6 comments

• 

  zoolish

  2 years ago

  I've taken it on myself to comment in the name of all those smiling. Some of those may not know this, but as of now, I am our self declared leader. At least until someone else self-declares him or her selves…
  We're not smiling because we think we've found a good example against the so called open market religion. We've smiling because you've not yet understood that we really don't need any examples. All systems have their flaws, as they have their advantages too. It's not a matter of which system is best. It's about choice. A truly free market will also allow for it's agents to choose when it is that they want to limit the so called freedom of trade and make way for other concerns. Free market advocates (you may exclude yourself from this example if you wish) often disregard this aspect of freedom.
  reply
• 

  Rogel

  2 years ago

  <div align="justify">

  <font size="2" face="Calibri">They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.</font>

  <font size="1" face="Calibri">Franklin's Contributions to the Conference on February 17 (III) Fri, Feb 17, 1775</font>

  </div>
  The only problem with your suggestion Zoolish is that it is eliminating choices, not allowing them
  reply
• 

  zoolish

  2 years ago

  Forgive me for being blunt. Free market isn't liberty. It's just a power system where power is allocated according to economic wealth. It is, in and of itself, no more moral that any other type of power distribution. And, the attempt to portray it as such really overlooks any true meaning of the term "liberty".
  reply
• 

  Rogel

  2 years ago

  It is all about the means of production isn't it?
  While you are focus on the market portion I'm much more interested in the free part of the term. And while I can argue that free is also more efficient it is less important to me than the simple argument that free is simply right.
  I love to see how the logic of a system that built on coercive confiscation, intervention and many other abuses of power claim to be "liberty".
  reply
• 

  zoolish

  2 years ago

  I think you misunderstood me. I do not claim (here) that any other system offers more liberty, freedom or justice. I do claim that markets are inherently not free. Like every other system, they too are a "power system" in which goods (freedom, justice, and liberty included, among many other things) are distributed according to a power structure. In any system, the flow of goods is not equal. Rather, it is controlled by some form of elite, which accumulates power and uses it to its advantage by pre-dominating the system, and manipulating less powerful adversaries (you can replace that last word with peers, competition, or anything else). That said, my own opinion is that (a) markets are unrightfully described as a "neutral" power system (one with no elites and fair and equal opportunities) and (b) that that because of this, the so called comparison to other systems is really un-just. A true account of markets versus any other sort of social system should ask who are the power elites in each system, how do they affect other players in that system, and which mechanisms are available to control abuse of power. The portrayal of markets as un-biased systems prevents any real understanding of them.
  reply
• 

  Rogel

  2 years ago

  It is rather surprising, mostly for me, but I did understand you. Your view of the "market" is a competitive one, where we have winners - and by product losers. You also describe the market as place where someone, some elite, seized the control - or at least the keys to control - the market and gaining all the benefits. it is the old argument about who controls the means of productions.
  But, and this is the second surprise today, do not share the same view of the so called market.
  The market, very much like the market I remember from my hometown Dimona, is a place where people engage in exchange, in what can be most of the time a "win win" activity. In a fair and free exchange of values both sides winning.
  
  Measuring markets by the levels of equality is not only a practical mistake but also a moral one.
  reply