I agree the government can go overboard fostering technology, with things like ethanol. It went overboard during the cold war, manufacturing 67,500 nuclear weapons.
But I would not call these extremes "conservative" and "liberal." I advocate policies that have worked since the 18th century. Government has played a leading role in big ticket technology, beginning with canals. I think it is conservative to stick with polices that have served us well for 300 years. Modern day "conservatives" who want to abandon these policies are radicals, in my view. A lot of issues are like that. People know little of history, and they are not aware of how interventionist our government has always been. The first president to mandate that people must buy health insurance for themselves was . . . <drumroll> George Washington, in an act that applied to U.S. sailors. There were lots of petty regulations back then, too. Laws dictated how much a hotel could charge every night, and but how much food they had to provide and of what type. There were also lots of building regulations. I know a guy who rebuilds 18th century houses and barns in Pennsylvania -- and he knows the regs that were in force back then. He explained them to me in some detail, down to the types of nails and foundation stonework they were supposed to use. It is not generally considered "liberal" to be in favor of the things I advocate in my book, such as putting all food production into factories, massive infrastructure projects such as putting all roads underground, or building a space elevator. The last liberal politician to be in favor of such gung ho engineering solutions to mankind's problems was JFK. I do not call these ideas liberal or conservative. I would call them pragmatic, and traditional for America. In the past we made no small plans. People like Jefferson did things on a grand scale. Jefferson founded not one by two universities, U. Virginia and U. Missouri. He founded the second knowing full well how much of a headache and a burden it is to deal with professors. He often complained about them and about how everything ended up costing far more than the estimates. When he died he was flat broke and deep in debt, but he was planning to build a gigantic telescope. He did not let a minor thing like money stop him! (Granted it was maniacal. He knew the estate would sell his own children into continued slavery to pay the debts.) People do not realize how deeply the U.S. used to be imbued with enlightenment-era faith in progress and science. The U.S. mint in 1792 made some experimental 1-penny coins with the inscription: "Liberty Parent of Science & Industry." http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/sideshow/1-million-penny-one-world-rarest-coins-sold-181733038.html If they tried to put that on the money today, instead of "In God We Trust," conservatives would have conniptions, and the left wing would yell that Science & Industry are evil. I say a pox on both their houses. My mindset is stuck back in 1792. I wish that was on our money. That makes me a conservative. I realize there was a lot wrong in 1792, and Industry has caused a lot of pollution and misery. - Jed
