3 ms·
There are indeed those that are shockingly naive, and they are likely the majority. To give the benefit of the doubt though, it is widely accepted, even within
by klabb3 4y ago
There are indeed those that are shockingly naive, and they are likely the majority. To give the benefit of the doubt though, it is widely accepted, even within say the Austrian school, that free markets need guardrails, and those guardrails are kinda like Fermat's famous "I'd write out the proof but there's no space in the margin". People underestimate what is necessary to provide reasonable levels of information symmetry, a just legal system, what constitutes fraud and false advertising, and so on. In the real world, you have mega corps in one corner and individuals in another, so the game is never as fair as "I trade you my tomatoes for your oranges" leads you to believe. As a result, there's a wide range of opinions amongst free marketers. The loudest tend to be accepting of things like insider trading, sex work and even organ selling, although that's likely not representative of people who self-identify with free market ideology.
- user3939382 4y agoThe system of the Roman Republic had term limits, no corporate lobbying, and no political parties, and they still had all kinds of corruption and problems. My theory is that any political system will inevitably inherit the characteristics of its constituent parts, human beings, who are almost always corrupt or corruptible. It's not due to coincidence that government corruption by the rich has been unsolved for thousands of years, across completely different civilizations, cultures, and places.
- klabb3 4y ago> corruption by the rich has been unsolved for thousands of years I guess we found the root cause :)
- worik 4y ago> no corporate lobbying > no political parties Really? I doubt it. I am no history scholar, but lobbying and grouping are so pervasive now I find it hard to believe they did not happen there and then
- user3939382 4y agoYes really. There were of course wealthy families that had business interests looked after, but nothing like today where you have corporations whose power eclipses the state and calls the shots. The lack of parties is even more black and white, those alliances did not exist at all. Advancement in their political system was based on individual accomplishments and if anything they were incentivized to sabotage each other, which is one problem they had.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- brnt 4y agoIt pays to game any system, that's why keeping things honest, functional and human is a perpetual effort. Advocating a fixed view/system, that all we have to do is accept certain fundamentals as all we need, that's how you can tell who's openly trying to game this system. Gaming a system is cheapest if the system doesn't change, after all.
- Dracophoenix 4y ago> The loudest tend to be accepting of things like insider trading, sex work and even organ selling Are you suggesting, that these are all bad things?