posted on Feb, 9 2013 @ 10:39 PM
reply to post by daskakik
So your solution is a system which is based on immorality? Where the people "in charge" are permitted and even encouraged to behave immorally?
The free market does not let just anybody acquire wealth. You must be able to produce it. Its not like a government where the officials are given a
free pass to attain any weapon and amount of military man power that they want. They can command whole armies and buy as many weapons of mass
destruction as they desire and they did not have to produce an ounce of that wealth. Not only this but the blatant theft used to procure this wealth
it is deemed morally acceptable by the public.
The free market does not claim to end immorality, but sure as hell stops giving free weapons to the most immoral of us.
In the market there is no entity which is superior to the rest, which claims different standards of judgment. One is not given moral supremacy and
lawful jurisdiction over others.
The assumption is that private property could not be enforced in the market. That just courts would not be in demand and that people could not defend
themselves. Without our wise overlords providing these services no body would be able to figure them out.
There has not yet been absolute free markets tried, but before America there was never this type of republic tried. It was an experiment and that is
how progress is made. The founder could have said well, there has never been a government arranged quite like this... how do we know it will work? All
we have is a paper model... and all that crap. The American republic has had the best system to resist oppression to date and a whole lot of
prosperity that followed, but now with it going under its time to take it yet another step further down the path to individual freedom.
In order to attain wealth in the free market you must produce it. Sure you can try to steal it but it sure is hard to rob someone when you don't have
much of anything and no authority to get it. For those smart enough to be able to produce, it becomes clear that producing wealth is much easier and
beneficial than working to take it from others. Robbery and theft die out simply out of practicality, it sure is hard to steal from someone if he has
a lot more resources than you.
If you have those resources sure you could try to take people over, become a dictator. Worst case scenario we end up with something like we have right
now. Chances are people would actually realize that its unprofitable to do so. It would cost to much and require the use of to many resources to
enslave a bunch of people. If these people are already free they would be much quicker to recognize oppression when some business tries to pull this.
Its a lot different with a government who the people already give oppressive powers from the start.
The immoral is the immoral because it is not best suited for living. It is not the most efficient nor does it lead to the highest potential for the
individual. It is more than just wrong, it is unbeneficial for the one practicing immoral behavior. This might actually be realized by people given
true freedom and a little bit of time, but in the mean time there would be a high demand for services with protect individuals from immoral behavior.
Smart entrepreneurs would have no trouble figuring this out and would be glad to make money providing it.