Unlike public agencies, companies must adapt to make sure their consumers are happy. Otherwise, they go out of business.
Claiming to be looking after the homeless’ safety, health officials said the food, which is prepared by volunteers at their own homes, is not good enough for people living on the street. After all, home-cooked meals could expose the needy to food-borne illness.
The argument that politics is controlled by some of the wealthy and run for their benefit is largely correct, but the conclusion should be that we should restrict their opportunity to do this by limiting politics and government, not that we should expand them.
To understand the awesome power of heterogeneity is to adopt a different outlook on society itself. It is to embrace the core liberal claim: society doesn’t need top-down management, because it contains within itself the capacity for its own management.
You might observe that this is the free market’s way to co-opt the anti-racist movement on behalf of capitalist profits. But maybe that’s not a criticism. Maybe that’s a way to get the message out and make it more culturally operational.
Overstating how misinformed, unrealistic, and just plain wacky are the economics that underlie these proposals of Sens. Warren and Sanders is impossible. Also impossible to overstate is the amount of damage that enactment of these proposals would inflict on the American economy.
The movement as it was known has been through ups and downs but it has finally settled on what Andrea knew all along. Liberty is a big tent with many iterations. Its roots are not in mass political organizing but in beautiful ideals and dreams of a freer world.
No one created that muddy track; it is the result of individuals going where they want to go. But if enough people walk there, it wears out the grass and makes the ground hard and packed down. The “path” emerges, although no one planned it.
Moral norms that served small bands of humans well 10,000 years ago — share, cooperate, punish anyone who violates the rules — are no longer very good at helping people navigate commercial society. Ask someone about price-gouging laws, or kidney sales, or generally talk about the role of price as an indispensable signal of scarcity. Most people will get upset.
How very appealing was the socialist idea in the late 19th and early (pre-WWI) 20th centuries! All the burdens of life and everyday work, all the seemingly unjust inequalities of material wealth observable in society, and all the uncertainties of health care and old age would be lifted from the weary shoulders of the common man with the arrival of socialism.
Friends of freedom, including many of those who strongly believed in and fought for representative and democratically elected government in the 18th and 19th centuries, often expressed fearful concerns that “democracy” could, itself, become a threat to the liberty of many of the very people that democratic government was supposed to protect from political abuse.
In the old days, people associated the Left with an ethos akin to the ACLU today: the right to speak, publish, and associate. The turn that took place with the New Left actually flipped whatever remaining attachment that the old left had with freedom.
If we are concerned about the rise of the ginormous corporation, and perhaps we should be, why not start with lowering barriers to entry, removing regulations, cutting more taxes, blasting away expensive mandates and litigation landmines? If we work toward a truly laissez-faire environment for business, we could let the market discover the right combination of big, medium, and small that serves consumers best. Piling interventions upon interventions takes us in exactly the wrong direction.