4 ms·

Well it is very hard to argue against this. Do you mean to say that people should not be able to decide what is more important to them so that resources can be

• notpachet 5y ago
  > Well it is very hard to argue against this. That wasn't why I was struggling. I was struggling because I deem it a very heartless argument, and I don't know how to have meaningful conversations with people when they don't seem to have the good of their fellow citizens at heart. The free economy can function as both an instrument of liberation and oppression depending on your place in society. It is not a universal panacea. Living in a society requires giving up some of your personal liberties from time to time, so that other people can enjoy theirs. That doesn't mean that I condone the government stripping away everyone's personal liberties. I wish that people were individually capable of making those sorts of sacrifices without any government intervention. But that isn't the world we're living in. > Do you mean to say that people should not be able to decide what is more important to them so that resources can be appropriately allocated? I'm not saying that people shouldn't be able to decide what is more important to themselves, but rather that they can't always be trusted to respect what's important to others. Thinking that a free market economy will always result in the most equitable distribution of goods and services for everyone -- that's childish.
  • sfe22 5y ago
    Ok, so people are too stupid to decide for themselves. In that case can we trust their “chosen” leaders? You know they may be too stupid to pick a good leader too. Monarchy sound good?