Extreme conservativism is not meant to be within the acceptable spectrum.
The acceptable spectrum is supposed to be centered around neoliberalism. Neoliberal technocrats have sought to steer the "Ship Of State" through narrow waters between "Revolution" (the far left) and "Reaction" (the far right). Neoliberals might be willing to steer, from time to time, nearer to reaction than revolution, but the intent is to stay as close to the neoliberal center as possible. Here's a graphic that the neoliberals came up with to illustrate the concept.
Obviously, the neoliberal technocrats have failed, and the US federal government (the Ship Of State) is now nearly completely captured by various far right reactionary groups. But the mainstream media, in general, is still operating in the mode of neoliberal, centrist thinking. Which is understandable, since that's the mode they've been in for more than half a century.
The smart way to keep people passive and obedient is to strictly limit the spectrum of acceptable opinion, but allow very lively debate within that spectrum
There has been a deliberate effort to limit the spectrum of acceptable opinion to relatively moderate liberalism (the left) and relatively moderate conservatism (the right). The intent is to create the illusion that no political ideologies or possibilities exist outside of this narrow spectrum.
I've felt that Bernie should be president since 2015, but he never stood a chance in the US. You have a 0% chance of being elected president in this country once the label of "socialist" has been applied to you.
It's true, the range of ideological possibilities has been intentionally limited, here in the US. As Noam Chomsky said:
The smart way to keep people passive and obedient is to strictly limit the spectrum of acceptable opinion, but allow very lively debate within that spectrum.
The paper that coined the term free market specifically referred to them as "well regulated". From the very beginning it was recognized that a functioning market requires government regulation, if for nothing else at least for contract enforcement and dispute resolution.
Many free market evangelists would agree that some state is likely necessary, to, as you point out, enforce contracts and mediate dispute resolution, as well as enforce private property rights. However, whether they would admit it or not, they only want said state to work for them, but never against them. They want all the protections that a state might offer, but none of the restrictions. They want laws that protect them but never bind them.
I'm not sure what measurement they would use to justify their position, or if they would try to justify it at all. I suppose that's what makes them evangelists: belief is the basis of their conviction.
Not enough people listen to Joseph Stiglitz. Even many economists don't listen to Stiglitz. That's the thing about economics: it's more philosophy than science, and like philosophy there are different schools of thought. If an economist doesn't like what Stiglitz has to say, that economist can just choose to listen to someone from a different school within economics.
For instance, Stiglitz has been quite critical of what he calls "free market evangelism," the popular idea that free markets are the most efficient method for distributing scarce resources, and so there should be minimal interference with markets from "outside" entities like the state. Economists like Stiglitz have pointed out that markets are not as efficient as the evangelists believe, but, obviously, they don't listen.
Musk became a fellow of the society — the world’s oldest science academy — in 2018 for his companies’ development of technologies such as space rockets, electric cars and brain implants.
Is this prestigious science academy aware that space rockets and electric cars existed long before Elon Musk was even born? Even if they think his companies have contributed important innovations in those technological fields, what evidence do they have that Musk was the initiator of those innovations? Musk isn't an engineer or scientist. He employs engineers. Is that their rationale? That because he owns and/or controls the companies, the innovations (assuming the innovations coming from these companies are even worthy of such recognition) should be attributed to him, even if those innovations only came about because of engineers, scientists, and technicians who are in his employ? If so, that is absolutely ridiculous. If their academy wants to award a fellowship to someone, award it to the scientists and engineers themselves, not the super rich guy who happens to be those scientists' boss.
I don't agree. I think these people are acting out of what they believe to be self interest, even if it is an unenlightened self interest. Why else would they desire to be at the "top of the collective?" What do they hope to gain if not special, INDIVIDUAL, privileges, opportunities, liberties, etc?
Extreme conservativism is not meant to be within the acceptable spectrum.
The acceptable spectrum is supposed to be centered around neoliberalism. Neoliberal technocrats have sought to steer the "Ship Of State" through narrow waters between "Revolution" (the far left) and "Reaction" (the far right). Neoliberals might be willing to steer, from time to time, nearer to reaction than revolution, but the intent is to stay as close to the neoliberal center as possible. Here's a graphic that the neoliberals came up with to illustrate the concept.
Obviously, the neoliberal technocrats have failed, and the US federal government (the Ship Of State) is now nearly completely captured by various far right reactionary groups. But the mainstream media, in general, is still operating in the mode of neoliberal, centrist thinking. Which is understandable, since that's the mode they've been in for more than half a century.