3 ms·

Isn't that like saying people are in favour of free speech. Until someone starts inciting violence. It's still in favour of free speech, just with limits. The

Isn't that like saying people are in favour of free speech. Until someone starts inciting violence. It's still in favour of free speech, just with limits. The same applies to free markets. If they work as promised great. If not someone needs to step in and fix it.

sidewndr46 4y ago
The problem of unbounded free speech is rectified by setting precedent that yelling "fire" in a crowded theater is obviously a criminal act. At least, it works this way in a common law nation like the US. This doesn't really cost anything, beyond criminal enforcement. The public good in this is obvious. The rectification of free markets in the US somehow involves massive transfers of wealth to private companies from the public sphere. Essentially just to make sure those companies don't suffer an adverse effects from their bad decisions. I'm not sure what the utility to the public is in this. Do we really need companies that only exist because of government handouts. Why didn't we bail out Enron in that case? What about WorldCom? Or was their mistake just having a Canadian as a CEO?