Democrat Policies Need Your Money

 

The Morality of the Market: Why Sustainable Ideologies Don't Run on Other People's Money

Democrat programs need your money and Government subsidies. Most, if not all of the solar panel companies that were started are belly up, and the EV products had to be subsidized.

If your ideology needs OPM (Other People's Money) it's bad ideology.

The Morality of the Market: Why Sustainable Ideologies Don't Run on Other People's Money

A fundamental truth, often dismissed in the lofty halls of academia and the passionate rhetoric of political rallies, is that sustainability is the ultimate test of any enterprise. This applies not just to businesses, but to ideologies themselves. A system of thought that cannot stand on its own merits, that cannot persuade free people to voluntarily support it with their own capital and effort, is an ideology built on a foundation of sand. As the social media post succinctly puts it, “If your ideology needs OPM (Other People's Money) it's bad ideology.” This simple, powerful statement cuts to the heart of the conservative critique of the modern progressive project, particularly its forays into industrial policy and social engineering. From the graveyard of subsidized solar panel companies to the struggling electric vehicle market propped up by massive taxpayer incentives, we see a consistent pattern: a vision of the future that the present is unwilling to fund voluntarily, and thus must be mandated and subsidized through state power.

The poster’s observation that “most, if not all, of the solar panel companies that were started are belly up” is not an exaggeration. It points directly to the Solyndra scandal of the Obama era, which became a potent symbol of green energy folly. Solyndra, a solar panel manufacturer, received a $535 million federal loan guarantee, hailed by the administration as a beacon of the “green jobs” future. Two years later, the company was bankrupt, and taxpayers were left holding the bag. But Solyndra was not an anomaly; it was the archetype. A wave of companies like Abound Solar, Beacon Power, and Fisker Automotive followed a similar trajectory: lavish government support, glowing press, followed by bankruptcy and liquidation. The common thread was not a lack of political will, but a fundamental disregard for market realities.

These companies failed for a simple reason: they were solving problems the market had not asked them to solve in an economically unviable way. Their business models were not built on creating a product that was better, cheaper, or more efficient than existing alternatives. Their primary customer was not the consumer, but the U.S. Department of Energy. Their success was not measured by profitability, but by their alignment with a political agenda. This inversion of the natural economic order is fatal. In a true free market, businesses succeed by serving others. They must convince voluntary customers that the value of their product or service is worth the price. This daily plebiscite of the marketplace is a brutal but honest arbiter of quality and efficiency. Government subsidies short-circuit this essential process, creating “zombie” companies that consume resources without producing real value, all while being shielded from the consequences of their own inefficiency.

The same dynamic is now playing out in the electric vehicle (EV) market, which the poster correctly identifies as being dependent on subsidies. The EV push is a case study in top-down social engineering. Instead of allowing automotive technology to evolve naturally, driven by consumer demand and engineering breakthroughs, the government has chosen a winner. Through a complex web of policies—including multi-billion dollar tax credits for purchasers, massive grants and loan guarantees for manufacturers, and aggressive emissions regulations that effectively penalize the production of internal combustion engines—the state is attempting to force a technological transition for which the market is not yet ready.

The results are telling. Despite billions in subsidies, EVs remain significantly more expensive than their gasoline-powered counterparts, suffer from well-documented range anxiety and charging infrastructure problems, and their environmental benefits are deeply questionable when factoring in the mining for rare earth minerals and the source of the electricity that powers them. Major automakers are now scaling back multi-billion-dollar EV investments as inventory piles up on lots. The ideology of the “green transition” is colliding with the reality of consumer preference and economic practicality. Once again, the solution from the left is not to re-evaluate the policy, but to double down on the subsidies, to pour more OPM into a hole the market has already rejected.

This leads to the core philosophical principle: the morality of using “Other People’s Money.” Conservatism is rooted in the concepts of individual liberty, personal responsibility, and property rights. From this perspective, taxation is not a benevolent tool for social good, but a necessary evil for funding the government’s core, constitutionally-enumerated functions: national defense, a functioning judiciary, and the protection of individual rights. When the government moves beyond these roles and begins using its taxing power to pick winners and losers in the economy, it engages in a form of legalized plunder. It takes money from waitresses, truck drivers, and small business owners—people who have earned it through their own labor and risk—and transfers it to politically connected corporations and projects.

This process is profoundly immoral for two reasons. First, it is a violation of the individual’s right to the fruits of their own labor. The government does not create wealth; it can only redistribute it. Every dollar spent on an EV tax credit for an upper-middle-class homeowner is a dollar that was taken from another citizen who had no say in its use. Second, it corrupts the political process itself. When the government controls vast pools of capital for industrial subsidies, the focus of business shifts from innovating and serving customers to lobbying and currying favor with bureaucrats. Cronyism replaces competition. The system no longer rewards the most efficient producer, but the most politically adept.

The conservative alternative is not a heartless, unregulated dystopia, but a system built on empowerment, competition, and genuine innovation. Instead of subsidizing specific technologies like solar or EVs, we should pursue a true “all-of-the-above” energy strategy that removes government-imposed barriers and lets all energy sources compete on a level playing field. This means unleashing American oil, natural gas, and nuclear power, while also streamlining regulations for emerging technologies. When the market, not the state, determines the winners, we get robust, sustainable progress, not fragile, politically-connected boondoggles.

Instead of creating complex welfare programs that foster dependency, the conservative vision is to create a thriving economy where government assistance is a temporary, localized hand up, not a permanent way of life. This means lowering taxes for all, reducing the regulatory burden on small businesses, and championing work requirements for able-bodied adults receiving benefits. The goal is to create a society of owners and earners, not one of dependents and beneficiaries. An ideology that fosters self-reliance is a moral one; an ideology that cultivates dependency is, as the post states, a “bad ideology.”

In the end, the test is simple. If your vision for society is so compelling, if your product is so superior, if your moral case is so airtight, then you should be able to convince your fellow citizens to support it voluntarily. You should be able to build a company that thrives without crippling your competitors through regulation. You should be able to sell your car without making gasoline-powered cars unaffordable through taxation. You should be able to champion a social program that people are willing to fund through their own charity and community spirit.

The relentless reliance on OPM is an admission of failure. It is the clearest signal that the ideology cannot survive the gentle, persistent scrutiny of free people making free choices. The graveyards of Solyndra and the struggling EV mandates are not monuments to a future that almost was; they are tombstones for bad ideas, reminding us that any vision for the future built on coercion and the confiscation of wealth is destined to collapse under the weight of its own unsustainability. A truly good and powerful ideology, like the principles of liberty and free enterprise, needs only the consent of the governed, not the contents of their wallets.

#Democrats #Governor #Waste ##Fraud #Abuse