3 ms·

I agree with the notion that everything is related to governance, and free markets are not anarchy. But it is a proposal of a system that requires a set of rule

I agree with the notion that everything is related to governance, and free markets are not anarchy. But it is a proposal of a system that requires a set of rules, some nowadays unavoidably performed by government, but the key are the rules not the government. In any case, I see the same corruption you see, and the question is how to go about it. If the state is powerful and corruptible, I want a smaller state, with less surface to be corrupted. And it is surprising how you can reveal most corruption by just the simple application of freedom: that's whats appealing of the free market framework.

kristopolous 6y ago
My advocacy is to reject all dogmatic ideological frameworks, they are fundamentally the wrong approach. "Smaller state, larger state" no... Those are answers without considering the questions. Heterodoxy, material analysis, material goals, provable statements, methodologies of measurements and metrics... That and not disconnected faith based theory opinions are what matter. Labeling things as whatever-alist is a just a silly sports game for tribalists as if it's more important to pass a purity test than it is to construct a positive functioning society. Whether a solution makes the state bigger or smaller is irrelevant. What is the efficacy for the effort trade-off, that's really it. Any commitment to a theoretical purity sets one up for a blindness and bias of analysis and an easy way to be exploited. That's why televangelists can so blatantly and openly rip people off. The purity theory blinds the faithful. This is true for socialism, capitalism, syndicalism, anarchism, all of them