Why are Republicans not in open rebellion?

[il Padrino Ute]

Originally Posted by hoyacoug

I think your post is an example of what I mean. We both think government can do some good things. To you, they are good at protection (libertarian?). To me, they are good at more (democrat). To others, they are good at everything (true socialists). To some, they are good at nothing (anarchists).

I would imagine you would agree that the government should be involved in more than just protection, though, if you thought about it. Should they be involved in air traffic control? It isn't protection, though it may be an appendage of it. What about regulating the frequencies of broadcasts? Do you think private parties could ever actually come up with a system that would ensure you wouldn't have overlap on broadcast frequencies? How could they ever stop some third party from infringing on their paid-for airwaves? Would you be annoyed to be watching ESPN only to have a local broadcaster take over the frequency?

What about freeway systems? Traffic control (an appendage of protection, but not nearly as direct as police and fire or military as you give in your example). What about regulation of the markets? Would you actually move to a totally free market? Working in securities litigation now, I can only imagine what people would try to get away with if there were actually no restrictions on what they could or could not do.

What about recording property? Public universities? National parks? Grants to students? What about regulating piracy? Copyrights in general?

People frequently advocate a truly free economy. Our economy couldn't function in a truly free sense. The government protects certain economic rights, and it regulates others. You can argue to what extent they should be involved in regulation, but I doubt if you truly thought about it you would conclude they should be involved in ZERO economic regulation. Think about bankruptcy- it is nothing more than government welfare. And yet, it encourages economic growth by allowing people to take risks they otherwise wouldn't take. Would you start a business if you knew you would go to debtor's prison for failing (knowing about 90% of start-up businesses DO fail)?

Could private parties even begin to address the slavery issue (assuming we had adopted your model going back in time)? How? Wouldn't we have slavery today in the south? What about racial segregation? Should discrimination simply be a matter of freedom of contract?

You give serveral good examples of government duties that I overlooked in my haste reply and several with which I disagree, but I won't get into that because it's an endless debate that could, if misunderstood by either party, could result in the true start of WWIII.

Quite honestly, I would approve of whichever type of government that allows me to keep the most of my earnings. The fact of the matter is that the more government control there is, the less money in my pocket.