Linked by Dmitrij D. Czarkoff on Fri 31st Aug 2007 08:54 UTC
Editorial This article is an answer to "Competition Is Not Good" by Kroc and reading it wouldn't be comfortable without switching to and from the original article. I wrote it just because I do strongly disagree with Kroc and I believe I can prove that he is not as close to truth as it may seem from the first glance.
Thread beginning with comment 267346
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Member since:

I'm opting for the combination of wrong AND insane.
I can still remember when the Wall came crashing down and the feeling of ecstasy when the communist regimes fell one by one.

I know their position, and do study them on daily basis. But it still puts me in a bad mood.

Personally it's my opinion that a truly free market is the way to go. This means that there cannot be legal mechanisms to prevent competition (so, no protection of de facto monopolies, no patents for an instance) - only legal mechanism to prevent illegal use of force.

Regulating the forces of the market is equal to regulating the forces of nature. One is messing with powers greater than oneself and it is going to unsettle the balance and create havoc.

EDIT: I don't even think there should be anything like copyright - at most one can demand a proper attribution.

Edited 2007-08-31 12:38 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2

ValiSystem Member since:

Well, to me you are as wrong and insane as communists.

And to me, driving people by pure ideas is not realistic. Ideas are necessary, but just to give small orientation to politics.

The more you make a government being strongly lead by an ideal, the more insane society you get.

Reply Parent Score: 1

dylansmrjones Member since:

The more you make a government being strongly lead by an ideal, the more insane society you get.

True, that's why we don't want a government ;)

Reply Parent Score: 2

sbergman27 Member since:

IMO, it's naive to think that you can set up a system as simple as dylansmrjones suggests, without a referee, and have it work.

There are simply too many pathological conditions that the system can get into that require intervention to resolve in a reasonable amount of time. The simplest case being that of a monopoly. Completely free markets encourage that particular pathological condition. The motivations, and actions, of the monopolists *eventually* do bring them down. But do we really want the system to be in failure mode for the majority of the time?

We tried Laissez-faire here in the US. "We, the People" were rewarded with sweatshops, cheap child labor, and an ultra-rich super-class to read about in the newspapers.

Edited 2007-08-31 16:40

Reply Parent Score: 2

ddc_ Member since:

Hm... I believe You don't actually understand how much ideal interferes with each and every government. Just filter out the news about Belorussia's legislation and try to imagine Your country's government following it.

Reply Parent Score: 1

redtux Member since:

Dear Oh Dear

An uregulated economy is what we had in the UK in the 19th century, when the vast majority of the population had no rights, subsistence level living and low life expectancy.

That is why, after a lot of agitation, more and more regulation was brought in (no coincidence that this happened with the deepening of the franchise)

In the western world the closest to your ideal is the U, and that society I see as a nightmare. (gun-crime and healthcare anyone)

Reply Parent Score: 1