Emlyn O'Regan wrote:
>
> Unlike many of the members of this list, I am inclined to agree with Paul.
> There's too many instances of monopoly power in the history of
> commerce/capitalism, to believe that the thing would be all roses if we just
> left it to it's own devices. Monopoly power is the commercial equivalent of
> feudal overlord domination (bwa ha ha!).
Like many other members of the list, I know that the instances of government
monopoly power causing harm exceeds by exponential figures than that caused by
smaller/less powerful organizations.
Your proposals that government should act as a check on the market is as logical
as, well, hiring a mass murderer to police a schoolyard bully.
>
> I'm still interested in dynamism as a concept, I just think the free market
> is not the optimal dynamic system to choose, especially if you are
> interested in the welfare of the individual. I've talked previously (and
> rather naively, but hey) about an alternative system of participartory
> democracy "on steroids", using that to replace the normal concept of
> exclusive ownership, to which I would attribute most of the really bad
> points about capitalism.
>
> I'm really interested to hear what other people can come up with by way of
> dynamical social systems which are not free-market based, or at least don't
> rely on the free market as their major mechanism.
As I've said, any sufficiently open participatory mechanism of negotiating value
is indistinguishable from a free market. Free markets may not be perfect, and
most markets in existence to date have never been completely free markets,
however any of the alternatives outside of a benevolent god making perfect
decisions for all, all the time, are far far worse than a free market.
> Paul, I invite you to
> start. You're not so hot on uber-capitalism, so what's your alternative?
Yes, we've seen much bitching and whining from Paul, but little in the form of
constructive detail.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Oct 02 2000 - 17:37:13 MDT