I guess my point was that the concept of a "free market" as it's used in the Real World and not as defined by Adam Smith is so muddled as to have negative utility in discussions.
I'd rather speak in terms like "I don't want to buy a car that has a 10% chance of spontaneously exploding and killing all passengers" or "I don't want to take a vaccination that makes me feel so sick I have to take a week off work". Then the negotiation can begin as to whether or not those objectives are desirable and realistic, and if so how to best accomplish them.
The left seems to understand this, even if many of their objectives are evil, unrealistic, or both. Huge chunks of the right just get stuck arguing whether or not something is compatible with "free market principles" without regard for whether or not the thing is good. The Evangelocons were probably the only significant group on the right in my lifetime who seemed to understand this. Probably one of the reasons they were so demonized.
I'd rather speak in terms like "I don't want to buy a car that has a 10% chance of spontaneously exploding and killing all passengers" or "I don't want to take a vaccination that makes me feel so sick I have to take a week off work".
Both those things happen under our current less-than-free market system. The current system of government interference actively protects incompetence, especially in the later example. Pharma is completely captured, and can get away with anything, mostly due to government forces, not market forces.
My argument was never 'free market great/perfect,' it was 'free market better than the current shitshow.'
Both those things happen under our current less-than-free market system
I hope the car thing doesn't, but you're right. I'd even go so far as to say it's more likely to occur under our current system. But that's an "implementation detail" problem that only matters once you've established a thing is desirable enough it's worth implementing.
Still, if they did happen under a "free market" I'd like some ability to solve those problems as they occur. Right now we can't, because there are some people on the right (I don't think you) who can't look past the reality they might have to interfere with the "free market".
So the left wins be default, because they're the only side offering to fix these problems; and the only way they know how to fix something is massive government bureaucracies.
I'd rather speak in terms like "I don't want to buy a car that has a 10% chance of spontaneously exploding and killing all passengers"
We have those, because car sales are largely run by a free market. Nobody would buy a car that had a 10% chance of spontaneously exploding, and a competitor would happily move in to build a more reliable car that people were willing to pay for that wouldn't kill them.
On the other hand, in the USSR, you got to "buy" whatever shitbox the government deemed be made.
"I don't want to take a vaccination that makes me feel so sick I have to take a week off work".
And this is an issue because we don't have a free market in drugs or "vaccines". Instead we have a government "regulator" that is captured by the pharmaceutical industry, and mandates that we buy (through our taxes) and take shitty, untested "vaccines."
Thomas Sowell talks about all of this. If you think you can come up with a "regulation" that doesn't have unintended consequences that are almost always antithetical to the problem you're trying to solve, you haven't thought about it hard enough.
I guess my point was that the concept of a "free market" as it's used in the Real World and not as defined by Adam Smith is so muddled as to have negative utility in discussions.
I'd rather speak in terms like "I don't want to buy a car that has a 10% chance of spontaneously exploding and killing all passengers" or "I don't want to take a vaccination that makes me feel so sick I have to take a week off work". Then the negotiation can begin as to whether or not those objectives are desirable and realistic, and if so how to best accomplish them.
The left seems to understand this, even if many of their objectives are evil, unrealistic, or both. Huge chunks of the right just get stuck arguing whether or not something is compatible with "free market principles" without regard for whether or not the thing is good. The Evangelocons were probably the only significant group on the right in my lifetime who seemed to understand this. Probably one of the reasons they were so demonized.
Both those things happen under our current less-than-free market system. The current system of government interference actively protects incompetence, especially in the later example. Pharma is completely captured, and can get away with anything, mostly due to government forces, not market forces.
My argument was never 'free market great/perfect,' it was 'free market better than the current shitshow.'
Pharma is captured because bribery is legal.
I hope the car thing doesn't, but you're right. I'd even go so far as to say it's more likely to occur under our current system. But that's an "implementation detail" problem that only matters once you've established a thing is desirable enough it's worth implementing.
Still, if they did happen under a "free market" I'd like some ability to solve those problems as they occur. Right now we can't, because there are some people on the right (I don't think you) who can't look past the reality they might have to interfere with the "free market".
So the left wins be default, because they're the only side offering to fix these problems; and the only way they know how to fix something is massive government bureaucracies.
They aren't "fixing" the problems. The problems are unfixable. They're just selling snake oil to gullible idiots.
We have those, because car sales are largely run by a free market. Nobody would buy a car that had a 10% chance of spontaneously exploding, and a competitor would happily move in to build a more reliable car that people were willing to pay for that wouldn't kill them.
On the other hand, in the USSR, you got to "buy" whatever shitbox the government deemed be made.
And this is an issue because we don't have a free market in drugs or "vaccines". Instead we have a government "regulator" that is captured by the pharmaceutical industry, and mandates that we buy (through our taxes) and take shitty, untested "vaccines."
Thomas Sowell talks about all of this. If you think you can come up with a "regulation" that doesn't have unintended consequences that are almost always antithetical to the problem you're trying to solve, you haven't thought about it hard enough.