>Yes, you can contrive examples where markets perform less well >than an
omniscient and benevolent planner. So? That doesn't >change the empirical
fact that markets have done a better job >than anything else so far *in the
real world* (where nobody is >omniscient).
Sure i just meant to point out that a rational combination of the two could
work better than either one on its own. Leaving some minimalized state-like
instrument alive if you will, for those cases where the free market does
fail. Some sort of guarantee rather than depending on a chance . But then
again, maybe i'm still too 'convervative' ? ;-)
>It seems to me that a vote is only valid if all the voters >value the
outcome equally strongly - in other words, assign >equal weight to the
vote. That's very unlikely.
A pure free market system has the same problem. People with loads of money
value that money much lower, than people with less money.
>What do you mean "decide for"?
>If I were as rich
>as Bill Gates, could I impose such policies on you? How?
Every item you buy, before i buy it, will become cheaper for me. Everything
i don't buy before you buy it will be more expensive for you.
Its a wonderful system, yet it's not without flaws.
If you were as rich (or even richer) as bill gates, and you like 'egg in
your beer', you could decide to buy 10.000.000 crates of it and give them
away for free. The company that produces it will be able to manufacture it
cheaper, maybe even cheaper than other 'beers'. Who knows, such an action
may even result in other brands going bankrupt if its done well enough.
I can still see where a complete free market system can become a system
where the 75% masses become a toy for top 0.0001% of the rich. Now where
does that leave all you second house, 4 mercedes families ?
> [...] Its the school book example of how the ducth state is justified:
> who else would build a dike to protect us from the sea ?
>
>Maritime landowners?
Excactly, combined with the soviet like collectives that will occasionally
overthrow them.
What a wonderful future: We get a choice between being exploited by the
extremely rich, or a dictatorial collective instead of our current state.
Moderate 'social' measures have their function. They are to protect the
part of the population that lies between that 75% and the top 0.0001% from
excactly this.
Bringing levels of organisation down to more local levels is ofcourse an
obvious option for this 'class' in society. But IMO not a very good
solution for the world, the economy and the future as a whole.
>When one rich man says no, maybe another will say yes.
>When the state says no, not only have you not got what you >asked for, you
haven't got your tax money either ;)
True, which is exactly why i feel that just a much more minimalized state
will do the trick.
>Do you believe in planners' altruism?
No i don't.
I don't know excactly what i am politically yet, maybe someone can tell me:
I'd like to see a system with the highest level of individual freedom,
combined with a free market economy, one where there is consent from the
population through a far more democratic system than we have today, but far
less bureaucratic and with a much less influencial state. BUT: With a swift
and sure instrument left intact to act ONLY in crisis situations, with a
rapid concentration of power and resources the scope of that which the
Roman consuls had.
am i a democratic semi-anarcho/monarcho-capitalist ?
;-)
J. de Lyser
Brussels