2 ms·

I made no attempt to hide my editing. I stand by it, too -- I only stated explicitly what you were implying. You followed the dichotomy "Let's compare Chile to

I made no attempt to hide my editing. I stand by it, too -- I only stated explicitly what you were implying. You followed the dichotomy "Let's compare Chile to North Korea" with the dichotomy "Free-as-possible markets [or] the alternative", in a context where the parent comment had already associated Chile with "free-as-possible markets". Are you now going to insist that you were not intending to associate North Korea with "the alternative"? Because I find that pretty unlikely.

maratd 15y ago
I should have used a plural instead of the singular. There are, of course, many alternatives to the free market. Communism, socialism, feudalism, anarchism, capitalism, cronyism, and quite a few other isms. And free markets are better than all of those alternatives. You don't think so? Examples, please, instead of non-existent dichotomies.
- EvilTerran 15y ago
  Indeed, the mention of North Korea as an alternative only got under my skin owing to its proximity to the implication that there was only one alternative - I probably wouldn't have bothered grumbling if only that "the" had been an "any". A market that was "as free as possible" would have no government regulation at all - there's one of those in Somalia. How's that for an example?
  - maratd 15y ago
    > there's one of those in Somalia. How's that for an example? First, I asked for an example of an alternative that works better. You gave me an example of what you think a free market system looks like. Second, that's not even an example of a free market system. That's anarchy. Anarchism. An ism. A free-market system still has a functional judiciary, a respect for property rights, etc etc. Somalia has none of those.
    - EvilTerran 15y ago
      Of course Somalia's not an example of something that works better. I meant it as (I guess the term would be) a co-example; there's no market regulation, & it's pretty obvious that pretty much anything else works better. However, I do insist that, strictly speaking, anarchy is a free market system - it's the reductio ad absurdum of free-market-ism. It's only fair if you're willing to cite North Korea, a totalitarian dictatorship with absolute state power, ie the reductio ad absurdum of state regulation, as an example of such. North Korea also lacks a functional judiciary, a respect for property rights, etc etc. I take it you at least consider justice & law enforcement to be sectors that benefit from state regulation - and I'd be surprised if there were no other such sectors as well. To take less extreme examples: * the (pre-Obamacare, as it's too early to judge the new setup) US healthcare system, which is less regulated than most developed countries', is the most expensive & least effective. * In the UK, the cheapest & most reliable part of the rail network is the part in Northern Ireland... being the only part that wasn't privatised back in 1993. Everywhere else, costs have grown & reliability has fallen. ... To try to find some common ground here: you believe in "as little regulation as possible", but that "as little as possible" is not none; I believe in "as much regulation as necessary", but that "as much as necessary" is not totalitarianism. I suspect these beliefs are, in the end, adjoint - opposite approaches to the same fundamental idea, although we may disagree on the details. Does that seem reasonable to you?
      - maratd 15y ago
        > Does that seem reasonable to you? Actually, I can sum up my beliefs very simply. I am against big things. Big government, big business, big whatever. Big things breed corruption. I don't mind regulation or even government involvement, as long as it's happening on a very local level and I have the freedom to live someplace else.
        EvilTerran 15y ago
        Okay, I can get behind that. I feel a certain amount of government is necessary to stop big business, big gangs (mafia & the like), or whatever from getting out of hand -- but too much government has its own problems. As you say, corruption, whoever gets too big. Similarly, a certain amount of unionisation helps keep big business under control, but too much leads to the workers holding the populace hostage. And so on -- balance in all things, really. Although what constitutes "balance" will vary considerably depending on what you're looking at. (Law enforcement needs more regulation than most industries, for instance.)

maratd 15y ago

I should have used a plural instead of the singular. There are, of course, many alternatives to the free market. Communism, socialism, feudalism, anarchism, capitalism, cronyism, and quite a few other isms. And free markets are better than all of those alternatives. You don't think so? Examples, please, instead of non-existent dichotomies.

EvilTerran 15y ago
Indeed, the mention of North Korea as an alternative only got under my skin owing to its proximity to the implication that there was only one alternative - I probably wouldn't have bothered grumbling if only that "the" had been an "any". A market that was "as free as possible" would have no government regulation at all - there's one of those in Somalia. How's that for an example?
- maratd 15y ago
  > there's one of those in Somalia. How's that for an example? First, I asked for an example of an alternative that works better. You gave me an example of what you think a free market system looks like. Second, that's not even an example of a free market system. That's anarchy. Anarchism. An ism. A free-market system still has a functional judiciary, a respect for property rights, etc etc. Somalia has none of those.
  - EvilTerran 15y ago
    Of course Somalia's not an example of something that works better. I meant it as (I guess the term would be) a co-example; there's no market regulation, & it's pretty obvious that pretty much anything else works better. However, I do insist that, strictly speaking, anarchy is a free market system - it's the reductio ad absurdum of free-market-ism. It's only fair if you're willing to cite North Korea, a totalitarian dictatorship with absolute state power, ie the reductio ad absurdum of state regulation, as an example of such. North Korea also lacks a functional judiciary, a respect for property rights, etc etc. I take it you at least consider justice & law enforcement to be sectors that benefit from state regulation - and I'd be surprised if there were no other such sectors as well. To take less extreme examples: * the (pre-Obamacare, as it's too early to judge the new setup) US healthcare system, which is less regulated than most developed countries', is the most expensive & least effective. * In the UK, the cheapest & most reliable part of the rail network is the part in Northern Ireland... being the only part that wasn't privatised back in 1993. Everywhere else, costs have grown & reliability has fallen. ... To try to find some common ground here: you believe in "as little regulation as possible", but that "as little as possible" is not none; I believe in "as much regulation as necessary", but that "as much as necessary" is not totalitarianism. I suspect these beliefs are, in the end, adjoint - opposite approaches to the same fundamental idea, although we may disagree on the details. Does that seem reasonable to you?
    - maratd 15y ago
      > Does that seem reasonable to you? Actually, I can sum up my beliefs very simply. I am against big things. Big government, big business, big whatever. Big things breed corruption. I don't mind regulation or even government involvement, as long as it's happening on a very local level and I have the freedom to live someplace else.
      - EvilTerran 15y ago
        Okay, I can get behind that. I feel a certain amount of government is necessary to stop big business, big gangs (mafia & the like), or whatever from getting out of hand -- but too much government has its own problems. As you say, corruption, whoever gets too big. Similarly, a certain amount of unionisation helps keep big business under control, but too much leads to the workers holding the populace hostage. And so on -- balance in all things, really. Although what constitutes "balance" will vary considerably depending on what you're looking at. (Law enforcement needs more regulation than most industries, for instance.)