> > Because that's what I hear when I read that the
> free market is *the* way.
> > But you have backed off from the definite. ;-)
> Backed off? The discussion you referenced was about how
> I (or Jon, or someone else) would choose to allocate
> resources. _The_
> way _I_ would do it is a free market. And I said it was the
> way (I would choose)
> to _efficiently_ allocate resources. I don't know about
> "appropriate". People
> want a lot of things, and the free market is the most
> efficient way I know of
> to supply those things to people who want them. I make no
> judgement about
> whether it is "appropriate". I do make judgements
> about what is fair -- I consider
> consensual deals fair, and barring people from consensual
> deals to be unfair.
you can not assume that all "consensual deals" are "fair", and should be
allowed without any regulation. there is a huge difference between a "free"
market, and a "fair" market. some deals may even benefit the consumer and
still be enormously destructive to the environment, exploit resources and labor
in undeveloped countries, put americans out of work, and any number of negative
consequences. it is a copout to make no judgement when something is wrong.
jon
_______________________________________________
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
