Loud ideological people monopolize a lot of the discussion, and the nature of the media landscape ensures that only the most sensationalistic and emotive conten

Loud ideological people monopolize a lot of the discussion, and the nature of the media landscape ensures that only the most sensationalistic and emotive content goes viral. But certainly, it is possible to have a constructive problem-solving approach. The purported socialism of Scandinavian countries is exaggerated greatly, and they would be the first to say so. But clearly, there are a range of "mixed economy" models, and not all types of government intervention are equally damaging to overall production, and some kinds are greatly beneficial. There are a lot of false dichotomies. People regularly try to talk big government vs small government, when the real question is whether government is appropriate for a given problem. Likewise, people talk about high taxes vs low taxes, but in fact taxes are just incentives and the question should be whether they provide good incentives or bad incentives. And, of course, the original classical liberal view from the philosophical fathers of modern market economies would differ greatly from contemporary views. One of the key differences is that they saw land as its own distinct category, separate from labor and capital, and understood that it had special properties that changes its moral status. Land is not a product of human effort, and varies in quality, and is limited in supply, but is necessary for all life and all production. As such, claiming exclusive property rights over land is unjustifiable from the normal arguments of where just ownership comes from. And such claims come at the expense of others. For this reason, the third of the economy that is tied up in land and natural resources could be seen as a commons that ought to be democratically used for common benefit. Even if that just means leasing it out to private interests, and using the proceeds for common purposes.