re: Milton Friedman, neoliberalism & modern conservatives

quote:

---

Because as the president he is the leader of by far the largest conservative group in the country?

---

He's not, though. That was MY point. He's the leader of MAGA, which is not a conservative group. And if you mean the Republican Party, there are only one or two national leaders in that group who stick to conservatism either (that's how it got MAGAnetized in the first place.)

quote:

---

I also think you're missing that I also laid out later in the very same comment why he shouldn't be the voice.

---

I didn't miss it, but I also don't recall that it had anything to do with my point, so I didn't address it. I'll go back and double check, but that's how I remember it.

EDIT: Yeah, I remembered it correctly. It had to do with what was popular with the public, which has nothing to do with what Trump's ideology is, unless if you want to talk about the inherent entailment that an emphasis on what people do or don't like is a reflection of his populist nature. If that's what you meant—"Trump shouldn't be the voice of conservatism because he's a populist, not a conservative"—then o.k., but I don't think that's what you meant.

I think—like the vast, vast majority of populists—you think that anyone who is not a Democrat or who doesn't want Democrats elected is automatically a "conservative." That's the way it read to me, anyway.

quote:

---

For example, what do you have in mind when referencing "government alternatives."

---

literally anything other than government intervention.

quote:

---

Government owned or fully funded efforts? Solyndra? Tax & Regulation? Selective funding of private companies?

---

this all sounds like government intervention.

quote:

---

The same question would hold regarding "protecting the environment." Which environment? New Orleans? The US? Global?

---

any or all of the above.

If conservatives are skeptical of government intervention in addressing collective problems, what mechanisms do they believe can actually solve collective-action problems instead?

quote:

---

literally anything other than government intervention.

---

Like what?

quote:

---

If conservatives are skeptical of government intervention

---

Can one be skeptical of the police, yet still resort to call them if someone is trying to break into their home?

Hunting tags for endangered species.

Many progressive environmental groups attempt to ban hunting of endangered animals to protect them. However, if there’s one common trait among hunters who follow rules, it is that they want to keep hunting and pass the hobby down to their children. In places where progressives were successful, hunters that followed rules were replaced entirely with poachers who quickly decimated the populations. The government bodies tasked with protecting animals from poachers lacked the requisite resources to effectively do anything.

Conservatives proposed a different solution: legal but restricted hunting with dedicated hunting seasons and limits on how many animals one could hunt, forcing hunters to purchase tags for the privilege. The revenues from selling the tags then paid for the government’s enforcement and conservation efforts. Virtually everywhere this has been tried, the result was increased populations of those endangered animals over time. Why? Because they became a precious resource for the government to manage rather than just another burden that costed money to sustain. The American alligator is no longer endangered as a result, and this is far from the only example. Similar success stories can be found with fishing as well.

A conservative solution figured out how to monetize a resource and use capitalism to make it sustainable long term rather than allowing the resource to become exhausted via a tragedy of the commons.

quote:

---

Ehhh. It's not as if either of the Bushes were big stalwarts of it.

---

I think the MIC is a example of W drunk on neoliberalism. Military contractors exploded under W.