4 ms·
But that doesn't cross with free market types, to them the government should have little to no role in capitalism. Those that seized private property with their
by newsgremlin 8y ago
But that doesn't cross with free market types, to them the government should have little to no role in capitalism. Those that seized private property with their accumulated wealth don't choose to part with it, (because how much is enough to them? sometimes never) then that requires either the government to seize private property or have incredibly high tax brackets (if they aren't exploiting intentional loopholes) that will put a few hundred million or few billion back into public funding.
But even with millions at their disposal there doesn't appear to be any moral fiber on parting with their money, trusting the government or not, private individuals deeming who is worthy of their charity is not the type of society to strive for. If man can't be trusted with greed then how can we trust the philanthropy of a few high profile individuals to distribute wealth.
- igravious 8y agoFun fact: a free market means a fair market, correct? No barriers to trade and all that. What is one barrier to trade? Monopolies and cartels. Who is going to break up monopolies if not the government? If company X is going to make its widget cheaper than company Y by driving down its workers wages to starvation levels then who will stop them if not some strong outside entity? Bad actors will distort free markets, the government therefore has an essential role in keeping those markets free. Free market types who are anti government intervention and regulation are ideologues and I have no time for ideologues. I have no time for the rabid pro-capitalists, but neither do I have any time for the rabid anti-capitalist. Both are blinded by ideology. They are the enemy. Enlightened philanthropy is a great thing. But I totally agree with you, I sure as hell wouldn't want to run all public services using that model.