The Free Market -- A Panacea?
Here's a sampling of 3 common positions/complaints of conservatives on very specific issues. (We can discuss the supposed commonality in the comment field, but I believe them to be fairly common based on my findings.) Because I don't want to risk having my readers say that I've set up a "straw man" (a logical fallacy where one makes up claims and then refutes them), I will accurately quote columnists from Townhall.com, and then former Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney.
(1) "Most Americans look upon the English language as the No. 1 factor that defines our national identity: 'e pluribus unum,' one nation out of many peoples. We want English to be our national, official language, spoken by all who call themselves Americans" (Phyllis Schlafly).
(2) "Outside of the natural sciences, colleges are either more interested in liberal indoctrination than in a liberal arts education, or they enable students to take courses that are so narrowly focused that your child graduate will likely graduate as a cultural and historical illiterate" (Dennis Prager).
(3) "A constitutional amendment defining marriage as between a man and a woman is not a new proposal but rather a codification of longstanding policy and tradition. Civil union language is best left to the legislative process. My hope is the Constitutional Convention will approve an amendment defining marriage as the union of a man and a woman. If we do that, we will have taken an important step toward restoring the people’s voice in their own government" (Mitt Romney).
My response: Stop kvetching. Market forces will work everything out.
(1) If Latin American immigrants aren't assimilating, maybe it's because business owners are hiring immigrants but aren't making sure that they speak English, and maybe it's because customers are supporting such businesses by giving them their money. Making English the official language is government intervention in a natural process that has worked itself out for centuries. (And please note: "E pluribus unum" is Latin. Let me be the first to say that if "E pluribus unum" is what defines Americans, we are all Latin Americans.)
(2) If American universities are so liberal (or so inadequate), let their customers (American families) decide which ones they are going to pay to teach their kids. If a notably liberal university loses customers, maybe it will change its tune.
(3) Let me propose a free market solution: If a pastor, rabbi, what have you, has a policy of performing gay marriages, let the straight couples choose different people to perform their own marriages. Soon, those same-sex-marriage-performers will go broke from losing straight couples, and they'll change their tune. Having the government expedite this process is unnecessary government intervention and infringement upon the right of pastors to lose business! They should be punished by going broke for performing such aberrational/abominable marriages, in this, a country that endorses Judeo-Christian values.
_____________________
Is the free market a panacea, a cure-all? I certainly don't believe so, but I can argue so. Let me say here: If conservatives believe so strongly and so unequivocally in the free market, they should think and write as if they do. And if I've demonstrated that conservatives don't love the free market unconditionally, maybe they should stop calling government intervention "socialism" all the time.
And if they really believe in the free market, they shouldn't vote for John McCain. Here he is proposing that the government spend $300 million as "prize" money for the person that invents a battery that will solve the energy crisis. Why not let the free market work this out, McCain? (Like it did years ago on this very same issue).
(1) "Most Americans look upon the English language as the No. 1 factor that defines our national identity: 'e pluribus unum,' one nation out of many peoples. We want English to be our national, official language, spoken by all who call themselves Americans" (Phyllis Schlafly).
(2) "Outside of the natural sciences, colleges are either more interested in liberal indoctrination than in a liberal arts education, or they enable students to take courses that are so narrowly focused that your child graduate will likely graduate as a cultural and historical illiterate" (Dennis Prager).
(3) "A constitutional amendment defining marriage as between a man and a woman is not a new proposal but rather a codification of longstanding policy and tradition. Civil union language is best left to the legislative process. My hope is the Constitutional Convention will approve an amendment defining marriage as the union of a man and a woman. If we do that, we will have taken an important step toward restoring the people’s voice in their own government" (Mitt Romney).
My response: Stop kvetching. Market forces will work everything out.
(1) If Latin American immigrants aren't assimilating, maybe it's because business owners are hiring immigrants but aren't making sure that they speak English, and maybe it's because customers are supporting such businesses by giving them their money. Making English the official language is government intervention in a natural process that has worked itself out for centuries. (And please note: "E pluribus unum" is Latin. Let me be the first to say that if "E pluribus unum" is what defines Americans, we are all Latin Americans.)
(2) If American universities are so liberal (or so inadequate), let their customers (American families) decide which ones they are going to pay to teach their kids. If a notably liberal university loses customers, maybe it will change its tune.
(3) Let me propose a free market solution: If a pastor, rabbi, what have you, has a policy of performing gay marriages, let the straight couples choose different people to perform their own marriages. Soon, those same-sex-marriage-performers will go broke from losing straight couples, and they'll change their tune. Having the government expedite this process is unnecessary government intervention and infringement upon the right of pastors to lose business! They should be punished by going broke for performing such aberrational/abominable marriages, in this, a country that endorses Judeo-Christian values.
_____________________
Is the free market a panacea, a cure-all? I certainly don't believe so, but I can argue so. Let me say here: If conservatives believe so strongly and so unequivocally in the free market, they should think and write as if they do. And if I've demonstrated that conservatives don't love the free market unconditionally, maybe they should stop calling government intervention "socialism" all the time.
And if they really believe in the free market, they shouldn't vote for John McCain. Here he is proposing that the government spend $300 million as "prize" money for the person that invents a battery that will solve the energy crisis. Why not let the free market work this out, McCain? (Like it did years ago on this very same issue).
posted by I, the Progressive Jew at
7:00 AM
7 Comments:
Wow! We agree (sort of). I am shocked. I totally agree with some of your message.
1. Yep, let the market decide. We don't need a national language. All government pamphlets, etc... should be printed in the language that greater than 50% of the country speaks. Period. Whether that is English, Spanish, or Cherokee is unimportant. Let advocates reprint them with their grant money if they want. In all honesty, no one would sincerely suggest that Obama is in favor of market forces controlling these issues. Perhaps there is not much distance between McCain and Obama, but the distance between a congress that has no dissenting voice and a veto is an enormous gulf. Additionally, be honest: one of these men was selling drugs while the other one was in a POW camp. By sheer virtue, McCain is the superior candidate.
2. Most statistics suggest liberals have a virtual monopoly on college campuses. Which universities are conservative in your mind? I got my degree from an ivy league Christian university, and most of my professors had a pronounced leftwing bias. I would further suggest that parents do not necessarily choose a school for their children anymore. I suspect that market forces will also solve this, though at a frightening cost to our nation. The United States is famous internationally for fostering stupid children. To apply for a position in a foreign nation as a US citizen is to be inherently disadvantaged. If the US enhances immigration, legal or otherwise, it seems a consistent prediction that our children will be competing for fewer jobs with less education. Obviously, that will create an enormous problem with our economy. It behoves us to look at the fact that homeschooled children test better than private school students, who test better than public school students on standardized tests. It should be noted that ALL of our students statistically test below most other nations, though homeschooled students are competitive. Homeschoolers are less likely than private school teachers to be credentialled. Private school teachers are less likely than public school teachers to be credentialled. It would seem apparent that there is an enormous problem with credentialling and education of our teachers. If you want to take on a big business, try taking on the teachers unions. Do so at your own peril.
3. The problem is FAR more complicated than you present. I am one of the few folks who believe that government doesn't have the right to define marriage. Our government has no right to even be involved with this. Currently people who refuse to be involved with gay marriages for reasons of conscience are being sued and fined. http://www.alliancedefensefund.org/news/pressrelease.aspx?cid=4467
http://www.alliancedefensefund.org/news/pressrelease.aspx?cid=4218
The new state ordinances regarding homosexuality and discrimination in many states would not allow a Christian bookstore or a Christian daycare to deny a job to a homosexual. That is the reason you will find most of the religious community unified hoping for an amendment: it protects pastors and ministries at every level. You might believe the constitution already does that? Tell that to the folks involved in the above lawsuits.
Overall, I was being facetious, trying to point out that conservatives often don't argue based on their principle of free market economics. I personally don't believe half of what I said.
1. I'm not going to criticize John McCain so bluntly here, but do some research and find out what he did behind his wife's back (who, I might mention, was still in ongoing treatment following a car crash years prior) just before their 1980 divorce. You should not argue for a candidate based on what happened in their personal lives 40 years ago (or 60 in the case of McCain). More recently, fine, but not when they were immature teenagers. And wasn't Obama 10-ish when McCain was in the POW camp? I'd be impressed if he was selling drugs then.
2. I strongly believe that if teachers' unions did not exist, there wouldn't be nearly as many people interested in teaching at public schools, especially in the inner city. And the credential process is largely dictated by school boards and districts, not unions (I know personally).
Liberty University is conservative, in my mind. Chapman--through its faculty and guest speakers--is conservative-leaning, in my mind. Conservatives complaining about liberal universities is as absurd to liberals as when liberals complain about "big oil" (which conservatives often find absurd). If you say that market forces will work this out, but "at a frightening cost to our nation," what should be done to minimize the cost? Government intervention to regulate what professors' beliefs are? There are rules about who can receive public funding, and universities allow military recruitment on campus. What else do they need to do? We shouldn't have government bureaucracy dictate to private and public universities what beliefs their professors should hold.
3. I know the situation is immensely more complicated. Nonetheless, I find it peculiar that conservatives often espouse government getting involved--a government that even Dennis Prager says should be secular--when Judeo-Christian values are concerned, like straight rights, the rights of fetuses, publicly-mandated school prayer, etc.
However, what I do believe can be solved using a free market approach is "media bias." We can acknowledge that newspapers and television news stations might, on the whole, be more liberal because their employees are more liberal. We can also acknowledge that on every channel operated by the top 5 commercial radio station owners, 91% of programming is conservative while 9% is progressive. Why is there such an imbalance? Because people want to hear conservatives on the radio, and they want to see and read neutral-to-liberal people on TV and in the newspapers, respectively. If people have such a problem, they should boycott the media outlets they do not like. Ever think of boycotting the Olympics because NBC, the "liberal" station, has a monopoly on Olympic coverage? I certainly won't, but you're more than welcome to.
Nice response! See? We can debate without killing each other.
I did realize you were being sarcastic, but surely you see merit to your non-straw man positions?
1. Senator Obama hasn't done that much since he was a teen to be judged by, but let's indeed look at his record as a community organizer. He was never, to my knowledge, an unpaid volunteer for his country, was he? He has no military service. My understanding is that roughly 70 percent of the housing that he advocated for has been administrated by people he worked with in his law firm. More than 70 percent of the housing he worked for has been condemned. http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2008/06/27/grim_proving_ground_for_obamas_housing_policy/?page=full
Not such an awesome record, I think. His worldview seems to dictate (as yours does) that government intervention can fix anything, but the reality has been that government, even in his limited experience, has only destroyed what it attempts to correct.
2. So, it is your contention that if we change the credential system teachers' unions will not become involved? I think that's an absurd contention. Before the teachers' unions, young men and women were often abused in teaching positions. Thus, it is only fair to state that as most unions, teachers' unions started with the best of intentions. Today, the best organized school choices are in private schools, where the majority of teachers are NOT represented by unions. I know many who have opted to go to private schools where they will be paid less, in most cases far less, than in public schools. If we were judging merely by congregate numbers, the teachers who are not represented by unions are the better performers in standardized tests. Contrary to what you seem to suggest, there are many private schools in inner cities that are consistently out-performing their public school counter parts. They typically have the better teachers, also.
Nope, remember, although I am not a Republican, I AM a conservative. I do not believe government should be in the indoctrination business. I can't help but notice that government intervention is the only solution you can muster here. What about government withdrawal? What if we eliminate government subsidy of colleges altogether? I include in my suggestion the zillion or so research projects of dubious necessity that basically fund obscure departments in many universities. Having worked at a major university, I can tell you that many people on university staffs exist merely to fufill the whims of various interest groups. What could we do to the economy if we cut those people loose and they all started small businesses? What would happen if many of our university professors had to justify their existence to a CFO? BTW: it's too late to stop this trend. The perception that students in the US are badly educated is far too widespread. Time travel would be SO useful here.
3. We are in total agreement, though the party to which you espouse your allegiance disagrees with you. Media bias is not a new invention. To insinuate that the writer can not allow their biases to impact their writing is to suggest that we could use programs to report the news. Then, we'd only be subjected to the programmer's biases. Pelosi has stated on the record that she intends to bring the "fairness doctrine" to the floor if there is a Democratic President/Congress. Doesn't that sort of destroy your concept of free market thought within the Democratic party? This is obviously aimed at shutting down an alternate viewpoint as it would be narrowly focused at talk radio. It seems clear to me that this will also backfire over time, but at what cost to the opposition? Clearly, listening to alternate opinion is not at the top of the liberal agenda. This screams totalitarian regime. First, get a majority, then shut down the minority opinion using whatever tools are at your discretion. Soon, people will fear opposing you. Boom: dark ages.
To which party did I espouse my allegiance?
"So, it is your contention that if we change the credential system teachers' unions will not become involved? I think that's an absurd contention."
No, I didn't anything of the sort; I certainly didn't say that unions were involved in the credential process, or that they would die if the credential system were fixed. They are separate aspects of the teaching business. I was merely responding to your claim that the two were associated: "It would seem apparent that there is an enormous problem with credentialling and education of our teachers. If you want to take on a big business, try taking on the teachers unions. Do so at your own peril." If I had a problem with the credential process, I would be "taking on" the school board and district, not the unions.
Because unions exist, public school teachers can most effectively voice their opinions about wage cuts, excessive layoffs, and, yes, even a lack of funding for their students. The credential process is flawed, and so are unions, but I think both have done plenty of good.
Another thing you misinterpreted: "His worldview seems to dictate (as yours does) that government intervention can fix anything, but the reality has been that government, even in his limited experience, has only destroyed what it attempts to correct."
I think the government can fix much, not anything, and only if those in charge are responsible, have the judgment to lead, and are generally acting in keeping with their values (e.g., they don't accept bribes).
"...the reality has been that government... has only destroyed what it attempts to correct." Really? It has "only destroyed" what it tries to fix? Every single time? I can say right here that if it were not for FDR and the New Deal, I would be broke today. The FDIC has been one of the greatest innovations in government, because when people believe their investments at banks are compromised, they are too quick to panic and withdraw their money. The FDIC has proven to alleviate that situation by assuring people that their money is safe.
And nothing Pelosi says will "destroy" my "free market thought within the Democratic party" because I never said I really believed in one, and I didn't say that I associate an unequivocal belief in the free market with the Democratic party. I'm capable of articulating thoughts and opinions on my own that, believe it or not, don't coincide with what key Democrats have said.
"This screams totalitarian regime. First, get a majority, then shut down the minority opinion using whatever tools are at your discretion. Soon, people will fear opposing you. Boom: dark ages." First, this is a logical fallacy (see "slippery slope" in an earlier post on Prager). Second, if you really think that Democrats can institute a totalitarian rule over the American people, then I'm sorry to say that you must not have very much faith in this country, its values, and the power of its citizens to combat illegitimate rule. The outrageous statement you made here is a reflection on how you perceive American citizens as a whole (that they'll simply put up with attempts at totalitarianism) rather than how you perceive Democrats.
Thank you for the debate. I think we've come to a point where I have to spend a bit of time running a business this week. You are a fair debater, but you seem to pinpoint things you can fight over rather than addressing the macro issue. Is that because you only notice the smaller points or because you are unable to debate the larger issues?
"So, it is your contention that if we change the credential system teachers' unions will not become involved? I think that's an absurd contention."
No, I didn't anything of the sort; I certainly didn't say that unions were involved in the credential process, or that they would die if the credential system were fixed. They are separate aspects of the teaching business.
Apparently, you either misread this or have chosen not to respond. In your mind, the teaching unions would not demand a seat at the table during a national decision to change local teaching credentialling substantially? Really?
I strongly believe that if teachers' unions did not exist, there wouldn't be nearly as many people interested in teaching at public schools, especially in the inner city.
Perhaps I did read this incorrectly. I, in turn, pointed out that the best teachers are not in the public school system, regardless of union intervention. Your argument isn't that the best teachers continue to teach because of the unions, rather that the worst teachers might leave the school system if it weren't for the unions? I agree. Your argument is that this is a bad thing. Mine is that it would be a great thing. Excuse the misunderstanding please.
So, the last example of a successful government program you can think of was from the Roosevelt administration? I think you agree with me more than you want to admit. As for FDIC, what is the last major bank that failed in the US? Are they just amazing businesses that never fail? Even with the recent housing issues, zero natinal bank chain failures. If there are no consequences for failed policies, people will continue failed policies.
A few years ago, I read several times that the possibility of the fairness doctrine being dusted off and used again was a "slippery slope" argument. Others have also said that the possibility of people being fined for opposing homosexual marriage was a "slippery slope" argument. You must be a student, or have recently been a student. Referring to a logical fallacy in no way can be considered a response to the body of an argument. These technicalities are superficial and semantic.
I also don't have time to fully respond to everything you just said, but thanks for visiting the blog and I hope you keep reading (and commenting).
Generally speaking, I debate small issues because, frankly, it's easier. In my view, as you can see from my posts on the generalizations Dennis Prager has made, I can most effectively nitpick outrageous claims by using detailed and focused refutations.
"Your argument isn't that the best teachers continue to teach because of the unions, rather that the worst teachers might leave the school system if it weren't for the unions? I agree. Your argument is that this is a bad thing. Mine is that it would be a great thing. Excuse the misunderstanding please."
No. My argument was that the benefits of union membership make sure that educated Americans don't immediately poopoo the possibility of working at a public school. We need them. Unions are good, even though they also ensure that lousy tenured teachers aren't fired.
And my claim that I would be broke if it were not for the FDIC is not a philosophically abstract one. I would literally have no savings. The FDIC protected my (ass)ets at IndyMac in July, and they've retained IndyMac's original interest rate so that I and others feel no need to withdraw all of our deposits (thus preventing the panic from becoming even worse and discouraging corporate investment). The same with my grandmother's retirement savings at IndyMac. You think that if the FDIC did not exist, I would have learned an economics lesson? Yeah, maybe... if by a "lesson" we mean that I should shove my money underneath the mattress rather than putting it in a bank where that bank can lend it out to investors and stimulate the economy. IndyMac engaged in failed lending policies, but my choice to save and deposit money was far from a failed policy. America would not be the prosperous superpower it is today if it were not for Americans who save, and those Americans should not be punished (or led to panic) because a bank or two collapses.
And your pointing out my obsession with identifying logical fallacies totally ignored the second part of my argument about the American character (thus "in no way can [it] be considered a response to the body of [my] argument").
:) So we're even?
Unfortunately, you get all 3 issues wrong.
1. The government can set conditions for coming here. Learning English should be one of them.
And with the way the government has it set up right now, the market CANNOT fix the problem. It is not legal to refuse to hire a person because they don't speak English as a primary language.
Strike 1.
2. Much of this problem is governmental in nature too. By assuring funding for universities, the government accidentally creates such unintended consequences.
3. Marriage is the official recognizing of a union by the government. Asking the government to step out of this is assinine.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home