Comment: Agreed, but is the free

(See in situ)


Agreed, but is the free

Agreed, but is the free market the best way to provide protection from cronyism?

There is a paradox at work. Democratic government is the market will of the people in political form. If you truly believe that people's unabated 'will' provides the best possible solutions to the world, then you must also agree that pure democracy must lead to the best possible government. The only difference between the political market and the consumer market are the feedback mechanisms within them: price on one hand, advocacy on the other. If the market invisibly moves prices towards the optimal point all the time, it must also (by the same standard) always invisibly move the political market in the optimal direction via its feedback. Just as you might not like the price the market ends up selecting for a good - which does not mean the market has made a mistake - similarly, just because you end up with government you disagree with, does not mean that the selected government is not optimal under current conditions. The true question is exactly what does "optimal" mean, the answer to which is subjective and not inclined to mathematical proofs, no matter how much one might wish it were.

Any time anyone advocates for a pure free market system, they are really advocating anarchy (of which the man this site is named after was not a proponent). I'm not saying there is anything wrong with advocating anarchy, but it should be stated cleanly and understood by the proponent so that we can all remain intellectually honest.