In so-called social political issues, even the most extreme opposites have some consensus on what is unacceptable. Obviously those things that endanger the lives, rights, and property of others are not accepted. With the rights issue, there is some gray in that some view rights on the side of those who speak and others for those who wish to wall themselves off (obviously we all know which side I'm on in this issue).
But on economic issues, there is no such consensus. While a majority of us do believe in some general regulations that would keep oppression, corruption, systematic and absolute poverty out of our economic system, there seems to be growth in the extremes. And unlike most social extremists, economic extremists have no boundaries. More and more opinion leaders proclaim either all-out, overbearing, robotic socialism or ruthless, cold-blooded, chaotic laissez faire.
The question is where do we see this arbitrary distinction between social and economic issues? Even as a social libertarian, I see need for law and order insofar as to defend us from murder, rape, terror, thievery, and even to provide a consensus on traffic laws (could you imagine if everyone drove according to their own rules- think of a shopping plaza parking lot, only crazier). So why don't economic conservatives see the same dynamics in the economy? Is consigning a person to die through lack of aid at a time of need really different from murder? Is faking numbers to gain a raise and later having to make it up by laying off a bunch of workers somehow not a social crime? Is selling a product that is defective and even capable of killing, or one that is sold through direct lies, socially acceptable?
True, many corporations are taking responsibility these days and doing a better job than government regulation. But would they do it without fear of regulation or without regulations that allow consumers to find out about bad deeds and good deeds and hold corporations accountable? I doubt it. Not with right-wing wackaloons spreading the message that corporations really don't have any responsibilities other than to the bottom line. But I don't think more regulation is the answer. The answer is more social, individual, and corporate responsibility. This is not only made difficult by the usually indicted liberal reforms that take individual responsibility out of the equation, but by a conservative mentality that sees individuals as having no responsibility for others. They only see that in social issues, and generally those tha have more to do with discipline than moral thought.

Well, the problem with government wealth redistribution is that, as it currently stands, it involves government control over an economy. Now, I could become a right-wing ideologue on the matter, but I recognize that there will always be some people who are unable to find work and hence basic material necessities. I don't trust corporations because I see them as governments in miniature. They are as necessary as government but they are equally to be distrusted. A "third way" is therefore necessary. The slow, careful transfer of Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security to non-profits (by the strictest definition of the last term), if it could be accomplished, would pay off the national debt while preserving a safety net for the poor, all without decreasing economic incentives. The national debt is inflationary and prevents both government anti-poverty programs and tax cuts from having any positive effects, and high taxes are always a weight on an economy.
Perhaps the main reason for my "right turn" is my increased respect for social freedom. All social freedoms, whether traditionally considered "left-wing", such as humane criminal justice and gay rights, or "right-wing", such as the right to gun ownership or the right to use tobacco products, require fiscal independence from the government. Without it, government control of the economy, especially when coupled with a national debt, becomes the ultimate form of "economic duress". One notable example is that in Sweden, to keep the economy afloat, both men and women are forbidden under criminal penalties from being homemakers.

By the way, I like your new look, Force.
To me the private and public sectors are two different versions of the same thing, that is aimed toward the same end. And I think we should retain the flexibility to use either tool when necessary.
The trouble is that when people talk about all the money freed up by taxes going to some public good- that will only occur if people with substantial assests take some responsibility. In the past that has not been the case to a high enough degree. And today, possibly in part due to programs, people with assets are less likely to take social responsibility without the threat of government intervention. So the people I view as the biggest part of the problem are those conservative ideologues that demonize the poor, trivialize the working poor, and glorify the capitalist while excepting him from all responsibility. While the cons can sit and blame gays and bad artists and all kinds of people who don't really make a difference for the decline of civilization, they ignore the part played by people who could make a difference but do not (using contempt for the lowly as an excuse).

Thanks. To me, the great burden on the economy is the national debt. Check out my latest reply to the "ant and grasshopper" thread. Once the debt is removed, I see taxation as a strain on the economy because of the incentive factor. I agree that the attitudes of the rich need to change, but (perhaps this is naive) I think that often such people feel more generous when not forced to give to welfare. I also think that non-profits would be a good alternative to government or corporate control, since (IMO) a lot of the money often doesn't go where it's needed most with either government or for-profit control. Again, my ideas are probably utopian, but they are nice to think about at least.

Actually, many corporations are now becoming involved with the New-Capitalist movement, in which they promise to be responsible. Being responsible without the threat of government interference is much better than government regulations, which add a lot to the cost of a product. Its not the regulations themselves which are onerous, but the bureaucratic, inefficient and costly implementation of those regulations by the government, which as always, just doesnt get it. Ever see the movie "Hitchhikers Guide to the Universe"? It is quite funny, and a lot of the fun has to do with the bureaucratic race which runs the galaxy. Hyperbolic, but I think the director had his finger right on bureaucracies. LOL.

and I hope you're right. But I don't think it helps that some cons run around denouncing social responsibility. How much of that is a backlash to socialist intervention I have no idea, but it is harmful regardless. I don't like that quite often the dialogue is between socialists and these self-righteous hedonists that view the stockholder as the only obligation and maintaining one's existance as one's only purpose.

Personally, I consider the corporate soft money machine to be one of the great dangers to society. I think that one way of decreasing its harmful effects without limiting the right to give to political parties is to eliminate corporate tax breaks. Again, in my opinion, the government and for-profits are equally dangerous and at least ideally, non-profit organizations (again, by the strictest definition) should run our welfare system and get the money where it is needed more efficiently without higher taxes or an annual budget deficit.

Do you really think that corporations would be responsible if there were no threat of government intervention? Corporations by their very nature will do only that which costs them the least amount of money while bringing in the most amount of money. "Being responsible," whatever that means, brings in zero revenues and adds enormously to expenditures.

Corporations are dangerous, as a rule, but they don't control the majority of the wealth in this country. Wealthy individuals would (IMO) view voluntary charity as an incentive rather than a disincentive.

Actually, it is a rather fine philosophical hair-splitting distinction to debate whether corporations or wealthy individuals control most of the wealth in this country, since wealthy individuals have ownership and/or control of many of the larger corporations.