Quote:Elitist is in choosing who gets to determine "what is best".I think you mean "paternalist". The great statist "father knows best." Elitism is different, though the two can coexist, if paternalistic policies are seen as the natural role of an elite.
Quote:When the Congress, and the President defy the will of the people, they are elitist.You live in a democracy. "The will of the people" is expressed through voting, or more capriciously, through polls. It strikes me that, looking at the makeup of the government, the diversity of presidents, and the broad range of opinion, that there is no single "will" to follow or defy. Government is negotiated amongst various groups, who rise and fall in popularity, trying to advance their own agendas. Elections arbitrate this negotiation. Right now? The party that favours increased provision of social programs controls all three elected arms of government. That's not an accident, and it's not because of elite decisions. Congress is not the House of Lords - their members are elected, by, of, and for the people.
Quote:When the Congress passes laws on which TV's or light bulbs you can buy, or demanding that you must own health insurance policy, then that is elitist.Paternalistic, yes. And paternalism has to be kept in check by liberty. But this does not mean that there is no role for government in the provision or regulation of certain goods and services. Elitist, no. They are not saying only certain people can be trusted with light bulbs, or TV sets. And again, democracy: their power to regulate these things derives from the mandate of the people, not from some vast aquatic ceremony.
Quote:They know better than the individual what is best for the individual. And, in many cases, I'm sure they are correct. But, the nature of individual liberty is that we can choose to do smart things, or dumb ones. So when I say elitist, I mean the practitioners, and egalitarian in expressed philosophy.For the provision of some things, individual action is insufficient. Collective action is necessary to overcome coordination failures and contradictory interests inherent in the market system. Health care is an excellent example of this, because of the complexity and uncertainty of the risks involved, and the high variance of the costs. Education is another, because those who need to consume it are uniquely unable, at least in their basic years, to provide it for themselves. I would also argue similarly for some transportation and utilities infrastructural systems - a city with 20 separate subway systems is a city with no functional subway system. Policing and military services are an obvious risk if held privately, endangering the entire concept of liberty. Enviromental issues also follow this logic - my environmental costs are difficult to calculate, and inflicted primarily on others. The market is unable to solve that problem, even in a Coaseian sense, because I can't mail 1/100000th of a penny to everyone on earth every time I turn on the heater.
These are places where government has a role, where individuals will either be unable to solve the problems themselves, or where such a solution is highly suboptimal. Given the importance of many of these sectors, and how colossally expensive market failure is (just look at US health care costs!), I think this trumps the abstract need for absolute individual choice in all matters. Indeed, the adequate provision of these things creates the groundwork for the provision of more important, more developed expressions of liberty. It's not accidental that the freest countries in the world are also ones with well-developed government sectors. This is true even of economic freedoms.
Heck. Didn't this thread start talking about unemployment statistics?
-Jester