The debate between liberals and conservatives over state intervention is based on a flawed premise. Both sides accept the idea of a pre-political market that sometimes "fails." The reality is that the market is always a product of political and legal decisions. The real question isn't *whether* to intervene, but who benefits from the current structure.

Related Insights

A paradoxical market reality is that sectors with heavy government involvement, like healthcare and education, experience skyrocketing costs. In contrast, less-regulated, technology-driven sectors see prices consistently fall, suggesting a correlation between intervention and price inflation.

Runaway costs in education, housing, and healthcare stem from government intervention. When the government promises to provide a service (e.g., student loans), it becomes a massive "buy-only" force with no price sensitivity, eliminating natural market forces and causing costs to balloon.

Adam Smith is often miscast as the originator of laissez-faire economics. In reality, his work viewed markets as embedded in human-created institutions like law and power structures, a perspective closer to institutionalism than modern neoclassical theory. The phrase "invisible hand" appears only once in his 800-page book.

The original study of economics was "political economy," which understood the economy as inseparable from politics, law, and history. The late 19th-century rise of neoclassical thought deliberately separated these fields, treating the economy as a natural, pre-political system, akin to a law of physics like gravity.

When the executive branch directly influences the regulatory outcome of a corporate deal, it constitutes state control over the means of production. This undermines the rule of law and free market principles, ironically fitting the definition of socialism regardless of the political party in power.

The idea that government should "stay out of" markets is a flawed model. The government is an inherent economic actor, and choosing deregulation or non-intervention is an active policy choice, not a neutral stance. This view acknowledges politics and government are inseparable from market outcomes.

The debate over government's size can be framed using political philosophy. 'Negative freedom' is freedom *from* state interference (e.g., censorship). 'Positive freedom' is the capability to achieve one's potential, requiring state support for basics like education and health to enable true flourishing.

Carolla frames the fundamental divide in American politics not as a battle for control, but as a clash of desires. He argues that people on the right primarily want the government to leave them alone to work, live, and make their own choices, while the left is defined by a constant need to intervene.

The system often blamed as capitalism is distorted. True capitalism requires the risk of failure as a clearing mechanism. Today's system is closer to cronyism, where government interventions like bailouts and regulatory capture protect established players from failure.

Concepts like "market failure" (e.g., pollution) are framed as exceptions to a well-functioning system. An alternative view is that these are not failures but the intended, logical outcomes of the existing legal framework. Pollution isn't a failure, but a result of property rights that allow companies to externalize waste costs.