John Stossel: "I Was Brainwashed"

[Joey McGee]

Notice the medium you are spreading these ideas through.

Pffft the internet would be 50 years in the future without the commiesocialistfascists running things

 

[Zep]

The internet would not exist if it were originally commercialised. The private mail delivery companies would see to it that they were always priced well under the cost of any fancy electricky email doo-hickey. Competishun rulez, yeah!

 

[corbin]

Are you seriously suggesting to me that government investing in business and technology is bad for society? I fail to see the corruption. Who was this unfair to in this case? So the government funded some technology, a private company ran with it and had great success?! PERFECT WIN! Well, they did setup free public internet, those fascists! So the government helping businesses succeed to the benefit of consumers a negative thing? Well let me be the first to say that I fully suport fascist coporate-state partnerships. And man it looks like they will be continuing far into the future with no one being able to do a damn thing about it! w00t

But why should I be forced to pay for the investing? Should we really be trading individual liberty for utility? Add in a majority rules democracy and we find ourselves in a situation where the stupid majority is legislating theft on the mere promise of future benefit, lulled into slavery by those power-seeking members of society unnecessarily empowered by the government's monopoly on force. Even if bureaucrats are angels and taxes are spent in the most ethical way possible, they are still a far less efficient form of resource allocation than are markets. If you are a typical American about half of your income goes towards taxes, and that's without inflation. I think you will have a hard time justifying that you are getting your moneys worth.


If you are a fan of democracy, then you should favor the market's solution to technological innovation which allows the individual to chose exactly which areas in which he wants to spend money. This is more "democratically efficient" then voting on the broad legislation (or representatives) and then saying "Screw you, better luck next time..." to the minority. Dollars move a lot faster than voting cycles. There are no losers in the system where you don't steal from people. Furthermore, there is no need to force charity, particularly in the case of technological innovation where individuals and private businesses stand to benefit directly from such innovation.

 

[technoextreme]

But why should I be forced to pay for the investing? Should we really be trading individual liberty for utility? Add in a majority rules democracy and we find ourselves in a situation where the stupid majority is legislating theft on the mere promise of future benefit, lulled into slavery by those power-seeking members of society unnecessarily empowered by the government's monopoly on force. Even if bureaucrats are angels and taxes are spent in the most ethical way possible, they are still a far less efficient form of resource allocation than are markets. If you are a typical American about half of your income goes towards taxes, and that's without inflation. I think you will have a hard time justifying that you are getting your moneys worth.

Ehhhh... Your living in a fantasy world. Basic research and technology at times requires a large amount of technology no corporation would be willing to invest in because it requires large amounts of land, energy, and resources but the dividends are amazing.

The US government has spent 20,575.13 billion dollars on military spending according to records dating back to the year 1792. Which basically means we spent enough money to create the entire country of the United States from the ground up. Accordingly, the vast majority of technological achievements have been in the area of killing people.

Hahahaha......Go tell that to the Japanese. I'm sure they would really care where the rovers being used to help stave off a nuclear disaster are a product of the army.

 

[corbin]

Ehhhh... Your living in a fantasy world. Basic research and technology at times requires a large amount of technology no corporation would be willing to invest in because it requires large amounts of land, energy, and resources but the dividends are amazing.

Businesses invest in all kinds of things all the time which require large capital investment. Construction projects, mining, manufacturing, etc.

In cases of nonprofitable research, funding can be done privately. This is preferred because it avoids a highly undesirable consequence of publicly funded research, namely economic freedom erosion and inefficiency in the form of taxation.

 

[technoextreme]

Businesses invest in all kinds of things all the time which require large capital investment. Construction projects, mining, manufacturing, etc.

How many corporations keep research facilities operational 24 hours a day all week long? As I said before you live in a deluded fantasy world if any corporation or private institution will be able to match the government labs.

 

[tensordyne]

why the two sides are both wrong.

There are two main points of view that get advocated over and over again (Libertarian versus Socialist). They are both wrong because they both divide up the pie of natural resources along the same spectrum.

Factors of Production.

Land: Anything that exists without anyone creating it.
Labor: Work done by Humans.
Capital: Things created from the use of Labor and Land (and possibly previous Capital).

Rents: Profits due to Land.
Wages: Profits due to Labor.
Interest: Profits due to Capital.

LIBERTARIANS

Almost never address Land issues, or address them as a natural right. Wrong, every person alive has just as much right to Land (aka, natural resources) as anyone else. Owning Land is a legal fiction for the purposes of regulating society. Libertarians are right that you should have pretty much complete freedom to do with your Labor or Capital what you want (barring using it for nefarious purposes). The problem is since they do not address the Land issue they divide up the pie in a very fascist kind of way.

Land: Owned Privately
Labor: Owned Privately
Capital: Owned Privately

Libertarians are used by bankers and other rent-seekers as a hedge against anyone ever thinking about taxing Land based Profits (rent).

SOCIALISTS

Socialists do not address either Labor or Capital. You SHOULD have a right to your own Labor and Capital cause you worked for it after all. There are tons of ways of funding the government without taxing Land or Labor, like taxing income due to Land (Rents). And rents should be taxed because they are artificial monopolies. Socialists are used by the bankers and other rent seekers to suck up money from the Labor Profits (wages, aka Income Taxes) and Capital Profits (by taxing companies for doing business or sales taxes).

This all should be Econ 101, but unfortunately, Henry George and his intellectual children lost out the argument in Academia because certain interests funded the crackpot economics known as Neoclassical Economics and the Chicago School (look up Strauss and the Neocons for even more eye-popping information).

His is the break-down in terms of school of thought and how much each kind of profit should be taxed.

SOCIALIST

Rents:
Tax a bunch, but supposedly give it to the poor, really though don't tax it at all because that is a major way the rich stay rich, so make sure and turn over any law that taxes it, but do it secretly or discretely (Obama and the DNC).

Wages:
Tax a bunch, but supposedly give it to the poor. In reality though give it to the rich because they are campaign contributors.

Interest:
Tax it a bunch, but supposedly give it to the poor. In reality though give it to the rich. Look the other way while the mega-banks loot the economy.

LIBERTARIAN

Rents:
Do not tax, do not tax anything unless it is for propping up the banking system or keeping fat profits for the Military-Industrial-Pharma-Entertainment-Espionage Complex. Never say that though, but you know what side your bread is buttered on if you want to get elected again.

Wages
Do not tax, but do not make too big a deal of it if it is taxing the "poor", you know, according to John McCain middle class is earning 5 million a year or so, and you know they "earned" every red cent of it, so leave it alone. It is all those supposed Crack-whore Black-skinned Cadillac driving Welfare Queens with 10 children that are sucking up all the money. Of course you probably never even heard of the Corporate Welfare Kings that get subsidies and tax write-off's that easily swamp any estimate of how much the Queens might make. Oh, but they earned it of course, even if they got it from the government, it is for jobs right (as Nafta takes those away to race to the bottom of Labor costs by moving factories into hell-hole countries where people have no rights)?

Interest
Depends, if you are a useful idiot like Stossel or not. Since Neo- classical/con libertarian types mix up Wages, Interests and Rents they do not even know what it means, thinking interest is only what you charge for a bank loan, and why shouldn't banks be free to charge interests as they see fit? It's their money right? Basically, screw society at large, I want my freedom, even if it means I am a slave to banksters.

GREENBACKER / HENRY GEORGE / Zarlenga

Rents: Tax it according to land value. This gets rid of land speculation.
Interest: Do not tax it.
Wages: Do not even think about taxing it.

There you go. I hope at least this opens up the debate some. There ARE third-ways of doing things. Read Henry George, Bill Still, Ellen Brown, Stephen Zarlenga, Michael Hudson and hopefully you might see the world better for how it works to understand these possible third-ways. Stossel is just another person who got duped by Austrian Economics / Fake Libertarian Ideals. Unfortunately he has not figured it out yet, or possibly never will. The video is eerie too with all these "good" christian looking proto-fascists smiling in agreement.

 

[Joey McGee]

But why should I be forced to pay for the investing>

You're not, you're free to leave the country we built here.

Should we really be trading individual liberty for utility?

That is not a correct analogy. Should we be doing things cooperatively as well as encouraging competition? Yes. It's the same thing as independence/interdependence.

Add in a majority rules democracy and we find ourselves in a situation where the stupid majority is legislating theft on the mere promise of future benefit,

That's quite the way to twist the reality of our democracy.

lulled into slavery by those power-seeking members of society unnecessarily empowered by the government's monopoly on force.

Preach it brother! Go on!

Even if bureaucrats are angels and taxes are spent in the most ethical way possible, they are still a far less efficient form of resource allocation than are markets.

Market fundamentalism is sooooooo old hat dude.

If you are a typical American about half of your income goes towards taxes, and that's without inflation. I think you will have a hard time justifying that you are getting your moneys worth.

Welcome to American politics, where voting and debate rule the day.

If you are a fan of democracy, then you should favor the market's solution to technological innovation which allows the individual to chose exactly which areas in which he wants to spend money. This is more "democratically efficient" then voting on the broad legislation (or representatives) and then saying "Screw you, better luck next time..." to the minority.

That sometimes happens, but the opposite happens without government actions too, so it's a non-argument.

Dollars move a lot faster than voting cycles. There are no losers in the system where you don't steal from people.

Oh it's stealing. Well, like I said, you don't have to pay taxes if you leave the country we built here.

Furthermore, there is no need to force charity, particularly in the case of technological innovation where individuals and private businesses stand to benefit directly from such innovation.

Academia and government work really well together, we should all be proud of what they have done. If you want to take all of the credit away from them and imagine that your governmentless innovators could have done a better job, go prove it to us by starting your own little society or something. There's no reason to choose that system over this one. There's a reason it is the way it is! You're just speculating based on a fantasist philosophy.

 

[corbin]

You're not, you're free to leave the country we built here.

The fact that I can leave hardly makes the tax any less involuntary in the jurisdiction in which it applies. At the very least I am being coerced, since I can't avoid it except by being forced to take evasive action. There is no option to opt out of the paying for/receiving the service. Strictly speaking nobody can be absolutely forced to do anything - what there are are varying degrees of coercion, the necessity to uproot your life and move elsewhere ranking pretty high.

Furthermore, that would be the quitter's approach. I would rather try to change things here first.

That is not a correct analogy. Should we be doing things cooperatively as well as encouraging competition? Yes. It's the same thing as independence/interdependence.

Actually, its not an analogy at all. It is a statement asking you to compare values. Apparently, you do not value freedom from aggression very highly and recognize none of the disadvantages that centralizing and monopolizing such aggression has.

That's quite the way to twist the reality of our democracy. Preach it brother! Go on!

Yet my description is exactly what happens.

Market fundamentalism is sooooooo old hat dude.

Any actual criticisms? Or do you actually think that resources are more efficiently allocated from the top down rather than by the individual actions of each person seeking their own self interest? Just to give you an update on the economics conversation over the past 50 years, its not disputed that markets are more efficient than committees. Statists generally have other crappy arguments about why the free market doesn't work, but this isn't one of them.

That sometimes happens, but the opposite happens without government actions too, so it's a non-argument.

Please clarify... what opposite effect are you talking about?

 

[Joey McGee]

The fact that I can leave hardly makes the tax any less involuntary in the jurisdiction in which it applies. At the very least I am being coerced, since I can't avoid it except by being forced to take evasive action. There is no option to opt out of the paying for/receiving the service. Strictly speaking nobody can be absolutely forced to do anything - what there are are varying degrees of coercion, the necessity to uproot your life and move elsewhere ranking pretty high.

You don't get it, most people like paying taxes here. Some people think they are too high, some people don't like where the money goes. Most want a money system and most want a government. So you will have taxes. You're forced to pay into a combined system, sure. Your say in where the money goes is in your vote and your petitions to your representitives. If you could just pay whatever you wanted to wherever you wanted, what would be the point of government at all? Is that what you're saying you want? If so, it's not going to happen here, so my advice to start a new country is actually good advice.

Actually, its not an analogy at all. It is a statement asking you to compare values. Apparently, you do not value freedom from aggression very highly and recognize none of the disadvantages that centralizing and monopolizing such aggression has.

No what I value is humanity and we do things well together. Just because there is a risk of monopoly or evil collusion does not make human cooperation a bad idea! There's always going to be a bunch of sad sacks complaining about their liberty on the sidelines. Life ain't fair kiddo, don't slander the rest of society just because you're not happy. You seem to have a conspiracist tinge to your ideas.

Yet my description is exactly what happens.

It might happen sometimes. Most of the time that's not the reality of the situation at all, that's what the complainers are saying because they hate the system, you know this about others, you don't think it applies to you in this case? Oh well.

Any actual criticisms? Or do you actually think that resources are more efficiently allocated from the top down rather than by the individual actions of each person seeking their own self interest?

The phrase itself is a criticism. "Market fundamentalism (also known as free market fundamentalism) is a pejorative term applied to an exaggerated religious-like faith in the ability of unfettered laissez-faire or free market economic views or policies to solve economic and social problems." I understand bottom-up philosophies quite well thank you, I just don't think they run the way you wish they did. I think people are radical and fundamentalist, they have a belief system about the market and freedom. We need to get together and make decisions together. There will always be those on the outside of academia crying about corruption and whining about natural cures. No reason to disband the NIH.

Please clarify... what opposite effect are you talking about?

If you let the market make their own rules they will often get together and screw the customer all on their own. Case in point, Canada gets ripped off for cell service, the bills were impossible to understand, just the worst kind of bs imaginable in a group of companies, the govt came in, forced a bunch of changes and everyone is much happier. Thank the Lord.

 

[corbin]

You don't get it, most people like paying taxes here. Some people think they are too high, some people don't like where the money goes. Most want a money system and most want a government. So you will have taxes. You're forced to pay into a combined system, sure. Your say in where the money goes is in your vote and your petitions to your representitives.

You ignored my rebuttal (that the ability to relocate does not make the taxes in the US any less involuntary) so I guess you accept it.

First, a money system is possible (and indeed preferable, although this is a different topic) without it being dependent on government. Second, taxes can be voluntary and would be sufficient if the government was limited in scope.

Again, why is it better to pool the money together, allocate it based upon a voting system whereby the minority is screwed, divy it up further with an inefficient bureaucracy that costs money in itself and cannot compete in terms of efficiency with the market? There's a reason people do not voluntarily elect to participate in such a system.

No what I value is humanity and we do things well together. Just because there is a risk of monopoly or evil collusion does not make human cooperation a bad idea! There's always going to be a bunch of sad sacks complaining about their liberty on the sidelines. Life ain't fair kiddo, don't slander the rest of society just because you're not happy. You seem to have a conspiracist tinge to your ideas.

I think we do things well together too, I just don't think cooperation should be forced by a special class of government insiders.

Let me clarify my point about the danger of the state's exclusive right to the use of force. First, I'm not going to argue that the state shouldn't have the exclusive right to use force because this is the only way for the state to fulfill its primary function - protecting you against the aggression of others. What I said was that this exclusive right shouldn't extend to the ability to forcibly and legally extract taxes from the public, because such a power makes the otherwise illegal action of those unscrupulous individuals who would engage in things like stealing, in fact legal. Stealing should be illegal for everybody - allowing the government the ability to involuntarily tax singles out a small portion of the population for whom stealing is okay.

You cannot set up such an exclusive right and expect everything to be peachy. It will be exploited for the benefit of those who hold the exclusive right.

I suspect our next argument will be about the efficacy of representative democracy.

The phrase itself is a criticism. "Market fundamentalism (also known as free market fundamentalism) is a pejorative term applied to an exaggerated religious-like faith in the ability of unfettered laissez-faire or free market economic views or policies to solve economic and social problems." I understand bottom-up philosophies quite well thank you, I just don't think they run the way you wish they did. I think people are radical and fundamentalist, they have a belief system about the market and freedom. We need to get together and make decisions together. There will always be those on the outside of academia crying about corruption and whining about natural cures. No reason to disband the NIH.

Mmmm, psychology.

If you let the market make their own rules they will often get together and screw the customer all on their own. Case in point, Canada gets ripped off for cell service, the bills were impossible to understand, just the worst kind of bs imaginable in a group of companies, the govt came in, forced a bunch of changes and everyone is much happier. Thank the Lord.

The only reason the customers were getting ripped off was because there wasn't enough competition. There isn't enough competition because the government creates barriers to entry favorable to the oligopolists.

Where customers are getting ripped off, there is profit to be made by the enterprising entrepreneur. The capital investment needed to start a new cell phone company is admittedly large, but the profit is there to be made if the consumers were getting ripped off.

I would like to see exactly what changes were made to the industry... I suspect they aren't as fair in the long term as you believe.

 

[Zep]

Alas, reality is not as you think, Mr C. Even in highly competitive arenas, prices can escalate for a number of reasons: E.g. High perceived value, and outright price rigging.

Best example: Indian homeopaths. They charge a relatively high price to their patients for their wares, even though those wares are just water and sugar-pills. There is almost zero government control of those industries (in fact, of all industries), so homeopaths can charge whatever they wish and there are literally millions of them in India and Pakistan alone.

So with so many "competing businesses" in this open market, you would expect their price to go down due to all the "competition". But the prices don't go down. They stay relatively high compared to other daily staples people buy: food, transport, etc So why is that?

 

[Joey McGee]

You ignored my rebuttal (that the ability to relocate does not make the taxes in the US any less involuntary) so I guess you accept it.

You think you won an argument because you didn't force me to say that it's the law that you have to pay taxes in America?

First, a money system is possible (and indeed preferable, although this is a different topic) without it being dependent on government. Second, taxes can be voluntary and would be sufficient if the government was limited in scope.

That's your fantasy, we are aware, good luck with it tho!

Again, why is it better to pool the money together, allocate it based upon a voting system whereby the minority is screwed

Straw man, mischaracterization of the ideals of liberal democracy, opinionated bs to boot.

divy it up further with an inefficient bureaucracy

Government isn't inefficient by design, right? So we're always trying to make it more efficient. So that's really not an attack on our system of government.

that costs money in itself and cannot compete in terms of efficiency with the market?

Market fundamentalism. The benefits of running a government are something you don't appreciate, obviously. You fearmonger and propagandize about their "evil powers" and "hate of freedom and equality" and such things. You don't seem to think government does any good at all! You're dreaming if you think government doesn't pay for itself.

There's a reason people do not voluntarily elect to participate in such a system.

Oh really because people are trying to move to American as opposed to escape it's clutches.

I think we do things well together too, I just don't think cooperation should be forced by a special class of government insiders.

This is what you think the government is? What? You have no belief that people voted those people in there?!? What are you talking about.

Let me clarify my point about the danger of the State's exclusive right to the use of force. First, I'm not going to argue that the State shouldn't have the exclusive right to use force because this is the only way for the State to fulfill its primary function - protecting you against the aggression of others. What I said was that this exclusive right shouldn't extend to the ability to forcibly and legally extract taxes from the public, because such a power makes the otherwise illegal action of those unscrupulous individuals who would engage in things like stealing, in fact legal.Stealing should be illegal for everybody - allowing the government the ability to involuntarily tax singles out a small portion of the population for whom stealing is okay.

I find it amazing that you call this stealing. A bunch of people got together and formed a country on some land. They made a rule where you have to share your profits with a central entity which will democratically serve the will of the people. If you don't like it, they will allow you to leave. This isn't stealing, this is called setting up a country. You're building a straw man. Stealing! I want to know where you learned this from. Authors? Websites?

You cannot set up such an exclusive right and expect everything to be peachy. It will be exploited for the benefit of those who hold the exclusive right.

My wife might cheat on me, no reason not to get married, and if things get really suspicious I'll hire a private eye like a normal person would.

The only reason the customers were getting ripped off was because there wasn't enough competition. There isn't enough competition because the government creates barriers to entry favorable to the oligopolists.

You know nothing about the Canadian government and the cell provider industry, obviously. Just more fantasist ranting.

Where customers are getting ripped off, there is profit to be made by the enterprising entrepreneur.

What, do you think someone could just waltz in and start up a cell provider lickety split? The ignorance! Both the government and the market played their roles well and the costs are coming down and the features are going up. Do a little research on that piece of business history and get back to me.

 

[corbin]

Alas, reality is not as you think, Mr C.

Very poetic of you Zep, I was expecting the obligatory "You are a delusional psychopath!" Sounds like something my grandfather would say, and that's always cool in my book.

Even in highly competitive arenas, prices can escalate for a number of reasons: E.g. High perceived value, and outright price rigging.

I'm glad you are bringing this up.

I have been meaning to flesh out my thought process a little more in regards to why the free market is preferable to redistributive taxation or market regulation.

Everyone will agree that the free market is the preferable system when only its fundamental features (and the converse fundamental features of statism) are considered. At its base, the free market is a voluntary means of exchange. In this sense it is a default, negative position, with no interference by a third party. Statism favors one party (called government) to redistribute wealth (or impose regulation upon) from one group in society to another, so long as the consent of the majority is reached.

From a moral perspective the free market is clearly superior because it doesn't violate individual rights (the very same rights that protect you from your neighbor stealing from you) while the other does. If the statist approach is to be superior in any way, it must be superior in some way other than morality, and this way (such as efficiency, or equal wealth distribution, etc.) must be shown to be more weighty or important then the moral aspect.

What I'm getting at is that the utilitarian aspects of each of the approaches do not stand alone in any cost-benefit analysis that we make. The free market already has a huge check-mark on one side of the equation, by its fundamental character, before the issues of utility can even be discussed.

Things such as price rigging are one such utility issue that, if indeed true of the free market, need to be weighed against the value of both morality and efficiency (neither are disputed), as well as the other utility issues for both systems.

Best example: Indian homeopaths. They charge a relatively high price to their patients for their wares, even though those wares are just water and sugar-pills. There is almost zero government control of those industries (in fact, of all industries), so homeopaths can charge whatever they wish and there are literally millions of them in India and Pakistan alone.

So with so many "competing businesses" in this open market, you would expect their price to go down due to all the "competition". But the prices don't go down. They stay relatively high compared to other daily staples people buy: food, transport, etc So why is that?

Probably because the consumers don't have enough information to compare competitors.

 

[DC]

The internet was originally conceived to coordinate strategic nuclear command networks. Again, an outgrowth of military spending.

Which basically means it was created by Fascist corporate-state partnership.

The express purpose of Fascist corporate-state partnerships is to socialize research and development costs on to the backs of tax payers so private entities don't have to cough up the research dough on their own.

This allows private firms to reap technological gains while having their research costs be subsidized by their competitors or by other industries that have no research costs.

Thus, corn farmers and teachers are paying to subsidize the research and development costs of companies like McDonald Douglas, Raytheon, General Electric, Pfizer and others.

This is very same reason why colleges and schools are heavily subsidized. It has nothing to do with providing a quality education, and everything to do with socializing corporate training costs. Thus, again we have potato growers and gas station owners subsidizing the training costs of corporate conglomerates through the educational system.

i like our Fascist net. you are welcome.

 

[corbin]

Lets just be friends Joey... you seem like a cool dude. How can I argue with a skier (or whatever the hell that thing in your avatar is) and feel good about myself?

 

[clown]

Probably because the consumers don't have enough information to compare competitors.

Now you're cooking with electric stove! That's one of the main problems of "free market as the solution for everything" theories. People don't have complete information. People don't have the same starting positions. It is not free to change industry you are working in (move capital from place to place). It is not easy for labourers (workers owning labour) to change their place of living and work.

Not everyone has the same education and same starting position on the labour market... The list goes on and on and on!

That's why there's state getting in on the act. Minimal wages, work safety laws, different taxes for different industries... It's all in try to even the odds and equalise the market, to fix what the free market doesn't care about.

Add in some goods and services that are not profitable for private owners to produce (street light, for example) and you can see that state got into play from necessity.

 

[Joey McGee]

Lets just be friends Joey... you seem like a cool dude. How can I argue with a skier (or whatever the hell that thing in your avatar is) and feel good about myself?

Let's be friends corbin, you do seem like an agreeable chap. Me I could be more agreeable and pleasant and will attempt to be so. Feel free to message me in order to debate the merits of your preferred form of government anytime.

And that's a GT Racer, it's how we do in Iglooland

 

[Twiler]

Very poetic of you Zep, I was expecting the obligatory "You are a delusional psychopath!" Sounds like something my grandfather would say, and that's always cool in my book.



I'm glad you are bringing this up.

I have been meaning to flesh out my thought process a little more in regards to why the free market is preferable to redistributive taxation or market regulation.

Everyone will agree that the free market is the preferable system when only its fundamental features (and the converse fundamental features of statism) are considered. At its base, the free market is a voluntary means of exchange. In this sense it is a default, negative position, with no interference by a third party. Statism favors one party (called government) to redistribute wealth (or impose regulation upon) from one group in society to another, so long as the consent of the majority is reached.

From a moral perspective the free market is clearly superior because it doesn't violate individual rights (the very same rights that protect you from your neighbor stealing from you) while the other does. If the statist approach is to be superior in any way, it must be superior in some way other than morality, and this way (such as efficiency, or equal wealth distribution, etc.) must be shown to be more weighty or important then the moral aspect.

What I'm getting at is that the utilitarian aspects of each of the approaches do not stand alone in any cost-benefit analysis that we make. The free market already has a huge check-mark on one side of the equation, by its fundamental character, before the issues of utility can even be discussed.

Things such as price rigging are one such utility issue that, if indeed true of the free market, need to be weighed against the value of both morality and efficiency (neither are disputed), as well as the other utility issues for both systems.



Probably because the consumers don't have enough information to compare competitors.

I disagree. I think that a socialist system is also moral, in that it is intended to redistribute wealth to where it will do the most good. You can argue that this doesn't work in practice, but I can argue the same thing about the free market.

 

[Zep]

Very poetic of you Zep, I was expecting the obligatory "You are a delusional psychopath!" Sounds like something my grandfather would say, and that's always cool in my book.

There's nothing wrong with having your tyupe of views about. It's just that some of the purveyors of such views are often barely impinging even tangentially on reality.

I'm glad you are bringing this up.

I have been meaning to flesh out my thought process a little more in regards to why the free market is preferable to redistributive taxation or market regulation.

Everyone will agree that the free market is the preferable system when only its fundamental features (and the converse fundamental features of statism) are considered. At its base, the free market is a voluntary means of exchange. In this sense it is a default, negative position, with no interference by a third party. Statism favors one party (called government) to redistribute wealth (or impose regulation upon) from one group in society to another, so long as the consent of the majority is reached.

From a moral perspective the free market is clearly superior because it doesn't violate individual rights (the very same rights that protect you from your neighbor stealing from you) while the other does. If the statist approach is to be superior in any way, it must be superior in some way other than morality, and this way (such as efficiency, or equal wealth distribution, etc.) must be shown to be more weighty or important then the moral aspect.

What I'm getting at is that the utilitarian aspects of each of the approaches do not stand alone in any cost-benefit analysis that we make. The free market already has a huge check-mark on one side of the equation, by its fundamental character, before the issues of utility can even be discussed.

Things such as price rigging are one such utility issue that, if indeed true of the free market, need to be weighed against the value of both morality and efficiency (neither are disputed), as well as the other utility issues for both systems.

And there you hit on the main issue: How much is enough, how much is too much. How much government control is necessary to ensure the free market remains free and equitable for all players; and how much is too much which simply stifles, or worse, limits market operation only to that which has the "correct" ideology. Some control is necessary, but too much control is not. The practical argument is where and when government influence is needed.

Probably because the consumers [Indian families] don't have enough information to compare [homeopath] competitors.

There's a homeopath on just about every corner in India. So there's plenty of local awareness of prices, etc. So sorry, that one doesn't fly. Try again! Why are the prices of homeopathy in India relatively high in a free and open market with many competitors?