This seems an easy to grasp example of how the free market actually benefits the wealthy disproportionately. I think its an over-simplified concept.
Yes, we definitely need to remain free and diverse, but we need to figure out how to factor more actual science, especially science related to human needs, into our decision-making systems. Right now its just whoever manages to collect the most money buys the policies.
I think that the concept we have of money is inadequate. We need to start tracking and taking into account more data rather than just how many points everyone has regardless of how they got them or how they want to spend them. And I think to make things fair and effective the rules and enforcement need to be automated.
Imagine a computer game where there was only one stat. Does that sound like a fair, fun, or sophisticated game?
> This seems an easy to grasp example of how the free market...
I can't even begin to grasp what part of lobbying the government to prop up your business via threats of penalties and imprisonment you are interpreting to be "the free market."
You aren't going to get something that works better without altering the fundamental structures. The way things are set up you can't take lobbying, money, and special interests out of government. Because every politician needs money for everything and there is one number tied to your bank account that goes up or down on the basis of how much people give you, with little to no accounting for what you did to get it.
What I am saying is that we need more variables. There needs to be some math equations and technology that actually support and automatically enforce the market ideal. Because making laws and relying on people to do the right thing just isn't adding up, since there is no money in doing the right thing. We need to improve the nature of money so that doing the right thing adds up.
This is an oft-repeated conversation but I just don't believe that fair and free market ideal ever actually existed.
Trying to make people do the right thing with math and technology sounds scary as hell. How will that work? What about edge cases and outliers?
What we need is philosophy and persuasion. People need to learn better and understand why there actually are benefits to doing the right thing, not have an algorithm monitor them and punish for deviations.
Doing the right thing already is in one's self-interest. The problem is bad philosophy claiming otherwise. The solution is things like Objectivism which explain why the free market is good for people like you, why smaller government is better for everyone, how to live the right way and be better off (and how to think well in order to understand these things clearly. a great deal of the opposition to these things is confused and up to low quality standards).
I agree that we should improve philosophy and education but I think you are mistaken about incorporating math and technology into 'doing the right thing' being scary. What we have now is what's scary -- a game with no automatic enforcement of rules and very few rules to begin with, where everything is up to the discretion of what amounts to a bunch of dungeon masters. Only in this 'game' the dungeon master only likes say 1 out of 10 players, he gives them all of the breaks, and the rest are working with rigged dice. I'm suggesting that even though World of Warcraft can have a lot of loopholes and corruption, its more fair than Dungeons and Dragons, or Monopoly.
Yes, we definitely need to remain free and diverse, but we need to figure out how to factor more actual science, especially science related to human needs, into our decision-making systems. Right now its just whoever manages to collect the most money buys the policies.
I think that the concept we have of money is inadequate. We need to start tracking and taking into account more data rather than just how many points everyone has regardless of how they got them or how they want to spend them. And I think to make things fair and effective the rules and enforcement need to be automated.
Imagine a computer game where there was only one stat. Does that sound like a fair, fun, or sophisticated game?