A guy walks into a car dealership. The dealer shows him a car that looks nice and assures the guy it is perfect. The guy drives out of the lot and a half mile down the road, the transmission falls out. When the guy goes back to the dealer, the dealer says "caveat emptor man."
Alternate scenario. A guy walks into a car dealership. The dealer shows him a car that looks nice, but standing next to the dealer is an agent from the National Car Consumer Agency who tells the guy he cannot buy the car. "We have determined it is not the right car for you."
I think we all would agree that neither scenario works. However, it seems to me this is the either/or argument we are debating. Progressives oppose the first scenario and conservatives oppose the second yet neither seem to look for the common ground. An overly regulated society leaves no room for innovation and progress, but an underregulated society leads to instability as the financial crisis demonstrated.
A tea-party type person told me he doesn't like taxes, but then how do we pay for roads, police, and national defense? Many Tea-Party-backed candidates have called for the elimination of the Department of Education at a time when we are in an education crisis.
The fundamental question goes back to the Declaration of Independence. We have unalienable rights and "That to secure those rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the governed..." (Thank you Cato Institute). We must have government to protect us and our property, and we determine how much power government should have. The question is simply how much power do we want government to have.
A final point, we can increase or reduce that power as the need requires. During World War II, we gave the Executive Branch increased power, but after Watergate we reduced it.
