Up front, I will assert that this is my own opinion. The perfect economy is one where every individual produced things. Everyone of these things would have to be desired and used. Hopefully, these things would promote a healthy society. In its perfection, everyone would be extremely talented and equally productive. In this economy everyone would invest/save a certain portion of their earnings for growth and emergencies. There would be no reasoning(good or bad) for welfare programs or government intrusions/manipulations. This economy would have no theft, abuse or deciet. In a longterm growth scenario, it would have no need for the interest equation, in the shorterm it might have it for growth investment(production facilities) only. Now for reality. The reality is that humans are not equal and they are not completely honest. These factors have to be dealt with in the economy. Now, how the human element decides what its society will look like will determine how the economy will be structured. In these social ideologies will come cause and effect outcomes. Everyone is/should be aware that there are human factors such as: motivation, contentment, greed, ambition, honesty, decietfullness, physical and mental capacity. The liberal ideology is one that wishes to secure a reasonable bottom, and in some cases, a more equitable society. In some respects this bottom can be considered unachievable for the masses as exampled by growing international debt. Throughout history there have been many different levels of central planning attempts to create this outcome without longterm success. It can also be argued that these central planners by nature are not honest and benign enough to accomplish this task. The conservative ideology is one in which free markets frees ambition as a way to motivate the masses to produce more overall prosperity. One where free will charity provides a reasonable bottom. It has proven to promote better lifestyles through inovation. But, as with any imperfect system it is questionable as to whether it has produced an overall better society. In essence the questions are: Is humanity capable of an healthy overall existence considering its good and bad elements? Accepting that humans need some level of control(laws, punishment, etc.), how much should be implemented to promote the most possible healthy/happy existence? The biggest question IMO is: What is more important in life, a basic controlled lifestyle or freedom to achieve big, moderate contentment or fail badly? As an conservative, I believe in applying the least amount of control over the human spirit as possible. Many left want this from a social issues point of view, yet they wish to control much of humanty in an attempt to achieve their minimal bottom desire. I can live with the idea that not everyone will have everything they want and need to be happy, and in some cases, the ability to sustain their lives. This is a reality under any system. I accept the reality that everyone is different and want different outcomes. I accept the fact that humans are imperfect and cannot be controlled. This leads me to why I want as little control(laws, police, fair regulations) as necessary to level the field, but to not level the outcomes. I do not trust or want a central government/ruler. This is why I support the Constitution in its original intent. That it allowed for the states to experiment in limited human control in competition with other states and not allow the federal government to eliminate this process.
