I think one of the problems is the lack of clear definitions for terms like democracy and markets. People throw around words with reckless abandon, carelessly conflating contradictory concepts with wild abandon.
Markets are freedom. Democracy is antithetical to freedom. Socialists promise counterfeit freedom if you just obey their dictates. Government intervention that supports corporate cronyism is called "free market economics." It's a madhouse.
True.
Not true.
See @elguille 's response as well; what is freedom?
Not true. What is socialism?
Democracy is the political manifestation of the bandwagon fallacy, a false choice, and an artificial zero-sum game. It is not the exercise of freedom. Any yahoo with an opinion carries as much weight as the studious member of society, creating an incentive for ignorance since effort has no reward, as demonstrated in public choice theory. It is antithetical to freedom in every way, despite the veneer applied by the political class to lure us into granting them an assumption of legitimacy as they plunder us.
Note that I used the term socialists, and was referring to those self-professed socialists who demand political authority over others. Namely, all of the ones clamoring for power now. As for socialism, no one seems willing to nail down the philosophy. "Public ownership of the means of production" seems to be generally accepted, but various social programs are usually bundled in, and everything is to be administered democratically by a class of technocrats. No, thanks!
I have no argument against any form of voluntary cooperative, syndicalist venture, communal society, mutual aid program, etc. where participation is voluntary. Heck, by market principles, if it's better, it should win out in the market for consumption and production.
Thanks for this response!
Yes, the "yahoo" can vote too; one person, one vote, that's democracy and the ultimate equal playing field. No one ever said that growing towards a functional democracy is easy, and since you mention public choice theory you know that capitalism is one of democracy's major stumbling blocks. If we want to have a real level playing field, one in which social choice theory would be the defining mechanic, socialism is the way to go; material or economical democracy is a first requirement for a functional democracy. That whole idea of voluntarism is bogus, can't ever work in a system in which there'll always be a materially based power-hierarchy...
Not at all. The more under control of the democratic political process, the more the problem of rational ignorance in public choice is magnified.
Markets do not create a power hierarchy. Voluntary exchange is mutually-beneficial. It is in the realm of politics that we see an inevitable zero-sum game. Markets mean choice, and people are free to choose how they will associate with others, including by means such as communes and syndicalist co-ops.
How can you object to the idea that all human interaction should be voluntary? The only alternative is coercion, and that is decidedly unjust and unequal. Modern capitalism is not the consequence of free markets creating a power elite, but political power allowing market actors to avoid the need to engage in open competition for voluntary customers.
I don't. What I said is that under capitalism all human interaction CAN NOT be voluntary because of the power hierarchy that's inherently associated with any system that's based on the accumulation of private property. Yours is the eternally fallacious argument of anarcho-capitalism. And no, coercion is not the only alternative...
You assert that a wealth disparity is an inherent power disparity that precludes voluntary consent. How is this so?
I contend that political power disparity invariably includes threat of violent coercion, and claims of socialist equality are false. I see political power wielded for personal gain at the expense of others every day. It is a zero-sum game despite the perpetual rhetoric of its adherents. I also see market offers based on mutual benefit every day despite the distortions of politics in the market.
You assert there is an alternative to the coercion/consent choice. Why do you believe this is a false dichotomy?