3 ms·
I 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
by benaiah 13y ago
I 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.