AT&T Thanks Democrats For Telecom Immunity → Re: "a slew of private corporate-sponsored parties"

Usually when people are promoting free markets, they are doing so from an idealistic vantage point. The same can be said for people that push for a more socialized agenda. The reality, as you have stated, often lies somewhere in between a true free market and a command economy.

Exactly.

A totally unregulated market encourage corporate malfeasance and since end result of market pressure tends to be winner take all we end up with a monopoly or at best a duopoly.

Excessive government control discourages competition and investment.

Goal of government policy is to maximize benefit to society as a whole. Create incentives for investment and innovation while curbing free market excesses. This seems like common sense to me. I'm perplexed it is not obvious to everyone.

/tom

I agree. The problem I see is that it seems like we Americans have been indoctrinated to *reflexively* recoil at the mere mention of the word "communism" or "socialism." People can have a perfectly reasonable discussion about whether we, as a society, are willing to let people work for (and live on) pennies per hour -- just as we have established that we're not willing to let people buy/sell poor-quality (and less-expensive) medical services or food and drugs.

But, someone opposed to minimum wage will invoke the "socialism" word, and 9 out of 10 Americans will line up with the "free market" rhetoric because "I don't want to be a socialist, that's evil and opposed to everything about being a 'Merican."

Completely oblivious to how virtually all our markets are socialized -- and those *same* people *like* it that way.

I'm not saying things can't go too far. Just always amazed at the false use of rhetoric that implies absolute principles. It's such a cheap and dishonest way to stop any discussion. And it's amazing how effective it is, which means we 'Mericans really are brainwashed.

Mark

I admit that I am a victim of the brainwashing myself, to a degree. I try to remain as objective as I can, and having spent some time living overseas gives me a another perspective, but it's much harder to see how things really are when you are an actual part of what is being viewed. (if that makes any sense at all )

I agree. An example is how we're the beneficiaries of socialization of food and drug quality. Those laws negatively impact people some people who would benefit from more affordable (and lower quality, or riskier) food and drugs. But, the majority (me and you) benefit by having a "market" with more predictable outcome than a truly "free" market would provide. Less personal responsibility for caveat emptor. We can just assume food will have an expiration date, and be made to minimum standards. No need to exercise the massive due diligence that a true, free market would require.

We benefit, so it's easy to just believe "free markets" work. It's easy to forget how some people were harmed as the "needs of the many outweighed the needs of the few." But, when the price of pickles at Walmart might rise by 1% because of a proposed minimum-wage increase (or, forcing Walmart to pay for health care or parental leave) it's easy to say *that* is an unnecessary interference of the market.

I think it's just human nature to ignore other oxes being gored for our benefit. It's easy to ignore how those are socializations of a market, impacting willing buyers and sellers. But, if something will impact us, then we engage in principled, libertarian rhetoric about "government not being the answer," or "free markets work."

That's the problem I have with libertarianism. It's not a real political theory. It's just a way to enjoy the teat of society, while claiming everyone *else* is looking for a handout (using the most absolute, black-and-white rhetoric to reinforce the self deception).

Mark