The State of State Level Free-Market Think Tanks
Brian Doherty | November 18, 2006, 4:19pm
The
New York Times profiles the
Mackinac Center, a free-market think tank in Michigan, and its efforts at franchising localized idea factories for small-government policy advocacy. The article by Jason DeParle gives a decent larger picture of what such state level think tanks can accomplish. An excerpt:
In Colorado, the Independence Institute has been a leading force behind
a constitutional spending cap called the Taxpayer Bill of Rights. In
Arizona, the Goldwater Institute has championed a school-choice law
that sends 22,500 children a year to private schools. The Texas Public
Policy Foundation helped pass a law to end what the group said were
excessive lawsuits.
It also notes the sort of opposition they can attract:
“Their philosophy encourages selfishness and greed,” said Iris J.
Lav, who runs the State Fiscal Analysis Initiative, a network of 29
liberal state-level groups organized in part as a countervailing force.
“If you have problems, they don’t care — just too bad.”
Greed is the rare accusation that rankles Mr. [Lawrence] Reed [head of Mackinac]. “They think if you’re pushing free markets there must be something in it for you,” he said. “It speaks to their ignorance.”
Whole story here.
Neither Edward, nor Paul, but Eric | November 19, 2006, 4:25pm | #
Good point Edward. However I think your analogies aren't quite sychronous. Religions tend to encourage conformity as a sign of identity with the community. If you've ever attended a libertarian function, the assortment of freaks and mutants who you will meet will surely see the error of your comparison. The only common thread amongst them is the desire to have as few people as possible interefering with their freakish and deviant ways.
The rise of the welfare state may indeed have something to do with the decline of religion as a major intellectual force, but not in the way you presented. It seems a more apt analogy might be constructed between religion and collective statism.
In this religion 'the People' take the place of God in providing reasons for feeling and action. The State replaces the Church as the means by which these deities can be satisfied, by cheerful conformity from the faithful, and by force on the dissident, or losers.
Either way, a better world (either in this life or the next) is the result, so long as everyone goes along with the program.
But libertarians don't guarantee a better world, which is why our political ideology is so dreadfully unpopular. All we seek is a world where people are responsible for themselves instead of being well-tended children, and where actions (both selfish and charitable) are chosen rather than coerced.
The only losers I know are the losers who let other losers convince them of what losers they are, and how help, kindly imposed upon them from the winners (whether religion, financial, or political) on the top is the only way to free them of that role.
Embracing the idea of being a loser is the only way to be a loser.
