Quote of the Day
I can’t remember ever hearing of any teachers or school administrators, anywhere, picketing in favor of a free market.
Lyle
November 15, 2005
Comment to Solving the world’s problems
This observation is applicable to many other products and services provided by the government. And I’m certain the reason is something other than the quality and total cost of the products.
My hypothesis is that it is because the costs are hidden. You do not easily see the costs at the individual level. The product appears to be “free.” And when you chose a free-market alternative you do not receive the savings of not paying for the government product.
That and Milton Friedman’s famous take on government spending which causes it to be lavish and wasted:
“There are four ways in which you can spend money. You can spend your own money on yourself. When you do that, why then you really watch out what you’re doing, and you try to get the most for your money. Then you can spend your own money on somebody else. For example, I buy a birthday present for someone. Well, then I’m not so careful about the content of the present, but I’m very careful about the cost. Then, I can spend somebody else’s money on myself. And if I spend somebody else’s money on myself, then I’m sure going to have a good lunch! Finally, I can spend somebody else’s money on somebody else. And if I spend somebody else’s money on somebody else, I’m not concerned about how much it is, and I’m not concerned about what I get. And that’s government. And that’s close to 40% of our national income.”
Real free markets have never been tried.
Perhaps not, but there have been reasonable approximations. Various countries in centuries past. Hong Kong before it was surrendered to the Chinese Communists is a pretty decent example.
The only real free markets are 100% barter. The problem with barter is when the person who has what you want, doesn’t want what you have to offer in exchange. This is where a common currency is supposed to bridge the gap: something valuable and neutral, that can be exchanged for any good.
However, when you introduce a common (“representative” or “fiat”) currency, the currency must be regulated, and it’s no longer a purely free market.
Gold and silver coins are not “representative” currency; they are inherently valuable because of the material in them. Using such coins could still mostly be considered barter — trading goods for a certain amount of a precious metal.
But when you replace precious metal coins with paper or pot-metal currency that “represents” a certain value of precious metal (i.e. the Gold Standard), that necessarily introduces regulation, and the market is less free. When you take the next step and disconnect the paper currency from its value in tangible goods (i.e. a “fiat” currency), that requires even more regulation, and the market is even less free.
Don’t get me wrong, at this point it’s still mostly free — nobody is required to buy or sell anything, and no exchange happens unless both parties benefit, tangibly or intangibly — but with more regulation, the market is less free than it was when it was 100% barter.
As regulation increases, freedom decreases. Who’da thunk?
Unless you refuse to bake a cake.
The baker saw an intangible benefit in refusing — the order conflicted with his strongly-held religious beliefs — so that’s still a mostly-free market.
If the community disagreed strongly enough, they could refuse to do future business with him, but that doesn’t remove the intangible benefit he kept by not taking the order.
(As I recall, the baker won in court.)
Just because the benefit isn’t monetary or quantifiable doesn’t mean it’s non-existent. Charities continue to thrive because people find an intangible benefit in giving; maybe it’s a religious requirement, or maybe it just makes them feel good. Giving money away for free certainly isn’t a solid financial decision, but people still do it because they perceive some benefit, even if it’s not tangible.
The baker did win in court and then the lawfare continued with a trannie thing. The process is the punishment.
He “won” against the tranny thing, too (the case was dismissed, last year I think), but I hear you. Defending one’s business and reputation in two national-profile lawsuits cannot be cheap.
The baker was far to civil.
You can make me bake you a cake.
But you can make me bake you a good one.
Damn, sorry, I was in a hurry.
Must have mistaken the salt for sugar.
Best I can do is give you your money back.
Here, have a nice day, and God bless!
The biggest problem that a lot of people have with free markets is that it is imperative that you work to be able to participate effectively. That and you also need some degree of education and intelligence to understand how it works and what you are doing in it. All things that you will find in short supply in those who demand government services in perpetuity.
Justin the Apostate gets a lot of bad press for trying to restore pagan worship in the Roman Empire but he did put Rome back on the gold standard which fueled an economic revival.
Public school teachers and administrators have their jobs only because kids are required by government mandate to receive an education, and most parents can’t home-educate or afford private schools.
In a free market, any school would be optional: attend if you see a benefit, and don’t if you don’t. It also wouldn’t be limited to children, nor would high school diplomas be handed out like candy just for attending, nor would a diploma be more desirable than a high-school-equivalent G.E.D.; in either case, one would have to put in the work to prove they’ve learned enough to earn one.
But all that would severely undermine public school employees’ power. They benefit from the mandate to attend school and the perceived social advantage of a diploma over a G.E.D.! Why on Earth would they support a free market?
Your explanation is clear but only to those who are educated and wise enough to understand that connection. I would be willing to bet that the average public school teacher, if asked to explain the connection between their position and promotion of a free market would be unable to do so.
I would be willing to bet, further, that the average public school teacher believes they DO promote a free market and sees no conflict between their union’s position and free market principles; they’re more likely to view the conflict through the lens of “the union vs. anti-worker politicians” (read: Republicans).
I know that’s how the public sector unions in my AO view things, and very few of the members notice the difference.
This touches on two concepts. One is that the process of living a lie is much easier when you delegate the evil and make it appear acceptable. The other concept is the inevitable problem of one sin leading to general sinfulness, the violating of one commandment leading to the violation of all of them.
Let’s say you start with coveting your neighbors possessions (secretly violating commendment 10). You think of yourself as a good person, so you don’t think to go in right away and murder your neighbor to get his property. But your government offers you a way to get your neighbor’s wealth by indirect means. It’s coervive redistribution, but we won’t call it that. It is rationalized as compassion, and caring for “our children”, or “stewardship of our common home, the planet” and “building community”, or etc., and so you get on board. So now you have a government job with retirement and other benefits. Now you’re both coveting (secretly) and stealing (very indirectly) That’s two commandments (8 & 10) violated.
Now during the run-up to the next election, your neighbor speaks out against needless and excessive government spending, thus threatening your job. You have to do something, so you portray your neighbor as a racist, sexist, bigoted homophobe who wants to starve children and kick old people out onto the streets with no food or medicine. Now you’re violating commandments 8, 9 & 10.
Now your preacher gets fired because he’s been very direct about teaching what the Bible really says instead of what people want to hear, and youve convinced others that whatever it is that offends them is un-Christ-like, and you help hire a Progressive pastor who depicts a god that promotes coercive redistribution as a Christ-lke virtue, and now you’re ignoring your actual Creator and worshiping an idol (a god of your own making) instead, thus violating the first and second commandments in addition to 8, 9 & 10.
And so it goes, and eventually you’re violating all ten commandments, with a flourish, while thinking yourself virtuous.
Now you see good as evil and evil as good, and it all seems purely rational and obvious, and, because you are now convinced of these narratives you and your cohorts have promoted, you can’t understand how anyone would disagree unless they’re simply evil, or stupid, or both.
“Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil, that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter.” Isaiah 5:20
And you may even think yourself a good Christian. I’ve seen it. There millions of cases.
“And for this cause God shall send them STRONG DELUSION, that they should believe a lie:
“That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness.” Second Thessalonians 2:11-12 (emphasis mine)
And what’s perhaps even worse is, people looking from the outside will see this and think, “If this is Christianity, then I want NO PART in it!”, and they’d be right to think so, if that were really Christianity instead of antichristianity. And so they might embark on a process of self delusion of their own, against Christianity. I’ve done it, even right here.