4 ms·
Well, the distinction is essentially meaningless in a 'free market' society. Political power and economic "power" aren't the same sort of thing: one is ultimat
by randallsquared 16y ago
Well, the distinction is essentially meaningless in a 'free market' society.
Political power and economic "power" aren't the same sort of thing: one is ultimately based on force, and the other on willing trade. A market is only free to the extent that political power allows, and the only entirely free market would be in the absence of political power.
- okaramian 16y agoWhat exactly do you mean by "force"?
- steveklabnik 16y agoLibertarians of various stripes derive a lot of their concept of ethics from the non-agression principle. Of course, then left and right libertarians argue over even the details of something this simple, for example, left libertarians consider private property to be forceful in nature. [2] 1: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-aggression_principle http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-aggression_principle 2: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-aggression_principle#Ambiguity_criticism http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-aggression_principle#Ambigu...
- yequalsx 16y agoThere is never an absence of political power. Presently it is the state of humans that whenever a sufficiently large number of them congregate a power dynamic takes hold. Those who control the resources have the power. Calling this economic power or political power is meaningless. It is power and it is wielded. The goal ought to be to diffuse this power amongst as many people as possible. Concentrated power is the thing to fear.