4 ms·
Don't confuse free market advocacy with anarchy. Buying up judges, bribing other officials, and other fraudulent transactions, including stuff like misrepresent
by benaiah 13y ago
Don't confuse free market advocacy with anarchy. Buying up judges, bribing other officials, and other fraudulent transactions, including stuff like misrepresentation of goods and other deceptive business practices, are not necessarily okay in a free market. However, direct government interference is. I don't advocate for a completely dog-eat-dog, caveat emptor society, but I do advocate for one in which those in power cannot control the flow of private wealth (often to their own benefit).
- sjwright 13y agoSo then who is going to "interfere" on behalf of the society at large? On behalf of the environment? Will individual consumers do what's right for the common good, for the first time in ever? Look, everyone is part socialist, part capitalist, part communist, part fascist, part anarchist. Just don't fall into the trap of thinking your current favourite blend of these colours is the one true path. If there's one thing you learn looking around the world, there are many blends that have proven to work comparatively well. (And others that clearly don't.)
- benaiah 13y agoI don't mean to imply I have the perfect system (though it obviously doesn't contain any errors I'm aware of), but rather that advocating a free market does not imply what he says it implies. Advocating a free market does not imply endorsing bribery and fraud. That was the extent of my point there.
- EGreg 13y agoI agree with you but the elephant in the room is, although you may be against "bribery and fraud" how would a community actually stop someone with enough money from doing just that, unless you do in fact have governments and regulations? What is going to balance the money signal? It's not enough to say that you are not for it, but what mechanism would the system actually have to deal with such abuses?
- benaiah 13y agoAgain, I am in favor of government, just not its economic interference. Reducing its economic interference actually reduces the motivation for corruption and bribery (not that I think that's enough). Bribery and corruption should still have legal penalties and be prosecuted by the government. Abuse of wealth should still be a problem, but that doesn't require the government micromanaging that wealth.
- JackFr 13y agoThe irony is implicit -- the way to avoid the corruption of government bureacracies is to increase the size and power of said bureacracies.
- deleted 13y ago[deleted]