Guest Post: Demos divided – Andrew Scobie

The western hemisphere is trapped in a battle for self-control. Two intellectual offspring of the enlightenment compete to govern our lives. Both organising mechanisms lay claim to being democratic, but one is a lie and the other is widely misrepresented. The decentralised decision making that gives the market strength leaves it vulnerable to having its vitality redistributed away by the progressive, the sophists and the central planner. Perhaps the existential fear that echoes in every act of choice makes us vulnerable to the siren call of dependence on the state.

Every day, the free market offers the consumer opportunity to choose almost everything important in their lives. Blessed by fate, choice and immigration law, the lucky consumer is a voluntary participation in a market that may deliver the entire primary layer of Maslow’s hierarchy of needs. Individuals vote to organise society in a manner that best fits our community’s needs one transaction at a time. The sovereignty of the consumer directs the actions of entrepreneurs with a virtuosity that would out shine even Mozart. The aggregate of individual decisions allocates resources and capital with an eye to detail that is a miracle of collaboration and value creation. Its democratic credentials are on display every second of the day. Left without a champion by heads of state and central bankers, the manifest bounty of the market’s apparently chaotic creation leaves so many of us unable to trust.

The aggregate we preferences the certainty of subjugation, and so it is no surprise we are so loved and patronised by Keynes&Co. We buy the lie of democratic totalitarianism. Every three, four or five years we vote away our sovereignty. In an apparent act of self-loathing the collective we pass the baton of control to one politician after another. Like an adolescent, we have needed the comfort of knowing that someone else controls the boundaries of our choice. Our need seems so intense that we preference certain failure over the uncertainty of trusting voluntary exchange. The back beat at the heart of our fading national productivity seems to be provided by groundhog dazed intervention through car industry subsides, public ownership of ICT infrastructure, and pink batts.

Are we condemned to a future defined by an oxymoron of ‘free market liberal democracy’? Wouldn’t we be better served by a democratic free market? Surrounded by a sea of evidence that proves the market’s case and destroys the central planner’s claim to benevolence, it seems odd that we face a choice of the ‘end of history’ or ‘the decline and fall’. The holy trinity of Mises, Hayek and Buchanan dealt the fatal blow to the myth of a third way deep in our intellectual past. And now, at a time when ideas have greater currency than ever, what inhibits the effective advocacy of the free market? How can collusion, self-interest, and dependence seem more attractive? What can we the academic, the intellectual, the educated captain of industry do to champion the sovereignty of the consumer?

This entry was posted in Guest Post. Bookmark the permalink.

67 Responses to Guest Post: Demos divided – Andrew Scobie

  1. Andrew Carr

    “what inhibits the effective advocacy of the free market?” – Pretty much blog posts like this. They’re a dime a dozen all over conservative media in the West, and it’s appealing to no one outside the faithful.

    Markets are complex systems, human society is insanely complex. To reduce the correct approach to bland simplicities ‘government is the problem’ suggests an unwillingness, even inability to think seriously about how society and the ideas you (rightly) champion interact.

    Let’s go back to the complexity, doubt and slow demonstration of importance and correctness of free market ideas, and drop the slogans and heaven vs hell, good vs evil frameworks.

    Central planning inevitably fails because it tries to simplify human society to a few checked boxes. Markets work because they embrace the complexity of humanity. And advocates of markets do a disservice to their ideas and wider society when they indulge the same desire for easy certainties and rallying cries.

  2. m0nty

    You could start, Andrew, by dropping your sneering dismissal of the opinions of voters whose votes do not align with your politics. The “democracy” of markets is not superior to democratic elections. Your concept of “democratic totalitarianism” puts you in the camp of Romney and the extreme right, complaining that democracy did not deliver the outcome they hoped, and badmouthing democracy itself as a result.

    Instead of treating your ideology as paramount and democracy as a mere impediment to its implementation, how about you think about it from the other way round: how to fit your ideology into the system of democracy that this country and others were founded on. Then you might get somewhere.

  3. m0nty

    I was referring to Andrew Scobie, btw, not Andrew Carr. :)

  4. Scapula

    Outside of war and its aftermath, there has never been any attempt at imposing central planning on the economy.

    A free market presupposes a political system and the fight between a liberal oligarchical or a liberal democratic system was decided in favour of the latter in the nineteenth century.

    The current fervour against politics is really an apology for governance by a nexus between oligarchical politics and the corporate giants.

    The US security state is the model for this development.

  5. SteveC

    What was Andrew smoking?
    “The back beat at the heart of our fading national productivity seems to be provided by groundhog dazed intervention”
    WTF is “groundhog dazed intervention”?

  6. Gab

    by dropping your sneering dismissal

    I can’t see that at all. Can you point it out?

    The “democracy” of markets is not superior to democratic elections.

    I can’t see where Andrew says that at all.

    Your concept of “democratic totalitarianism” puts you in the camp of Romney and the extreme right, complaining that democracy did not deliver the outcome they hoped, and badmouthing democracy itself as a result.

    Where does he say all this??

    Instead of treating your ideology as paramount and democracy as a mere impediment to its implementation

    Wow. Mega outrage and still I cannot see where Andrew has said any of this.

    Why are you frothing so, monty?

  7. Every day, the free market offers the consumer opportunity to choose almost everything important in their lives.

    A thoroughly offensive statement.
    The free market offers no such thing, and I am a citizen, not a consumer.
    None of the “important” things in my life (my family, my relationships, my religion, my values) have anything to do with the free market.

  8. Gab

    And yet here you are typing away on your computer…

  9. m0nty

    A bit of shush please Gab, the adults are talking.

  10. Gab

    Then stop interrupting them, monty.

    Seriously, you can’t answer any of my questions.

  11. cohenite

    None of the “important” things in my life (my family, my relationships, my religion, my values) have anything to do with the free market.

    Right, so you had an arranged marriage and were told how many kids you could have.

  12. m0nty

    Also, if our productivity situation is so bad, why is it that the last five quarters have seen significant growth?

  13. @cohenite
    I don’t recall anyone marketing a product called “marriage”, nor can my wife. Neither was there anyone selling reproductive rights. But perhaps it’s only because I live in the real world, not the parallel universe inhabited by lunatic Libertarians.

  14. SteveC

    cohenite, the places you hang out looking for women may be commonly called a “meat market” but it’s not really a market in the economic sense of the word.

  15. Gab

    why is it that the last five quarters have seen significant growth?

    Mining. You’ll see the lag soon enough.

  16. m0nty

    Mining. You’ll see the lag soon enough.

    The previous lag was attributed to mining also. It seems a rather simplistic answer.

  17. Gab

    Can you answer my questions yet, monty?

  18. jupes

    Neither was there anyone selling reproductive rights.

    I believe the Chicoms (lefties) have quotas for reproduction.

  19. dd

    Two intellectual offspring of the enlightenment compete to govern our lives. Both organising mechanisms lay claim to being democratic, but one is a lie and the other is widely misrepresented.

    Call me dense, but it didn’t seem like Andrew spelled out exactly what he believes the “two intellectual offspring” of the enlightenment are that are competing for control. Free markets versus social democracy?

  20. dd

    Wouldn’t we be better served by a democratic free market?

    I’m not sure what that would look like.

  21. boy on a bike

    my family, my relationships, my religion, my values

    Four things government should definitely stay the hell away from.

  22. m0nty

    Can you answer my questions yet, monty?

    I can’t explain your lack of reading comprehension, Gab.

  23. Carpe Jugulum

    WTF is “groundhog dazed intervention”?

    Bob Brown

  24. cohenite

    cohenite, the places you hang out looking for women may be commonly called a “meat market” but it’s not really a market in the economic sense of the word.

    Fuck off steve I was talking to numbers.

    numbers you choose your wife and how many kids you could have; a market in any sense is about choice is it not? You made those choices did you not? The market as an existential concept is not entirely reducible to money, although money is a splendid medium of defining a market; other criteria such as luurve may come into it [sic].

    The point is if a market is about choice then your mariiage and reproductive decisions were an expression of your free choice produced by the market context.

    I think that is plain is it not?

  25. Gab

    Ah yes, monty can’t answer the questions so resorts to insults:

    A bit of shush please Gab, the adults are talking.

    I can’t explain your lack of reading comprehension, Gab.

    But what’s this?

    Constant insults are tiresome.

    m0nty

    17 Nov 12 at 8:36 pm

    Yes, you are tiresome.

  26. DrBeauGan

    It’s pretty clear why m0nty and number are hostile. They are the adolescents seeking security in the collective who Andrew Scobie mentions. Like the poor they are always with us. I suggest we bring back slavery, though a change of name might be a good idea. It should be voluntary, it should be an option chosen at age eighteen or thereabouts, it should be possible to buy yourself out. The state looks after all slaves, but they don’t get to vote. M0nty and number are clearly natural slave material, they need to be told what to do by duckbum or another. The rest of us without a compulsion to live in a power hierarchy opt out. Everybody will be happy!

  27. m0nty

    What do you expect Gab, you tell me you can’t understand things that any adult with a brain could understand.

  28. Gab

    Then you should have no problem answering my questions, you insulting cur.

  29. The holy trinity of Mises, Hayek and Buchanan dealt the fatal blow to the myth of a third way deep in our intellectual past.

    This sentence is both reminiscent of certain New Priests of the 20th century and hence the best quote to illustrate what is wrong with this post. Holy? And how can three people, one of whom is still alive and two others who were alive after many here were born have established this fatal blow deep in our intellectual past?

    Surely this kind of secular Manicheanism is a thing best practiced by Trotskyites. Te notion that there some kind of death struggle in the ‘Western Hemisphere’ (in which Australia is not located) between the forces of truth and Satan’s sex slaves is the sort of thing the USSR Writer’s Union likes to riff on. Politicians like to make use of this option at election time pretty much to shore up the loyalties of their supporters. The reality is that the policies practiced tend to be the same regardless the speechmaker. And that those policies are usually about manipulating populations in the interests of the politicians and their backers.

    Free market? There’s no such thing. And to say there is, in the way you have here, is to demand that those who wish to salvage whatever freedom ‘s left to us should swear undying loyalty to whatever talking head bangs on about ‘freedom’. This means, in reality, championing, for just one example, the establishment of a Gulag in Cuba and suspending due process and habeas corpus. In reality also, voting for the other side does not change anything. The most nefarious policies of State available have bipartisan support.

    What can we the academic, the intellectual, the educated captain of industry do to champion the sovereignty of the consumer?

    Educated captains of industry have been trying to turn consumers to passive obedience for well over a century. With considerable success.

  30. catnip

    Over and above the basic necessities human beings crave the enjoyment through consumption of experience. This is qualitatively and categorically different to the consumer as idealised by corporate arse-licking neo-liberal shills.

    I guess if you teach marketing you’re gonna idealise “consumers”. How tawdry, transparent and sad.

  31. catnip

    None of the “important” things in my life (my family, my relationships, my religion, my values) have anything to do with the free market.

    How true.

    The most important things in life cannot be measured.

    They are intangible and immaterial and existential. The very antithesis of anything to do with the realm of economics, finance, money, etc.

  32. .

    This sentence is both reminiscent of certain New Priests of the 20th century and hence the best quote to illustrate what is wrong with this post. Holy? And how can three people, one of whom is still alive and two others who were alive after many here were born have established this fatal blow deep in our intellectual past?

    They won Adrien. Theoretically and empirically. The facts are not going to change.

  33. Token

    Good Fisking of the empty vessel Gab.

    Mr. Institutions really does struggle to put anything forward except sneers and snipes.

    It’s pretty clear why m0nty and number are hostile. They are the adolescents seeking security in the collective who Andrew Scobie mentions.

    Both are trapped by their anger and inadequacies. M0nty chases happiness via material wealth, yet the more he gets the emptier a vessel he becomes.

  34. Gab

    Educated captains of industry have been trying to turn consumers to passive obedience for well over a century.

    Nobody forces anyone to purchase anything. It is a choice based on either a need or want. This is basic stuff and I’m surprised some people here don’t know that.

  35. None of the “important” things in my life (my family, my relationships, my religion, my values) have anything to do with the free market.

    Nothing? At all? You are free to choose your religion? And to enter into relationships freely. And to marry and reproduce with whom you choose (if they choose you back). This is surfeit of freedom in general but it tends to be a product of what is called Capitalist society.

    I’m dead against notions that would turn the market system into the basis of a system of beliefs but it tends to better facilitate certain liberties that allow one to engage with the really important things in life.

    Up to a point.

  36. SteveC

    Actually cohenite, you addressed your comment to 1735099, but in fact you were just being a smart-arse. A market implies choice, but that does not convert to anything that involves choice is a market. A market involves an exchange between buyers and sellers. Issues around personal relationships don’t usually have buyers and sellers.
    To reduce realtionships and family choices to “consumers in a market place” is a pretty dumb analogy.

  37. .

    How true.

    The most important things in life cannot be measured.

    They are intangible and immaterial and existential. The very antithesis of anything to do with the realm of economics, finance, money, etc.

    Funny how those with a lot of financial resources and literacy never seem to struggle with raising a loving family, have normal family christmases and treasured memories of family holidays froma variety of places around the world…

    The fact of the matter is the Green and ALP bovver boys are small minded twits with no desire for anyone else to be successful. To wish for that is “sheer bastardry”.

    They more or less get off on positional goods, and the ultimate positional good – ordering other people around. Their utility function maximises the consumption of material wealth whilst attacking those who create wealth, and the consumption thereof – whilst maximising a bizzare form of self actualisation as a religious elite who are “ascetic” because they criticise the conspicuous consumption of others.

    The cognitive dissonance required to use their position to accumulate wealth as a sign of “wise investments” but deride actual wealth creation is above mind blowing.

    An ALP member from the 1950s would smack them upside the head.

  38. Nobody forces anyone to purchase anything.

    Again Gab you are implying an opinion that I don;t have.

    It is a choice based on either a need or want.

    Indeed and there’s been a centralization of industry since the beginning of the 20th century that gift more control of the servicing of demand to fewer players. The latest fad for PPPs etc is just an extension of that. How is the consumer sovereign when topping up their Myki card?

    Moreover many desires are created by systematically circumventing peoples’ capacity to critically choose what they want. It’s called advertising.

    This is basic stuff and I’m surprised some people here don’t know that.

    I’m well familiar with the slogans. I’m also familiar with economic history to a certain extent and they don’t match up too well.

  39. .

    I’m dead against notions that would turn the market system into the basis of a system of beliefs but it tends to better facilitate certain liberties that allow one to engage with the really important things in life.

    You’re imagining things Adrien. You have a choice in a marketplace of competing systems of belief, non commitment and disbelief, take it, the choice is yours.

  40. Megan

    None of the “important” things in my life (my family, my relationships, my religion, my values) have anything to do with the free market.

    So, how did the Numerical Lightweight manage to live long enough to yet again inflict upon us his oh-so-superior, nose in the air, intellectually bereft view of the world? Does a box of veges and half a cow magically appear on the doorstep of his hand built humpy each week?

    Perhaps, like so many of his ilk, he grows his own. Where did he get the seeds from? Handed down from grandad? Or stolen from the neighbours? And the first chicken? Or egg?

    No doubt he’ll be quick to tell us all how he exchanged his intellect and skills for a salary. Outside the free market of course. Those schools that fell for that were seriously shortchanged.

  41. Alfonso

    Never knew any commerce, economic academic who made any real money out of trading markets. Didn’t have a clue as a rule.
    Flash as a rat Black Scholes type trading triumphs (sarc) have left most theoretical minds terrified. Like Abbott on Your ABC. These days the best that happens is mega billion arbitrage on hundredth of a second trends, where’s the honour or the interest?

    The world turns on its axis as it should.

  42. Gab

    Educated captains of industry have been trying to turn consumers to passive obedience for well over a century.

    Obedience? I said it is a choice whether to purchase or not, you appear to say that consumers have been hoodwinked into purchases (passive obedience).

    Moreover many desires are created by systematically circumventing peoples’ capacity to critically choose what they want. It’s called advertising.

    Again, no one is holding a gun to a someone’s head and forcing them to act on those desires. To say otherwise is simply victimhood talk and an annulment of responsibility for one’s own actions.

    Indeed and there’s been a centralization of industry since the beginning of the 20th century that gift more control of the servicing of demand to fewer players.

    There’s been expansion and contraction, rinse, repeat.

    I’m well familiar with the slogans. I’m also familiar with economic history to a certain extent and they don’t match up too well.

    Well, bully for you.

  43. Token

    The decentralised decision making that gives the market strength leaves it vulnerable to having its vitality redistributed away by the progressive, the sophists and the central planner. Perhaps the existential fear that echoes in every act of choice makes us vulnerable to the siren call of dependence on the state.

    I notice the statist set up the old small government = no government strawman and beat away.

    I do believe we should stop fighting on the defensive and keep referring to living examples of the paradises the statists have created globally.

    Victor Davis Hanson reviews the type of paradise M0nty, Numbers, SteveC and their denizens would create.

    Not just in its finances but almost wherever you look, the state’s vital signs are dipping. The average unemployment rate hovers above 10 percent. In the reading and math tests administered by the National Assessment of Educational Progress, California students rank near the bottom of the country, though their teachers earn far more than the average American teacher does. California’s penal system is the largest in the United States, with more than 165,000 inmates. Some studies estimate that the state prisons and county jails house more than 30,000 illegal aliens at a cost of $1 billion or more each year. Speaking of which: California has the nation’s largest population of illegal aliens, on whom it spends an estimated $10 billion annually in entitlements. The illegals also deprive the Golden State’s economy of billions of dollars every year by sending remittances to Latin America.

    Meanwhile, business surveys perennially rank California among the most hostile states to private enterprise, largely because of overregulation, stifling coastal zoning laws, inflated housing costs, and high tax rates. Environmental extremism has cost the state dearly: oil production has plunged 45 percent over the last 25 years, even though California’s Monterey Shale formation has an estimated 15.4 billion barrels of recoverable oil, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration. Geologists estimate that 3 trillion cubic feet of natural gas sit untapped as well. Those numbers could soar with revolutionary new methods of exploration (see “California Needs a Crude Awakening,” Summer 2012).

    Between the mid-1980s and 2005, the state’s aggregate population increased by 10 million Californians, including immigrants. But that isn’t the good economic news that you might think. For one thing, 7 million of the new Californians were low-income Medicaid recipients. Further, as economist Arthur Laffer recently noted in Investor’s Business Daily, between 1992 and 2008, the number of tax-paying Californians entering California was smaller than the number leaving—3.5 million versus 4.4 million, for a net loss of 869,000 tax filers. Those who left were wealthier than those who arrived, with average adjusted gross incomes of $44,700, versus $38,600. Losing those 869,000 filers cost California $44 billion in tax revenue over two decades, Laffer calculated.

    Worst of all is that neither the legislature nor the governor has offered a serious plan to address any of these problems. Soaring public-employee costs, unfunded pensions, foundering schools, millions of illegal aliens, regulations that prevent wealth creation, an onerous tax code: the story of all the ways in which today’s Californians have squandered a rich natural and human inheritance is infuriating.

    Stop letting the Lefty trolls dictate the ground you argue on.

    The empty vessels actually need to provide solutions and reasons why their policies would not duplicate this disaster.

    Go!

  44. Token

    Educated captains of industry have been trying to turn consumers to passive obedience for well over a century.

    If the statist need to dehumanise their opponents and the victim class to justify their actions.

  45. cohenite

    A market implies choice, but that does not convert to anything that involves choice is a market. A market involves an exchange between buyers and sellers. Issues around personal relationships don’t usually have buyers and sellers.

    I considered this issue of nomenclature and the reductionist constraint it places on the definition of what a market is; you apparently missed it steve.

    You say that while a market implies choice it is only choice between buyers and sellers; that is stupid; consider politics; political parties present their policies in the marketplace of voters; does that involve a choice between buyers and sellers in the narrow way you suggest.

    So, with relations; in a market based society people present themselves as both buyers and sellers, by your terms, but the range of exchange is not restricted to money; it is obtuse to suggest otherwise.

    The proper context to consider the role of the market is in terms of rights and responsibilities to individuals who participate in the various forms of markets which a Western society offers.

    The over-riding medium for defining the various markets in that society is consequence; the choices people make will have consequences, some good, some bad and only some financial.

    Any interference with those consequences is a compromise of the markets of rights and responsibilities.

    This is how the concept of market should be viewed.

    For example, you called me a smart-arse when in fact you are dumb prick for not understanding my point; a just consequence in a nice little market where you choose to stick your dumb fucking beak into my business.

  46. Scott

    Andrew Carr 20 Nov 12 at 6:08 pm

    “what inhibits the effective advocacy of the free market?” – Pretty much blog posts like this. They’re a dime a dozen all over conservative media in the West, and it’s appealing to no one outside the faithful.”

    The same can be said for much any topic.

    It’s the internet. Everything is a dime a dozen.

    What a vacuous statement to be made for the first post. From there, it’s hard to take anything else you say seriously, because, you said it all in your first breath.

  47. Gab

    The empty vessels actually need to provide solutions and reasons why their policies would not duplicate this disaster.

    You know, I’m utterly gobsmacked at the vituperative replies from the lefties. Mention free market to them and it’s like holding a crucifix to a vampire.

  48. m0nty

    Good Fisking of the empty vessel Gab.

    Mr. Institutions really does struggle to put anything forward except sneers and snipes.

    Contrast your second sentence with your first one. Who’s sneering and sniping, Token?

    Both are trapped by their anger and inadequacies. M0nty chases happiness via material wealth, yet the more he gets the emptier a vessel he becomes.

    LOL nice try, but no, that bait is uninteresting.

  49. JC

    Token is right, Fat Boy.

    You spend an ungodly amount of time sneering here at the Cat.

    That and the 5 trips to Krispy must make up the entire day.

    Fat boy, go online and try and get yourself a date. But don’t whatever you fucking do use this pic in the bio. You big oaf.

  50. JC

    The illegals also deprive the Golden State’s economy of billions of dollars every year by sending remittances to Latin America.

    I find that to be crap, Token…. They may send US dollar remittances over but the US dollar floats and for those remittances to have any economic use they need to be sold, which of course means there is a buyer if US Dollars.

  51. Gab

    Mr. Institutions really does struggle to put anything forward except sneers and snipes.

    I’ve noticed all he seems to do is sneer and snipe on just about every post and he’s usually the first or second commenter breathlessly rushing to sneer at the author and mostly says nothing to why he disagrees with the author’s content.

  52. JC

    Never knew any commerce, economic academic who made any real money out of trading markets. Didn’t have a clue as a rule.

    Keynes was a good trader by all accounts. In fact he was possibly the first hedge fund manager.

    He should have stuck to that like Soros instead of pretending understood economics.

  53. SteveC

    Right, so you had an arranged marriage and were told how many kids you could have

    A pure smart arse retort, followed by a lawyers obfuscation of what is a market.

  54. SteveC

    cohenite, if you think posting a message on a blog is somehow a kind of private communication, then you need to think a little bit more about how blogs work.

  55. Infidel Tiger

    SteveC seems more frantic than usual. I hope he’s using lube.

  56. Jannie

    None of the “important” things in my life (my family, my relationships, my religion, my values) have anything to do with the free market.

    Numbers, that would sound ironic if you had experienced life without a free market, say in East Germany.

  57. William Bragg

    Ho hum – more simplistic right wing sloganeering on the Cat. What should be most embarrassing, though, is not the undergrad content, risible though it is, but the fact that it was deemed sufficiently worthy by Sinclair to warrant the status of a guest post. On behalf of luvvies everywhere, thanks for the friendly fire.

  58. .

    It must be embarrassing to have peaked as a troll posing as a religious zealot on the old libertarian forum.

    Dickhead.

  59. William Bragg

    I don’t know about peaking as a troll.

    But having spoken to the taxman about poetry, I do know that if between Marx and Marzipan in the dictionary there was Mary, then between Dildo and Dumbass on Catallaxy there is Dotty – outsmarted and outclassed as always.

  60. m0nty

    Andrew Scobie’s OP sounds suspiciously like this guy’s theories. Bircherism, that’s the level this site is at now in its attempts to come to terms with Obama winning.

  61. JC

    Go eat a dozen doughnuts you offensive slanderous fat fuck, Fat boy.

  62. Token

    Andrew Scobie’s OP sounds suspiciously like this guy’s theories. Bircherism, that’s the level this site is at now in its attempts to come to terms with Obama winning.

    How about laying out an argument instead of dropping a link?

    What are the pertinent points? Which pieces have a similarity?

    A vacuous empty vessel looking to deny the cause of his anger by abusing instead of discussing.

  63. You’re imagining things Adrien. You have a choice in a marketplace of competing systems of belief, non commitment and disbelief, take it, the choice is yours.

    Which is what I said. Who is imagining things?

  64. Obedience? I said it is a choice whether to purchase or not, you appear to say that consumers have been hoodwinked into purchases (passive obedience).

    Not exactly. I say that industries attempt to hoodwink consumers, not that they entirely succeed. There is more success than there should be.

    Again, no one is holding a gun to a someone’s head and forcing them to act on those desires.

    And?

    To say otherwise is simply victimhood talk and an annulment of responsibility for one’s own actions.

    So if I don’t regurgitate the mantra of perfection that is patently absurd I’m victim pleading and obviating responsibility? What tosh! I’m simply calling bullshit on this Utopian notion of consumer sovereignty.

    There’s been expansion and contraction, rinse, repeat.

    This is meaningless.

    Well, bully for you.

    Translation services: Why think when slogans and pre-emptive dismissal work so much better?

  65. If the statist need to dehumanise their opponents and the victim class to justify their actions.

    This not English.

  66. cohenite

    A pure smart arse retort, followed by a lawyers obfuscation of what is a market

    I defined what I think is a market and why it should not be restricted to a money context; a market is about choice; just like you choose to ignore what I said and troll and not offer any meaningful response.

    In otherwords you have choosen to be called a fuckwit; the market at work.

  67. SteveC

    cohenite, you correctly say a market implies choice, and then deduce if there is choice, it must be a market. Thus anything that involves choice is a market. Which is a pretty bizarre logic, even for a lawyer.
    In you logic, how does choosing to have none, one, or another number of children imply a merket?

Comments are closed.