’t exist if the government hadn’t created them. They’re not part of a free market, and they wouldn’t operate the way they do if they were.Freddie Mac/Fannie Mae aren’t examples of corruption. They’re examples of what happens when the government subsidizes a market that can’t sustain itself. Not everyone can afford a house, but they were giving out loans (with an implicit Federal guarantee, as Government-Sponsored Enterprises) as if everyone was able to.The mortgage situation doesn’t illustrate anything about the free market, because it *isn’t a free market*. It’s a government-subsidized market. That’s not a semantic point. You’re trying to paint free markets as leading to “corruption” and using as an example a non-free market’s government-created bubble and implosion.If someone took on a sub-prime loan that they can no longer afford, that’s no one’s fault but theirs. That’s not corruption — that’s human stupidity. And screw them if they think that I should pay for their financial mistakes. The best service the government could do for them and for the country is to let them lose their houses and not do anything to *reenforce their stupid decisions*.

  49. says

    They wouldn’t exist if the government hadn’t created them. They’re not part of a free market, and they wouldn’t operate the way they do if they were.Freddie Mac/Fannie Mae aren’t examples of corruption. They’re examples of what happens when the government subsidizes a market that can’t sustain itself. Not everyone can afford a house, but they were giving out loans (with an implicit Federal guarantee, as Government-Sponsored Enterprises) as if everyone was able to.The mortgage situation doesn’t illustrate anything about the free market, because it *isn’t a free market*. It’s a government-subsidized market. That’s not a semantic point. You’re trying to paint free markets as leading to “corruption” and using as an example a non-free market’s government-created bubble and implosion.If someone took on a sub-prime loan that they can no longer afford, that’s no one’s fault but theirs. That’s not corruption — that’s human stupidity. And screw them if they think that I should pay for their financial mistakes. The best service the government could do for them and for the country is to let them lose their houses and not do anything to *reenforce their stupid decisions*.