Why vote?

[a123321r]

http://www.theguardian.com/media/2013/nov/05/paxman-politics-russell-brand-voting
Paxman: Brand was right over public's disgust at 'tawdry pretences' of politics
Newsnight presenter, who berated Russell Brand for never voting, admits 'green-bench pantomime' also stopped him once
Share 670


2
inShare
5
Email
John Plunkett
The Guardian, Tuesday 5 November 2013
Jump to comments (784)
Jeremy Paxman and comedian Russell Brand on Newsnight - 10 million people have watched the interview
Jeremy Paxman and Russell Brand on Newsnight. The interview with the comedian has been watched by some 10 million people. Photograph: BBC

He once asked Michael Howard the same question 12 times and questioned Tony Blair if he was familiar with Megaboobs and Horny Housewives magazines. Now the Newsnight presenter Jeremy Paxman, famous for giving ruthlessly short shrift to politicians, has confirmed that his irascible on-screen attitude towards Westminster is more than skin deep.

The rottweiler figurehead of the BBC2 programme gave both barrels to all three main parties in a no-holds-barred column in the Radio Times published on Tuesday.

The presenter, 63, revealed he once did not vote because the choices were so "unappetising" and said politicians' burning desire to order people about was "one of the many reasons they are so odd".

"At the next election we shall have a choice between the people who've given us five years of austerity, the people who left us this mess, and the people who signed public pledges that they wouldn't raise student fees, and then did so – the most blatant lie in recent political history," wrote Paxman.

"It won't be a bombshell if very large numbers of the electorate simply don't bother to vote. People are sick of the tawdry pretences," said the presenter who dubbed the "whole green-bench pantomime in Westminster … a remote and self-important echo-chamber".

Paxman's withering critique followed his much-discussed Newsnight interview with Russell Brand last week. The 10-minute encounter, in which Paxman upbraided the comedian because he "can't be arsed to vote", became an unlikely YouTube hit, with 10 million views – nearly 20 times Newsnight's average audience.

But despite his criticism of Brand for never voting, Paxman confessed he too had once failed to vote in an election. "I think part of Russell Brand's diagnosis is right. There is a huge sense of disillusion out there," he said.

"Russell Brand has never voted, because he finds the process irrelevant. I can understand that: the whole green-bench pantomime in Westminster looks a remote and self-important echo chamber. But it is all we have. In one recent election, I decided not to vote, because I thought the choice so unappetising.

"By the time the polls had closed and it was too late to take part, I was feeling really uncomfortable: the person who chooses not to vote – cannot even be bothered to write 'none of the above' on a ballot paper – disqualifies himself from passing any comment at all."

He warned: "We ignore the democratic process at our peril … People died for the right to choose their government, because otherwise power is wielded by the rich and strong for the benefit of the rich and strong.

"Whether you bother to vote or not, someone is going to sit on those benches and tell you what to do."

Recent Newsnight guests to have been "Paxoed" include Tory MP Chloe Smith, when she was economic secretary to the Treasury last year, and Amadeu Altafaj-Tardio, a European commission spokesman who walked off the show after Paxman called him "Mr Idiot".

Paxman, who will complete 25 years on the programme next year, admitted he had low expectations of Brand, whom he interviewed on the show after the comedian guest-edited the New Statesman.

'Spawn of the devil'

"A multimillionaire with a house in California talking about the need to take from the rich and give to the poor. That is – what's the word? – rich," said Paxman.

"But we really ought to admit it, Daily Mail columnists may think Russell Brand the spawn of the devil. But there is something irresistible about him. The energy, the loquacity, the camp manner, the apparent frankness. He stands squarely in the British tradition of cheeky chappies."

He added: "He [Brand] thinks the wrong people are in charge. Well, perhaps they are. But the people in charge are always people who want to be in charge … I have no burning desire to order people about. Politicians do; that is one of the many reasons they are so odd."

The BBC traditionally frowns on its presenters, especially those in BBC News, using columns to comment on news and current affairs. Strict guidelines were introduced 10 years ago after several controversies caused by corporation presenters and journalists speaking out in newspapers and magazines.

Days after the Tory party chairman, Grant Shapps, complained about a lack of "fairness" in the BBC's reporting, Paxman appeared to be equally dismissive of all three parties.

The BBC declined to comment on Paxman's statements.

In last week's Newsnight interview, Brand asked Paxman: "Aren't you bored, aren't you more bored than anyone? Ain't you been talking to [politicians] year after year, listening to their lies, their nonsense, then it's this one gets in, that one gets in, but the problem continues? Why are we going to continue to contribute to that facade?"

Brand, it appears, may have been closer to the truth than he realised.

 

[Bi-honar]

Thanks for the response Kazem jaan and I think this is a good philosophical discussion worth having. Of course, on any given day, I could agree with 90% or more of what you're saying, but for the sake of having this philosophical discussion, I'll be the devil's advocate as well:

I agree with what you say in general, and I also question the wisdom of the lives we lead today as opposed to the past; but making the world fit us is not a flaw of capitalism, that's its aim.

Why can't the flaw be in the goals/aims? Isn't that in fact the worst type of flaw, where the entire path (the goals and direction) is flawed?

It's not about money, power or greed, in the way you mention. These can be representations or even outcomes in certain instances, but they are not the ultimate aim of capitalism.

For the record, I am not sure if a simple nomadic lifestyle is better or the lives we lead today; but as aforesaid, the aim of capitalism is to get resources in the hands of the most productive. For example, we could all learn to build a home, plot a farm, etc; but is that more efficient or is it better for those who are best at building homes or sustaining farms or what have you doing that and trading based on some exchange of value (represented by monetary transactions, primarily, these days)?

Simply put, some things even have a natural advantage: country x has better climates to make bananas than country y. So why should both countries produce it? This is a waste of resources if one country pursues banana farming as they waste more inputs in doing that, when they could be providing another service or good with less resources used.

Fair enough. But what's the natural progression of putting resources in the hands of the most productive, if not the creation of larger and more profitable corporations and eventually market monopolies?! Does the word "productive" in this sense mean anything other than being able to create more profit? And doesn't more profit eventually lead to cheaper labour? In other words, would the aim of a corporation be to produce the most bananas as the lowest possible price to feed as many people as possible (betterment of mankind), or would it be to sell an optimum number of bananas to maximize profits, even if that means that half of its own work force can no longer afford to eat them?

So, I disagree with your assessment immensely; free market capitalism is not a zero-sum game. Ironically, it's the system best capable of meeting the needs of the parties that come together because it means that only on terms that they voluntarily agree to does anything happen. Things like "empowerment of the human soul" are subjective, arbitrary and will forever be a mystery. If we build a society based on that, who knows what we'd be doing and which vision we'd be following - not everyone's soul desires the same things. When it comes to the survival of the human species: what better system than that which improves our capability to produce for the population - hopefully shifting our technologies to the point where we can survive past the use-by date of planet Earth? Who says a natural evolution is better? Some natural occurrences wipe out whole races or life on planets. If a meteorite is heading for Earth; should we let it hit us come what may and the surviving humans continue their evolutionary path? Or do we try to destroy the meteorite before it hits all of us?

Obviously it would be best to destroy the meteorite before it hits us, that' my whole point. How much of the world's total GDP do you think is being diverted to this very important task, whose success could very well mean the different between extinction of our specie or its survival? What do you think that is as a percentage of the world's GDP being spent on similar technologies for defence (read destruction) purposes?

As far as the human equation, you are correct, not everyone's soul desires the same thing. But most people desire a simple life where they can have a shelter over their heads or food on their tables tomorrow. What percentage of the world is going hungry today or does not have access to drinking water? There are 800,000 people who rely on food banks in Canada - a bright beacon of capitalism with near unlimited resources. Do you think that these people came to the table as one of the parties on even terms and voluntarily agreed to this arrangement? Do you think I voluntarily agreed to pay for these food banks with my 75% nominal tax rate? Do you think I voluntarily agreed to pay for the next year for the workforce of a company like EnCana that made record profits in the last decade and now is laying off 20% of its workforce through the UI system? Once you create corporations of that size at the expense of small mom and pops operations, do you think those mom and pops operations can simply return to the market to compete with these large entities?

What I was referring to is the fact that things are getting faster, harder, more burdensome to sustain because the competition has gotten so much greater. There are more people, smarter people, longer living people, etc, these days. These factors put a strain on all us who are after the same thing: survival. So when I talk about a 'flaw' I am referring to this. Some people cling to the lives they've led, the notions they knew, the family they grew up with and they're having trouble adjusting because the world is just moving at such a faster pace these days. Communication is instant, it makes other things possible faster. And to catch up...people might need 2 degrees, might need to retrain themselves yearly to cope, to keep up with everybody else.

Why the need for so much strain and stress in people's lives? Most people sure as hell aren't happy with the pace of things in North America but they're forced to keep up with it, just to survive. So, why is it important to keep this pace, if not to maximize profits?

Now, I can see the argument that questions if such a thing is desirable - but it is the whole point of capitalism and not a flaw in a systemic sense. It just may be that you don't wish for the world to head in this direction and that's fair enough too. But the point I was making is that if you're going to use a capitalistic system, use it in its purest and fairest form. People delude themselves into certain hybrids of it, and get fooled into giving more power to other people under false pretences. At least in a free market system, you only give your power (in a sense money or time) up when you voluntarily agree to it, in every transaction.

I can't play devil's advocate in this part, 'cause I totally agree with you. If I didn't have to pay taxes, I wouldn't worry about subsiding McDonald's workforce and that would mean that their workers would demand more money to survive, they would have more disposable income and McDonalds would make less profits. Everyone would be happy except the executives and shareholders who would be getting less bonuses or dividends. They would likely raise prices to maintain their profit levels and simply demand and supply would drive the rest of that process.

Bill Maher actually touched on this issue a couple of weeks ago. Worth watching, it's pretty funny too even though his approach may be different than the way you and I think about the free market:

[video=youtube_share;PlbrdBPMLUM]http://youtu.be/PlbrdBPMLUM[/video]

 

[Kaz]

Thanks for the response Kazem jaan and I think this is a good philosophical discussion worth having. Of course, on any given day, I could agree with 90% or more of what you're saying, but for the sake of having this philosophical discussion, I'll be the devil's advocate as well:

Why can't the flaw be in the goals/aims? Isn't that in fact the worst type of flaw, where the entire path (the goals and direction) is flawed?

Well, that's essentially my point. Capitalism in terms of achieving its aim does very well. My reply was in response to this question: whether people see those goals as desirable. In the world we live, it's clear that we are striving towards the goals that capitalism serves to bring about - that is why I say that if we're going to run a race, let's run it fairly. But, as you question, do we want to run a race?

Fair enough. But what's the natural progression of putting resources in the hands of the most productive, if not the creation of larger and more profitable corporations and eventually market monopolies?! Does the word "productive" in this sense mean anything other than being able to create more profit? And doesn't more profit eventually lead to cheaper labour? In other words, would the aim of a corporation be to produce the most bananas as the lowest possible price to feed as many people as possible (betterment of mankind), or would it be to sell an optimum number of bananas to maximize profits, even if that means that half of its own work force can no longer afford to eat them?

If corporations (let's just call them companies because people have negative connotations for such a discussion involving 'corporations') are big, are productive and are rich then the question is how did they become so? For people like me, who want a free market system, we have no problem with such entities or monopolies provided that they got their market share due to their own ability or ingenuity and without the subsidisation or favour of government. I don't care if company x makes trillions of dollars doing what they do, if they do it fairly, because then they've shown the capacity to meet the needs of people who will deal with them voluntarily.

Your last question for me is very important in one respect, and moot in another. In a free market system, companies will set the price based on the ability to maximise profit - which in turn is an indicator that they're doing their jobs well and provides the capital for further improvement. Setting prices just to make sure that all people can have said good or service is a fool's game. It is arguable that this is for the betterment of mankind and I'll elaborate why. Prices are indicators to a market; they relate how much a buyer will pay and how much a seller will forgo their good or service. But they only get to that position by knowing their costs. If setting the price so that everybody can consume said good or service was feasible, they'd do it (I'll elaborate why in this respect below). That they don't indicates that the resources are too scarce or come about with enough difficulty/cost that the prices cannot be lower. As I intimated earlier: the world is not a utopia and has limited resources. So, how do you decide who gets what's available? Price: those who see that good or service as important enough to meet that cost. Ultimately, it might mean that if companies were forced to sell something below their own costs; how would that be good for anybody? It will bankrupt them and it means no one gets what they want - whereas at least in the other system some people will get it (those willing to bear the cost of exchange).

This is similar to the health care debate: no one wants people to miss out; but if subsidising a system where costs are never fully met and debt accrues, you will then face a state that becomes bankrupt - and then no one may be able to afford food, let alone health care. It's why proponents of a free market do not want a form of socialised medicine; we want to be able to have a sustainable system so that a lot of people can get help and force competition into technological improvements so that this number can grow. For me this is why your question is important in this respect.

However, it is moot in another. If we had a true free market system, companies in a market will always be forced to fear their competitors. Even if they have a market share which makes them a monopoly; once they affix prices too greedily, it creates a gap for a new party to come in and take advantage of. Friedman once said the best policy against monopolies was free markets; and that in recorded history he could only find 2 companies that had such long-term dominance in their fields. It is then moot because if prices dictate that a lot of people miss out it either means that there isn't enough of that resource to share; or if it is because of the greediness (by way of setting prices) of a company seeking more profits, said company is at the mercy of another player coming in and beating their prices and taking over their market share.

Obviously it would be best to destroy the meteorite before it hits us, that' my whole point. How much of the world's total GDP do you think is being diverted to this very important task, whose success could very well mean the different between extinction of our specie or its survival? What do you think that is as a percentage of the world's GDP being spent on similar technologies for defence (read destruction) purposes?

I don't know. My question wasn't to laser in on this discussion. My point was to draw a parallel. If the survival of the human race, irrespective of the uniformity in the quality of life they lead, is the main aim; then capitalism is effectively the meteorite destroying mechanism to help us survive.

Let's say that a meteor is going to hit us in 100 years and we have to build technologies to save us. What that then means is that we have to funnel our best resources (intelligent people, natural resources, etc) to that aim. However, this might mean that people who cannot help us in that aim or are incapable due to either a lack of ability or circumstance might not lead the best of lives. Much like how in a capitalistic society we pay more to smarter and influential people, because of those very traits, whereas a McDonald's waiter makes minimum wage.

This is just the reality of the system we have chosen; it does not mean the system is flawed. So I say; IF all we care about is the human race surviving, this system does what it intends to do. And capitalism is IMO a very good example to parallel with the above.

The question I brought up and you also reiterated is if this should be our aim at all. Does the human race need to survive? Maybe it is better that in our 100 years we make everything level, 'fair' and as enjoyable for as much people, irrespective of that cost (that we will ultimately die, not diverting our resources to survival). That's a philosophical question I can't answer and is probably unanswerable as it is merely opinion regardless of viewpoint.

However, I will say this: those that tend to seek socialistic policies for me are caught in the middle of the worst aspects. They want to stop the meteorite hitting, yet they also don't want to provide our best effort into helping that happen. They want a system which gives to all, without realising the costs. They think they can help all, without realising that eventually they'll help none.

As far as the human equation, you are correct, not everyone's soul desires the same thing. But most people desire a simple life where they can have a shelter over their heads or food on their tables tomorrow. What percentage of the world is going hungry today or does not have access to drinking water? There are 800,000 people who rely on food banks in Canada - a bright beacon of capitalism with near unlimited resources. Do you think that these people came to the table as one of the parties on even terms and voluntarily agreed to this arrangement? Do you think I voluntarily agreed to pay for these food banks with my 75% nominal tax rate? Do you think I voluntarily agreed to pay for the next year for the workforce of a company like EnCana that made record profits in the last decade and now is laying off 20% of its workforce through the UI system? Once you create corporations of that size at the expense of small mom and pops operations, do you think those mom and pops operations can simply return to the market to compete with these large entities?

Neither Canada, nor America, nor Australia are bright beacons of capitalism. We're in a filthy hybrid that neither improves our lot, nor distributes it effectively. I can't get into the specifics of Canada as I am not well-read enough; but one can't form a system of welfare and then argue why people are dependent on it. People who seek free market capitalism push for people to become productive. And if their productivity is lost in terms of importance, they have to retrain to be important in another field. Unfortunately, as I keep repeating, the needs of all will never be met...resources are finite; so it will always be a competition and some will lose.

For example, EnCana may have made record profits in this decade; but it just might be that their survival is dependent on them cutting costs - they may introduce new technologies and lay off jobs. This is sad, but looking at the bigger picture it is indicating the progression of the human race. That said job no longer requires people to apply themselves to menial tasks. It reminds me of Devito's speech in "Other People's Money":

[video=youtube;62kxPyNZF3Q]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=62kxPyNZF3Q[/video]

Note the "Buggy-whip" example, so that I don't have to spend even more time typing .

I think the record of capitalism is also overwhelmingly positive. If you want to talk about homes, food, etc, the very basics; people are far better off now than, say 600 years ago. It's all relative.

Why the need for so much strain and stress in people's lives? Most people sure as hell aren't happy with the pace of things in North America but they're forced to keep up with it, just to survive. So, why is it important to keep this pace, if not to maximize profits?

No one is forced. Force means you have no choice. People can move. Is this ideal? No, but faced with survival and sitting on your hands, it's not really comparable. Again, it's all relative.

And as aforesaid; profits are positive signals. That's the beauty of the system. If the only motive a person had was to legally make as much money as they could, and they could only do so through their own ingenuity and not the help of the powerful; then they can only create that wealthy by meeting the needs of people who voluntarily give up their wealth in exchange of what they provide. And if you want to make more money; you will have to make them even more happy or garner a larger audience.

But that is IF you have a truly competitive system where changes in prices can affect a company greatly. It also depends on the good or service in question and it's elasticity - to use an economic term.

I can't play devil's advocate in this part, 'cause I totally agree with you. If I didn't have to pay taxes, I wouldn't worry about subsiding McDonald's workforce and that would mean that their workers would demand more money to survive, they would have more disposable income and McDonalds would make less profits. Everyone would be happy except the executives and shareholders who would be getting less bonuses or dividends. They would likely raise prices to maintain their profit levels and simply demand and supply would drive the rest of that process.

Bill Maher actually touched on this issue a couple of weeks ago. Worth watching, it's pretty funny too even though his approach may be different than the way you and I think about the free market:

Thanks, I'll watch the video when I get home.

I see it slightly different to you. For me, if I didn't have taxes, it means that money is going to benefit those in my immediate circles. I don't know what part of my taxes is even helpful because I am not engaged. Whereas if I give $1000 to my cousin, I can see first hand how that is helping him. I know there is a immediacy to that help. This is why I really like the constitutional writers of America and in general many of the thinkers of the time that tried to divide power. It's why I don't really mind local taxes as opposed to federal taxes. Because, I can see in my own neighbourhood that money being used well or not. I can directly elect the mayor and campaigning for or against him is a much simpler recourse. Anyway, that's a bit of a digression.

To the bolded: I think what you're likely going to see if McDonald's raises it's prices to match that subsidisation it will make them less competitive than their rivals who never relied on subsidisation and who had previously evolved their business in fair practices to compete with McDonald's price points. To illustrate it:

McDonald's sells a Big Mac for $5 with $1 worth of employer subsidies.
X sells its main burger for $5 with $0 subsidies.

If McDonald's raises it's price to $6 to account for the loss of subsidisation, it makes her competitors more desirable. And that's what you want ultimately: that the guys doing it the right way get rewarded. And for me the shareholders and executives are people too - their stake is just as important. But without subsidisation, without getting the favour of government, it means they have to funnel their money towards better practising companies too, which is another desirable outcome.

 

[Bi-honar]

Again Kazem jaan, I'm just playing devil's advocate and not promoting communism vs. the utopian free market capitalism that you are talking about. So here are a few questions/comments I have for you:

1 - Where do you see, or where have we seen this type of utopian free market capitalism taking place? Communism with a Star Trek type future for mankind was also good on paper, but in practice it proved impossible because of its inherent flaw of not recognizing the nature of mankind to better itself and to be rewarded for that desire and drive. What makes you think is blocking the success of free market capitalism, if not other inherent flaws in mankind such as greed or the need to dominate?

2 - The entire argument for free market capitalism and one that you have also mentioned repeatedly is that if left to its own devices it will have a natural tendency toward equilibrium and that the market (i.e. interaction between the seller and buyer) will in fact set reach that equilibrium by itself. My question to you then is in 5000 years of one form or another of capitalism, why hasn't it made that natural progression or reach that elusive equilibrium?

3 - The issue about monopolies has always been one of the most important critiques of free market capitalism as you know. Your points are well taken, however it does not take into account several very important factors, particularly as related to #1. Those important factors, all of which become more mooted as the size of the corporation increase are: barriers to competition, the unavoidable creation of an imbalance between market participants both financially and legally that goes against the very essence of reaching a balance/equilibrium, and the unavoidable greed and ability of those larger entities to manipulate both the market and policy - don't forget that unlike individuals corporate entities have no conscience or moral obligations. There are reasons we have competition or environmental laws in every western democracy today - someone didn't just wake up one day and decided that such statues need to be enacted. Rather, it was a natural response/progression to allowing corporate entities act in a vacuum from these checks and balances. Are you really suggesting that if we take out these checks and balances now, corporate entities will all of a sudden develop a conscience and self-regulate! As related to my work, why would a factory spend 100's of thousands of dollars to reduce the noise levels or emissions from their plant, if they were not forced to - because they care about the neighbours?

4 - The issue of a meteor may be a philosophical one, but it's a good example of how free market capitalism is just a utopian concept. Why would anyone spend 100's of millions of dollars developing a defence to a meteor that may or may not impact earth in 5 years? Where's the profit in that?

 

[Kaz]

Aziz, I am not saying you believe one thing or another; you don't have to tell me you're playing the devil's advocate. Even if you weren't, these are legitimate questions and I find the discussion fun .


1 - I don't think free market capitalism is utopian, which is why I keep saying that those promoting leftist solutions are dreaming. The very essence of my point is that free market capitalists acknowledge the limits and therefore wish for a system that allows us to work within those limits to the best of our ability.


The best instances of this kind of capitalism occurred from the industrial revolution period until the early 20th century; particularly in America. I think you can find free markets in several industries, maybe not whole countries.


What is blocking the success of this kind of freedom is several things IMO:


- Power: free markets means giving power to the individual and the powers to be want the exact opposite. In fact, they've indoctrinated people to think that they need a concentrated power to look out for their interests and that's how most people are duped into arguing for socialised services.


- Responsibility: the inherent freedom that comes with a free market also comes with responsibility. It means because there are less safety nets or because there is more competition, one cannot rest on their laurels. To lift the lot of man, we all need to partake in its improvement. We have to care about the things we consume and become intelligent, not resting on a government agency to tell us whether we should eat or not - or, alternatively, searching for trustworthy private body that can take over that role.


- Intellect and Opinion: I think a lot of people need to read a lot to know why such a system is beneficial. It is very easy to become a demagogue against free market principles, so knowledge of the principles as a whole, the system as a whole, is very important. Even the best of us would love to believe that the government can just look after us; but those mature enough realise that the government is only good at doing certain things.


However, it's ultimately opinion and, as we've discussed in the above, it might just be that people don't want to live in the kind of consumerish lifestyle we've become accustomed to.


2 - Precisely because it has not been allowed to reach economic equilibrium. The issue of power has been in contest ever since man first fought for its first meal, or roof. These arguments go back hundreds of years, if not millennia, as you point out. You read the writings of Jefferson, Locke, Bastiat and many more and you begin to understand the war that has been raging for the will of the people, of the individual. Essentially, all of history has been a fight between the powerful and the powerless. And you begin to read and understand (IMO at least) that it is only through freedom that true prosperity flourishes from. It was due to the freedom that America pronounced for its people, that made others from around the world scamper for; that turned it into arguably the greatest country in history in just a few hundred years. It changed Europe, it changed the world; the first state picking for itself exactly the kind of government it wanted. Free from the religious or monarchal elites.


However, the tide turned in the 20th century. The powerful are back and they've made people believe that without them, they could not have prosperity. Where government was once a necessary evil, it is now as close to us as our mum or dad for some people. In many ways, government has replaced religion as the entity which will/should meet our needs because it cares - as if it has a moral conscience. It takes a strong mind to reject this hand-out and ask for true freedom. It's ironic that this negative shift in the world was dubbed the progressive era. And it's strange to me how people cannot see the fearmongering for what it is. It's just as obvious as it was when Bush decided to create a "us vs them" mentality and to arm America for war.


And just like those people who sell you war; they moralise: it's your duty; it's for the freedom of others; if you don't want to unite for war you're not a patriot, etc. When the reality is that war is a very ugly, murderous, thing, the last of all resorts.


3 - The question about competition is only valid for me if it is ill-gotten - by way of abusing power (the right for others to exercise theirs). If there is a monopoly on computers because one company discovered a way to make it 1/10th of the price...then they deserve to have such a market share and such wealth. Otherwise, it doesn't concern me. A free market means that anyone can get into the market - they're not blocked off by licensure or other regulations. I can, freely, not purchase from the main supplier and buy from someone else. If the new product is good enough, it will gain it's market share.

The only monopolies I care about are those that have infiltrated government by way of lobbyists to fix the game for them. And this can only happen when the people give this power to the government, that ultimately attract these kinds of companies.

But in terms of the law and environment; these are good critiques and for me they can also be answered by this system. The free market utilises the courts, and that's where the answer comes from. If we want to live in a truly free country, I think the one thing we need to ensure is a system where access to the courts is very open and understandable (this is an essay in itself). That once matters enter into that kind of quarrel, that whether you're a multi-national or you're an individual; you're going to have to battle very equally. This will require true legal reform.

In similar tones, property rights need to be protected. You think laws safeguard against multi-nationals polluting countries? There are many cases where the governments implicitly allow it to happen, in order to gain said company's business. I remember discussing this with someone not too while ago and provided a nice link for many instances of huge environmental harms caused and protected by this union of corporation and government. This is not capitalism, it is crony capitalism. That's why I say property rights need to be greatly strengthened. Once you have strong property rights for the individual, you have a legal system accessible to said person; you can take apart these kinds of negligent companies.

As of now, however, I'd say the very problem for better environmental care is because of government. Do you also remember #1? I refer to responsibility. If we all truly care for our environment, we have to put our money where our mouths are. We have to stop doing business with those who we deem as harmful to our environment. We have to make them fear it, to stop it. That is how it works. Unfortunately, people are just much more charitable with other people's money. And it is when we enact measures with other people's money that we care less about the consequences which gives enough slack for the government to manoeuvre away from true reform.

At the end of the day, the best voting system is the one where you vote with your dollar. It is an immediate endorsement or rejection. It doesn't occur every 4 years and it doesn't matter who campaigns the loudest.

4 - Then you've failed to understand the free market system if you believe that. Does everybody in an economy place their money on sure bets? No, we're all well aware of the possibility of failure. The difference in the systems is that in a free market, you deal with the failure and you get the profits if it succeeds - that is all the incentive you need. Whereas we've already seen losses subsidised by banks and other entities - your McDonald's example is one of this - by passing the buck to the voters. If GM becomes a beast and buys up all the car companies and makes record profits, is any going to be split up between the taxpayers? This is the inherent evil of this kind of system - it is theft by fearmongering.

Going back to the meteor example: what would happen is that all the people who want to stay alive because they know enough (having done the responsible research) will pool their money together and try to create something that saves them. Let's say they create an underground city and survive...what happens to the others?

So, really, if anything it shows how utopia just does not exist. There are no guarantees. You pay your buck knowing that it could all go wrong. But you also hold the ticket knowing that you can cash it if you bet right. At the end of the day, no one can know for sure if we will stop the meteorite, just as no one knew the cures when plagues hit.

It took human ingenuity to create a solution. That has little to do with government and it can be argued that the absence of government creates the best environment for this to happen.

Under my kind of system there'll likely be 100 different peoples searching for a solution. People have the freedom to choose what they want and can go ahead with whatever plan they desire. Some of us may survive, the others may not.

Or, we could all pool our money into a single system a single entity desires. We could all die or all survive. I prefer the former if the aim is to make the human race survive.

In a funny way, it's just a microcosm for the real world. Do you bet on a group of people passionately following what they believe in? Or do you bet on the group who are put together by a higher group to seek a solution they might not entirely agree with?

And that theory has been tested throughout history; and it is free human ingenuity which trumps government programs, again and again and again.

 

[Bi-honar]

You have a very idealistic view of mankind bro, which is admirable, but that's why you don't think the system you're talking about, where leaders are responsible rather than hungry for power and followers intelligent rather than passive is not a utopian system. Unfortunately, these are inherent flaws in mankind rather than minor details to work out for free market capitalism to work - ignoring these flaws is like creating another specie altogether just for the sake of the argument IMHO.

The truth of the matter is that human beings are irresponsible, greedy and hungry for power by nature - our history is an endless loop of how much this holds true. And unless you're falling back on a nomadic lifestyle, governance has always been around - not because people willingly give up their utopian dreams to be controlled, but because they need protection from the rise of yet another irresponsible and power-hungry maniac. That creates another powerful entity elsewhere that in turn needs a counter-balance somewhere else - another powerful entity in another corner of the world. And this scenario has played out continuously for the past 5000 years or more.

If free market capitalism was a natural system, capable of reaching an equilibrium on its own and within the limitations of our specie, it would have already done so in the past 5000 years. The fact, that you could not name a single nation or a single group of people in the whole history of mankind that were able to reach that equilibrium and realize the potential of such a system, is a testament to how utopian it really is.

The goal of mankind, both as a specie and on an individual level, has never been to do business without barriers or to live without governance. The ultimate goal has always been and will continue to be survival like every other specie. The need for governance arose from that need to survive. In ancient times, if you did not receive the protection of a city state, you'd not be alive in a month to worry about doing business in a free market. And frankly, as the events of the 20th century showed, nothing has changed in that respect because that's just the nature of our specie.

Sure, if that wasn't the nature of our specie and you weren't worried about your fellow man coming and taking what you earned in a free market, by force, you would not need such protection, we'd be living in a utopian world and a free market would be the perfect system for a perfect world. But that's not the world we live in or have ever lived in, is it?