I think the United States moved its policies over the last 50 years, certainly in other countries as well move way to the side of bigger government. Start making arguments that were more fundamentally pragmatic rather than principled. So I'm not even moving away from the moral side of it you're talking about. Why did they move toward those utilitarian type arguments? And guess what, that's so bad. Not so bad.
Is the perfect really the enemy of the good? Or is it the other way around? In 2008, Duke University economist Michael Munger ran for governor and proposed increasing school choice through vouchers for the state's poorest counties. But some lovers of liberty argued that it's better to fight for eliminating public schools instead of trying to improve them. Munger realized his fellow free-marketers come in two flavors: directionalists--who take our political realities as given and try to move outcomes closer to the ideal--and destinationists--who want no compromises with what they see as the perfect outcome. Listen as Munger talks to EconTalk's Russ Roberts about two different strategies for achieving political goals. Along the way, they discuss rent control, the minimum wage, and why free-market policies are so rare.