What role for business? for government?

What role should government play in society?
A question that is central to politics in the US: our individual answers suggest something about our ideologies.

While we associate conservatisvism with free market economics, I have claimed in class that business people do not want a freely competitive market: they like regulations that benefit them.

1. The Missouri General Assembly has voted to require that you buy ethanol if you buy gasoline in Missouri. The Senator that represents our distric, John Cauthorn, is a major supporter of the bill, and also a corn farmer.

Sponsoring Sen. John Cauthorn, R-Mexico, said it would be an economic boon. "We're forcing them to leave their energy dollars in the state of Missouri," he said.

The most vocal opposition came from a small group of Republicans who said such a mandate conflicted with free-market principles.

Sen. Luann Ridgeway, R-Smithville, said the government has no business making choices for consumers, who can now buy ethanol-blended gasoline if they want.

2. Should government help you with the pain of high gas prices?

Sharp Reaction to G.O.P. Plan on Gas Rebate
WASHINGTON, April 30 — The Senate Republican plan to mail $100 checks to voters to ease the burden of high gasoline prices is eliciting more scorn than gratitude from the very people it was intended to help.
(April 30, 2006)

Aides for several Republican senators reported a surge of calls and e-mail messages from constituents ridiculing the rebate as a paltry and transparent effort to pander to voters before the midterm elections in November.

"The conservatives think it is socialist bunk, and the liberals think it is conservative trickery," said Don Stewart, a spokesman for Senator John Cornyn, Republican of Texas, pointing out that the criticism was coming from across the ideological spectrum.

3. the insurance industry market requires they can be profitable:

Insurers Retreat From Coasts
Katrina Losses May Force More Costs on Taxpayers

By Spencer S. Hsu
Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, April 30, 2006; Page A01

Alarmed at the sharply rising cost of hurricanes and other disasters, home insurers are pulling back from some U.S. coastal markets, warning of gathering financial storm clouds over how the United States pays for the damage of catastrophe.

The development is yet another legacy of Hurricane Katrina, whose mounting toll of destruction along the Gulf Coast has crystallized a growing industry debate about the combined effect of climate trends and population growth in coastal areas. Some believe the two are creating a risk of losses so large that insurers could be pushed to the breaking point, leaving the government and taxpayers holding the tab for the next disaster.
...
They propose establishing a greater role for the federal government in backing up new state catastrophe funds or private insurance firms when losses exceed a certain level, toughening state and local building codes and increasing premiums to accurately price risks. Some also want to potentially pool the high costs of covering perils such as earthquakes, hurricanes, tornadoes and even floods into regional or national groups to ease consumer cost, and to use some money to help improve first responders and local preparedness.

Note in the second paragraph, that those who have an interest in being accurate about global climate change -- insurance companies that may have to pay -- do not dismiss it as a hoax or as unsound science.