(e:sbrugger) - I know the difference between Democrats and Liberals - unfortunately, however, liberals have been running roughshod over the Democratic Party, to its detriment. The only Democrats I can think of that resemble the Democrats I loved - JFK era to be precise - are Ben Nelson and Joe Lieberman. My poor dad votes Democrat because he still thinks that Democrats fight for the little guy - thats 30-year old campaign rhetoric.

(e:ejtower) and (e:terry) - you'd be right in saying that a Larson would be thrilled to talk about government and free markets. I'm a junkie when it comes to these topics... just love it. So I hope you don't mind my intrusion.

As usual, my disclaimer - I'm a free market, limited government kind of person.

From the little bit of information that has been provided it seems like you both are interested in a revolution of sorts concerning our environmental future. You both are 100% correct in asserting that this type of change needs to be market based. When it comes to things like energy and transportation nothing gets done unless people demand it. If crude oil, for example, is priced reasonably then people have no interest in doing the right thing environmentally - most Americans aren't activists because they can't afford to be - people want to find the cheapest acceptable stuff that will allow them to live their lives comfortably. If a "green" change is going to happen it has to be feasible economically or else it simply will never get off the ground. Since there will be no draconian governmental oversight, the honus is on the activists and proprietors of the "green" philosophy to make it attractive to the marketplace. Big companies understand this - car companies are producing more and more environmentally friendly cars that rely less on petroleum-based products.

Since (e:terry) mentioned it, I have to mention Wal-Mart. I assume that Mr. T was referring to the recent legislation in Maryland requiring any employer in the state that has more than 10,000 employees to spend 8% of their money on health care for their workers. This is an example of BAD government. Why is that, you ask? Guess how many private employers in the state of Maryland employ more than 10,000 workers? Just one... any guesses on who that might be? This is a direct attempt by the state to regulate (or even harm) Wal-Mart because the state has a social agenda... THAT is why its bad law. Whether or not Wal-Mart does enough for its workers' health care is no business of the state of Maryland (even if you and I think it would be the right thing to do), and the only thing this law is going to guarantee is that there will be no more large scale investment in their state by the largest company in the world. Some may think this kind of regulation is a good thing because they "want to make a statement" but in reality its a bad thing, and imposing a social agenda via legislation on a private business like that can only backfire.

That being said, I'm not totally against regulation in some forms. For example, its a necessity to regulate safety concerns at airports, as well as ensure proper handling of investment dollars via the SEC. The free market system as practiced by the USA is the most successful economic system to have been conceived by humanity - we've generated an extreme amount of wealth in only 140 years time, and previous to that we were really kind of a backwater nation. There is a lot of debate as to whether or not the free market system's contribution to society is adequate but thats a completely different topic. This also ties into my view that government should be limited. Remember, rights are not granted by the state; they are conferred on people by people via representative government. I'm a Constitutional minimalist - in general I think that more authority should be granted to the states. Federal government, in my opinion, should provide for the military and some kind of safety net for the poor and elderly... but thats about where it ends for me. Our nation was originally conceived as a set of collective mini-republics with a set of federal uniform guidance that was minimally intrusive. Things definitely are not that way today.

I've heard the idea before concerning aboloshing government - usually that comes from conservatives! I think thats not practical because organized government is a necessity for a country as complex, wealthy and diverse as ours. Functions of government that we consider to be essential simply have no replacement without government. Organized civlization requires government - it always has, with the potential of a very few exceptions. That being said, I agree in spirit with what (e:ejtower) is getting at - people should be left alone to live their lives how they see fit. Government must reasonably restrict behavior if we want to call ourselves a nation of laws, but in general I'm against any federal legislation that either restricts or gives too much. Government shouldn't interfere against or provide for how people want to live their lives. It should just be a blank slate - however, the problem with that is that you end up with an "anything goes" society that most Americans want no part of. This is where "responsible" government comes in. Drug use should be regulated to an extent, how we behave in public should be regulated, how we conduct business with each other should be regulated, our educational standards should be regulated.