FAHayek89 (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)

The other option is lord and master in the government. At least in a free market, corporations compete and provide some choice and freedom. Power is more disperse, and disperse power is always more benign. An all-powerful state offers none. What makes you believe that power concentrated in the state is any more benign than power in any other source? Why, given the record of the all-powerful states of the 1700s to the 1900s would I trust the state?

FAHayek89 (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)

As far as disenfranchisement, I am far more concerned about the issue of alienation - a subtle but real difference. Big institutions tend to alienate, whether large corporations and industries, large government, or large unions. It is an issue for conservatives and liberals. Enfranchisement implies decision making, and I do not want everyone have an equal role in decision making because not everyone is equally qualified.

FAHayek89 (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)

The market raises not only overall total wealth, but also the wealth of the poorest members of society in a way that no other system has. I would suspect that you would prefer a command economy in which both of us have $5 in real money rather than a market in which I have $6 and you have $20. I will take the extra dollar. Nor is material equality necessarily just. We are equal in our basic human dignity, but that does not imply we ought to be equal in wealth.

FAHayek89 (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)

. I find nothing barbaric about a system that rewards production and service based on its usefulness to the society that uses it. I find it to be the closest representation to justice that we are likely to find in the real world, whereas the practical results of command economies had demonstrated true barbarism in the last three centuries.

FAHayek89 (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)

A true conservative would take no pride in the idea that the free market was revolutionary, and instead find greater comfort in the knowledge that it developed slowly and gradually became an organic part of our social and economic system. Nor does a true conservative see economic or political systems as the be all and end all of our society, though they are vital components.

TimLoganKnows911633 (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)

FAHakye89, the argument that "free markets" will "raise overall standards of living" is inherently an unethical one because it is misleading. There was rising standards of living in slave societies. Slaves were much better off in the early 19th century than in the early 18th century. Is that an argument for slavery? It's a terrible argument. Equality has to be the measure because markets actually disenfranchise those with less economic resources in society. It becomes Social Darwinism

TimLoganKnows911633 (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)

Feudalism 1. A political and economic system of Europe from the 9th to about the 15th century, based on the holding of all land in fief or fee and the resulting relation of lord to vassal and characterized by homage, legal and military service of tenants, and forfeiture 2. A political, economic, or social order resembling this medieval system it's about rule by a Lord and master, who by right of,birth,arms,education etc controls others Lord & master have been replaced by corporation

TimLoganKnows911633 (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)

FAHayek89, I'm not occupied with the newness of the idea. I bring up it up simply as a side-point because so many conservatives consider "free-market" theory revolutionary, when the truth is that it was anything but. In fact, my very point was that "free-market" theory is much more ancient, not to mention barbaric, than is popularly mentioned. The barbarism inherent in its application cannot be understated.

FAHayek89 (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)

You seem occupied with the newness of an idea. That an idea was dreamt up this morning or 3,000 years old has no bearing on its truth-value (though there may be some epistemological reasons to favor older ideas). A majority of the big ideas debated by Rawls, Nozick, Habermas, or Hayek were debated by Aquinas and Augustine and by Aristotle and Plato. Nor does mass support or opposition bear on truth-value.

FAHayek89 (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)

Ethically, markets maximize free choice. They also raise overall standards of living, even among the poorest. They may at times increase economic disparity, but even the poorest in a market system tend to be better off than they would be in a command economy. If comparative equality is your measure, they are not moral. Overall, well being is a far more rational measure, and in that respect, they are the moral choice.