3 ms·
No it doesn't really. People should be allowed to fail. The response when someone loses all their money due to a business failing should be to have a social saf
by tathougies 6y ago
No it doesn't really. People should be allowed to fail. The response when someone loses all their money due to a business failing should be to have a social safety net, not to prevent them from ever having been able to invest their money in the first place.
- refurb 6y agoWait what? You're arguing we should have a social safety net so when some blue collar worker loses 100% of their retirement savings because they invested in a scam start-up, they're covered?
- tathougies 6y agoYes. That's right. Part of living in a free market state is allowing the market to choose. Part of living in a civilized country is ensuring that there are safety nets available to those who the market fails to support. The market operates efficiently when every entity involved can have net worth of any amount, including negative. Unfortunately, human life requires a particular amount of wealth to survive. You cannot have a pure free market system without there being some left out. The purpose of government is to protect rights to life, liberty, and property. That means providing some support when someone's wealth is so low that they cannot sustain their life. This should be implemented in such a way as to affect the market least. Milton Friedman's negative income tax would be one possibility, but there are others as well. In any case, the market should be free to operate as if the person could reasonably be expected to have nothing.