Quote:
Originally Posted by aceventura3
No.
What I will acknowledge, and it has nothing to do with market type (it is universal) is that there are thieves, criminals and some evil people in the world.
|
But your response essentially acknowledges my point, which is that there isn't anything inherently noble in the "freeness" of the free market. However, you seem to be under the impression that the bad actors are thieves or criminals. The fact of the matter is that under the free-est of free markets, certain types of thievery are the natural consequence of the market working how it ought to.
Quote:
|
Also, as I tried to explain there is a difference between wealth creators and those who generate personal wealth from more or less taking from others. People who generate wealth, by definition, benefit society.
|
I don't know that this matters enough to me to agree or disagree.
Quote:
|
I am not an advocate of anarchy and I do believe there is a role for government or governance in a free market.
|
Good. But you're coming across as one of those "all regulation is bad"-type folks.
Quote:
|
but, where do you draw the line? At what point do you expect the consumer to be active in the decision making process? Why not ban salt, sugar, meat sunshine...exhaling CO2????
|
I don't know. Dealing with problems in the real world requires more than just the ability to draw lines on theoretical beaches. I guess bans would likely be subject to the court of public opinion. This is probably why you're the only one who ever brings up the specter of things like sugar bans- because aside from a vocal minority of folks nobody in reality wants to ban sugar. But geez, it is a good question. Democracy is hard.
Quote:
|
A common theme is the difference in what I consider active participation and what I see you as saying is that when others don't protect me that they are at fault.
|
The market wholly supports the dumping of wastes in our rivers. The market wholly supports the complete elimination of any semblance of worker safety rules. The market wholly supports ... It isn't a matter of being protected from my own ignorance. It's a matter of recognizing that the market is driven by profit and the profit motive often acts in direct opposition to any notions of personal or social responsibility (your personal experiences notwithstanding). Destroying the world is profitable in the short term, and the current market emphasis on short-term gains means that the market can't take into account that destroying the world is in nobody's long term interest.
Quote:
|
There are thousands of capricious regulations and laws. For example it is o.k. to get drunk drinking beer, but illegal to get high smoking marijuana - why? It is legal to spend money to take a person to dinner, get them flowers, etc., in exchange for...oh never mind - I am sure you get the point.
|
And? What's your point? Marijuana prohibition is an example of a flawed regulatory system? The criminalization of prostitution is too? These prohibitions, while possibly based on bad ideas, are anything but capricious.