This is my obligatory Paul Krugman post. Enjoy.
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/28/opinion/krugman-high-plains-moochers.html?rref=opinion&module=ArrowsNav&contentCollection=Opinion&action=click®ion=FixedLeft&pgtype=article&_r=0
"American conservatism used to have room for fairly sophisticated views
about the role of government. Its economic patron saint used to be
Milton Friedman, who advocated aggressive money-printing,
if necessary, to avoid depressions. It used to include
environmentalists who took pollution seriously but advocated
market-based solutions like cap-and-trade or emissions taxes rather than
rigid rules."
"But today’s conservative leaders were raised on Ayn Rand’s novels and
Ronald Reagan’s speeches (as opposed to his actual governance, which was
a lot more flexible than the legend). They insist that the rights of
private property are absolute, and that government is always the
problem, never the solution."
I agree a lot with what Krugman is saying. There seems to be controversial ideologies on the right. But, I think that a lot of where this mentality comes from is the "it-doesn't-affect-me" theorem. If something doesn't affect another's right of choice, then why worry about it?
ReplyDeleteThis raises some very interesting questions on the 'ownership' of public goods, especially for those goods that does not necessarily require spending money for maintenance. The Bundy issue that Krugman talks about in his article seems to be a sense of self-entitlement for Bundy to the land that he does not necessarily own. I think there is need to have very clear rules that dictate how a public good can be used and the penalties that can result if one misuses that good.
ReplyDelete