Okay, but remind me of how many politicians get elected on a platform of facing up to economic reality and how many get elected promising a Free Lunch.
Seattle Sam, check out 1:48 of the video. Is it really true that political self-interest is nobler somehow than economic self-interest? Your point speaks to individuals putting their own political self-interest ahead of the economic self-interest of those he or she is supposed to be representing. Mr. Friedman addressed that in another video as he said this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MEVI3bmN8TI “The way you solve things is by making it politically profitable for the wrong people to do the right thing.” We the people need to hold these people accountable with our votes.
Self interest s a part of our nature as human beings, and isn’t in itself a bad thing. The same self interest drives people in the market and in politics. The greatest difference is that the market requires that a person must serve others in order to advance their own self interest. There is constant competition to cooperate with willing buyers by exchanging something they value for their dollars – consumers who have other choices, and who can’t be forced to buy any good or service (absent the use of political force).
There is no such mechanism in politics, where self interest requires promoting the interests of a select few to the disadvantage of everyone else including consumers.
It sounds good to say: “We need to hold these people accountable with our votes.” but it doesn’t seem to work very well.
Sorry for all you GOPer’s that believe Mark Perry’s Conservative video diatribe….a loud emotional Bernie v.s. a calm and reasonable Milton Freidman. You are witnessing pure GOP propaganda in an election year
I have never heard Progressives deny the motivating power of self interest. Or, the need to stifle it outside “law” or “regulation”, of which AEI resents. Where does Mark Perry come up with that? Does Bernie do that in the video. Not the one watched.
Reality: Our Democracy elevates the power of the individual. It allows us to exercise collective power for the common good. It’s not unusual that our laws and institutions are designed to temper the rush down the “socio-path”. Many on the Right do not wish to recognize. or, acknowledge how often damaging that path is to society. Think the Lost Decade. Hell, witness Trump! That is the greed Bernie condemns and Milton and his minions at AEI ignore.
Please note, Bernie talks of the collective power democracy grants individuals to guide our futures. Most of us embrace that gift.
Both Bernie and Milton are absolutely correct. We need Free Market Capitalism with a balancing of Social Democracy. Tempered greed is a social necessity just as unfettered greed produces the motivation for progress.
There are two versions of Capitalism. 1) The unenlightened version where only shareholders and CEO’s count (Milton Freidman) 2) The enlightened version where all stakeholders count…customers, employees, communities, vendors, creditors, management, and yes, shareholders. Bernie simply promotes that type of Capitalism.
Common Cause Matters in a civilized society. Democracy provides that. AEI is wrong in its condemnation of the process or those who pursue it, e.g. Bernie Sanders.
“guide our futures” I keep thinking of the leaders of North Korea, Venezuela and most of Africa, that have taken rich countries and turned them into basket cases in record time.
I have never heard Progressives deny the motivating power of self interest. Or, the need to stifle it outside “law” or “regulation”, of which AEI resents. Where does Mark Perry come up with that? Does Bernie do that in the video. Not the one watched.
Bernie denies that he is self interested and that the reason he seeks power is for his own self aggrandizement. Bernie’s entire platform is based on greed. HIS greed.
He greedilty seeks to take other people’s money to spend as he likes. And what he likes is to impose his preferences on everyone else. He is uninterested in what you or I want and is only interested in what he wants. Because he’s greedy.
He hides behind the rhetoric of “free”, but his is the rhetoric of greed combined with the violent power if the state. In a free market, theonly power people have is the power of persuasion: buy my stuff because it’s the best deal.
The state’s message is: you don’t like it? Tough. You still have to pay for it. And if you don’t we’ll ruin your life.
If the only way you can get people to do what you want is to threaten them with violence, as is the case with Bernie’s entire platform, then you likely have terrible ideas.
Gotta love how leftists never give up on their “crumbling infrastructure” applause line as if we didn’t just recently give them a trillion dollars to spend on shovel-ready jobs. And how did that work out?
Bernie Sanders, the avowed socialist from Vermont, emerged in recent years as the biggest backer of the communist social welfare program known as the Veteran’s Administration,
If you want more socialist programs, then you want to be the strongest supporter of free enterprise — so that the taxes generated are enough to pay for the additional spending.
Agreed, CB. Unfortunately, that is not what Bernie offers. He supports Venezuelan-style socialism, not Scandinavian-style welfare (the fact that he confuses the two suggests to me he doesn’t really know what he is talking about).
We’re not sure you understand what is going on. It’s a question on whether or not socialist policies are needed, whether or not they are working. The fact that most modern economies are mixed is completely irrelevent. We think it is possible you realize this and are just trying to run a smokescreen and fake indignation, but we think it is more likely you simply don’t know what you are talking about (just like our previous conversations with you).
We also now suspect you will try to change the topic to make it sound like we’re objecting to something we are not.
The topic was whether socialism vs. capitalism was a strict dichotomy or a continuum.
We think this is where you are confused. Our objection was that you misunderstood the point of this blog post. It seems you still do. We cannot find any evidence suggesting that there is a dichotomy conversation here aside from you falsely asserting there is.
We find no one else saying “socialism or capitalism, nothing in between,” aside from you constructing a hilariously inaccurate representation of what we said.
But, seeing as burning strawmen makes you happy, we shall allow you to do it. You shall have no more objections from us. Your comments of the past few days have reminded us that you have no desire to genuinely engage in conversation, so we shan’t waste our breath.
Of course, if other members of our body wish to engage, they may.
The dichotomy is socialism vs. non-socialism, or socialism vs. capitalism.
Ha! The dichotomy is powerful politicians controlling your life and your resources vs. you controlling your own life and your own resources or powerful politicians controlling your life and your resources vs. you controlling your own life and your own resources.
Of course, building pyramids, while 99.99 percent (at least) of your population lives at subsistence isn’t much of an accomplishment is it? So-called “great” monuments to “great” men that do nothing for the common man aren’t great as you assert. They are, however, a testament to the type of system you crave: on that diverts enormous resources for the benefit of an elite that leaves the common person worse off. And yes that goes for the highway system as well.
Americans got around just fine, creating enormous wealth, without the direction of some government bureaucrat. That American bureaucrats then confiscated that wealth to create the graft ridden system that is now known as the highway system did not increase our economic growth. The rate of economic growth didn’t change with the creation of the highway system. As mentioned, though, it did give politicians covering rhetoric to divert taxpayer enormous wealth into their own, as well as their cronies’, pockets.
Z: Ken has it right. You’ve named some of the worst disasters and wastes of human effort of all time.
Columbus? You must be kidding. How many tens of millions ultimately died as a result of the commercial venture he undertook in partnership with a greedy monarch hoping for personal financial gain?
You have a warped sense of what an “achievement” is.
That would be the ‘Bureau of Wealthy White Male Landowning Elites’ (BWWMLE) who secretly cobbled together a blueprint for a much more powerful central government that was more to their liking.
Z: “And the U.S. Constitution countenanced slavery.”
Yes it did. It was a power grab by wealthy white male landowners to form a more powerful central government. It was and is a collection of compromises, necessary to it’s acceptance.
“Most historians consider” isn’t the high praise you think it is. Most historians consider our worst president in history, FDR, to be one of the best, while simultaneously thinking that our best, Coolidge, is one of our worst.
The US constitution, though, is indeed one of the greatest achievements in human history. I find it interesting that you note this, while most of your comments here are how it should be destroy, as it’s a huge barrier to the powerful central state imposed agenda you so thoroughly support that is based on the denial of unalienable rights to life and liberty, much less the pursuit of happiness.
Z: We can understand why that would seem to be true for someones who thinks ostentatious displays of absolute power over others are “great achievements of civilization”.
Does the opinion of “most historians” make something true? Perhaps “history is written by the victors” is a better characterization.
But you need not compare Egypt to unorganized people. A little reading would inform you that a thriving contemporary civilization existed in the Indus Valley as well as the better known Mesopotamian cultures.
Were the common people in Egypt better off than those other folks?
If you had any idea, we expect you would have presented it by now. You’re not usually this shy.
Incidentally, although less is known about the Harappan civilization of the Indus valley, which was at least as old and as long-lived as the more familiar one in Egypt, there is no evidence of temples, giant statues or monuments, kings, armies, or the familiar destruction of wars and mass murder. Is it possible these folks lived for several thousand years without an authoritative central government?
They weren’t isolated, as there’s evidence of extensive trade with Sumerians, and other cultures of that time period.
Z: “But that’s to whom we were comparing them.” [unorganized people]
OK, apples to oranges. Nice work.
We’ve offered you some other apples against which you could compare your Egyptians, but apparently you weren’t really interested, and were just trying to bullshit us – again.
Z: “ Ancient Egypt had a population 1-2 million during the early dynastic period.”
Is that a lot? Compared to how many unorganized people? Oh, that’s right, you don’t have any idea.
Z: “In any case, the pyramids were, by any reasonable measure, a “great achievement”.
Z: “The simplest measure of the health of an organism is population growth. ”
Z: “No, people to people.”
You have changed your narrative.
Unorganized people aren’t an “organism” by definition. You have no clue about the population growth of unorganized people, nor their standard of living, nor their overall well being, as they left you little or no physical evidence or written records. So you can’t compare them to anything.
There are contemporary “organisms” of organized people you could use to make an honest comparison, but apparently you aren’t interested in that.
We would consider a 50% reduction in infant mortality or eliminating smallpox or reducing the workday necessary for survival from 12 hours to 1 hour to be “great accomplishments” in terms of improving the health of the human “organism”.
You seem to think spending 30% of GDP (or whatever) on a grave site for one individual is a “great accomplishment”. Strange.
Z: “Compared to virtually any building projects up to that time.”
Oh, OK, building projects! In that case we agree. Those pyramids were way cool building projects. We thought you were measuring and comparing the health of an organism to a non-organism.
LOL! You make some truly silly arguments. do you really believe that if people produce more than they need to survive, the only rational use for that extra production is building pyramids?
The fact that other contemporary civilizations and unknown “unorganized people” didn’t build pyramids must prove that they weren’t as well off. Is that about right?
After all, what else would a rational person do with their savings?
It’s cute that you somehow think pharoahs forcibly taking resources from the general Egyptian populace to build massively expensive monuments to themselves comparable to building one with your own resources in your spare time.
The Egyptians had one of the highest levels of general well-being of the ancient world.
You act like this is some sort of accomplishment. The “general well-being of the ancient world” was extreme poverty, warlike condidtions, a terrible death toll due to disease and waste, etc. Still being subject to most of those things, things we give not a second thought today, with a slight reductin in a couple, like warlike conditions (though still being an incredibly violent time) isn’t the victory you pretend it is.
And yet virtually every advanced economy relies on complex transportation networks largely the result of government investment.
And yet, you pretend that valuable things require government intervention to create. In actuality roads existed all over the US well before the federal government stepped in to impose it’s politically preferred routes, rather than traveller chosen routes.
Pro-tip: if the only way to get your idea implemented is by using the coercive power of the state, almost certainly your idea is less valuable than what would come into existence leaving people to peacefully create what they want, rather than be forced to live with what politicians impose.
Also, saying it’s good because everyone else has one is such as stupid argument, children understand it’s stupidity when confronted with the question “if everyone else jumped off a bridge, would you?”
Zach: “And yet virtually every advanced economy relies on complex transportation networks largely the result of government investment.”
So what? Virtually every failed/failing centrally controlled economy relied/relies on complex transportation networks largely the result of government investment.
Zach: “And yet virtually every advanced economy relies on complex transportation networks largely the result of government investment.”
Me: ” Virtually every failed/failing centrally controlled economy relied/relies on complex transportation networks largely the result of government investment.”
Zach: “Which demonstrates that mixed systems are the most successful.”
If you don’t see the failed logic in your last statement then perhaps you can ask one of the many WE running around in your collective to explain it to you.
All that the above statements prove is that advance and failed/failing economies tend to “rely on complex transportation networks largely the result of government investment.” Your leap to “Which demonstrates that mixed systems are the most successful” does not follow logically.
Okay, but remind me of how many politicians get elected on a platform of facing up to economic reality and how many get elected promising a Free Lunch.
Seattle Sam, check out 1:48 of the video. Is it really true that political self-interest is nobler somehow than economic self-interest? Your point speaks to individuals putting their own political self-interest ahead of the economic self-interest of those he or she is supposed to be representing. Mr. Friedman addressed that in another video as he said this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MEVI3bmN8TI “The way you solve things is by making it politically profitable for the wrong people to do the right thing.” We the people need to hold these people accountable with our votes.
Mr. B
Self interest s a part of our nature as human beings, and isn’t in itself a bad thing. The same self interest drives people in the market and in politics. The greatest difference is that the market requires that a person must serve others in order to advance their own self interest. There is constant competition to cooperate with willing buyers by exchanging something they value for their dollars – consumers who have other choices, and who can’t be forced to buy any good or service (absent the use of political force).
There is no such mechanism in politics, where self interest requires promoting the interests of a select few to the disadvantage of everyone else including consumers.
It sounds good to say: “We need to hold these people accountable with our votes.” but it doesn’t seem to work very well.
Sorry for all you GOPer’s that believe Mark Perry’s Conservative video diatribe….a loud emotional Bernie v.s. a calm and reasonable Milton Freidman. You are witnessing pure GOP propaganda in an election year
I have never heard Progressives deny the motivating power of self interest. Or, the need to stifle it outside “law” or “regulation”, of which AEI resents. Where does Mark Perry come up with that? Does Bernie do that in the video. Not the one watched.
Reality: Our Democracy elevates the power of the individual. It allows us to exercise collective power for the common good. It’s not unusual that our laws and institutions are designed to temper the rush down the “socio-path”. Many on the Right do not wish to recognize. or, acknowledge how often damaging that path is to society. Think the Lost Decade. Hell, witness Trump! That is the greed Bernie condemns and Milton and his minions at AEI ignore.
Please note, Bernie talks of the collective power democracy grants individuals to guide our futures. Most of us embrace that gift.
Both Bernie and Milton are absolutely correct. We need Free Market Capitalism with a balancing of Social Democracy. Tempered greed is a social necessity just as unfettered greed produces the motivation for progress.
There are two versions of Capitalism. 1) The unenlightened version where only shareholders and CEO’s count (Milton Freidman) 2) The enlightened version where all stakeholders count…customers, employees, communities, vendors, creditors, management, and yes, shareholders. Bernie simply promotes that type of Capitalism.
Common Cause Matters in a civilized society. Democracy provides that. AEI is wrong in its condemnation of the process or those who pursue it, e.g. Bernie Sanders.
“Our Democracy elevates the power of the individual. It allows us to exercise collective power for the common good.”
Google “doublethink”.
“guide our futures” I keep thinking of the leaders of North Korea, Venezuela and most of Africa, that have taken rich countries and turned them into basket cases in record time.
Our Democracy elevates the power of the individual. It allows us to exercise collective power for the common good.
These two things are contradictory and mutually exclusive. “Collective power” must mean reducing the power of the individual (and vice versa).
I have never heard Progressives deny the motivating power of self interest. Or, the need to stifle it outside “law” or “regulation”, of which AEI resents. Where does Mark Perry come up with that? Does Bernie do that in the video. Not the one watched.
Bernie denies that he is self interested and that the reason he seeks power is for his own self aggrandizement. Bernie’s entire platform is based on greed. HIS greed.
He greedilty seeks to take other people’s money to spend as he likes. And what he likes is to impose his preferences on everyone else. He is uninterested in what you or I want and is only interested in what he wants. Because he’s greedy.
He hides behind the rhetoric of “free”, but his is the rhetoric of greed combined with the violent power if the state. In a free market, theonly power people have is the power of persuasion: buy my stuff because it’s the best deal.
The state’s message is: you don’t like it? Tough. You still have to pay for it. And if you don’t we’ll ruin your life.
If the only way you can get people to do what you want is to threaten them with violence, as is the case with Bernie’s entire platform, then you likely have terrible ideas.
Two versions, yes. The one where I get to use my property for things I want and the one where you get to use my property for things you want.
“There are two versions of Capitalism.”
As opposed to the one version of socialism?
“We’re going to take your stuff. Don’t like it? Tough shit.”
Very clever way of editing in Uncle Miltie with Crazy Bernie. Are there more clips similar to this?
Gotta love how leftists never give up on their “crumbling infrastructure” applause line as if we didn’t just recently give them a trillion dollars to spend on shovel-ready jobs. And how did that work out?
Bernie Sanders, the avowed socialist from Vermont, emerged in recent years as the biggest backer of the communist social welfare program known as the Veteran’s Administration,
Odd, somehow that is never a topic.
Um…not really a dichotomy here. It’s a question: can Socialism solve America’s problems? According to Milton Friedman, the answer is no.
We’re not sure you know what a “dichotomy” is…or your intentionally misunderstanding the point of this post.
If you want more socialist programs, then you want to be the strongest supporter of free enterprise — so that the taxes generated are enough to pay for the additional spending.
Agreed, CB. Unfortunately, that is not what Bernie offers. He supports Venezuelan-style socialism, not Scandinavian-style welfare (the fact that he confuses the two suggests to me he doesn’t really know what he is talking about).
We’re not sure you understand what is going on. It’s a question on whether or not socialist policies are needed, whether or not they are working. The fact that most modern economies are mixed is completely irrelevent. We think it is possible you realize this and are just trying to run a smokescreen and fake indignation, but we think it is more likely you simply don’t know what you are talking about (just like our previous conversations with you).
We also now suspect you will try to change the topic to make it sound like we’re objecting to something we are not.
We’re not sure you read our comment, but that you merely read what you wish we had said.
We guess it only goes to show that no matter what you say, people only hear what they want to hear.
The topic was whether socialism vs. capitalism was a strict dichotomy or a continuum.
We think this is where you are confused. Our objection was that you misunderstood the point of this blog post. It seems you still do. We cannot find any evidence suggesting that there is a dichotomy conversation here aside from you falsely asserting there is.
We find no one else saying “socialism or capitalism, nothing in between,” aside from you constructing a hilariously inaccurate representation of what we said.
But, seeing as burning strawmen makes you happy, we shall allow you to do it. You shall have no more objections from us. Your comments of the past few days have reminded us that you have no desire to genuinely engage in conversation, so we shan’t waste our breath.
Of course, if other members of our body wish to engage, they may.
The dichotomy is socialism vs. non-socialism, or socialism vs. capitalism.
Ha! The dichotomy is powerful politicians controlling your life and your resources vs. you controlling your own life and your own resources or powerful politicians controlling your life and your resources vs. you controlling your own life and your own resources.
That is your dichotomy. Thank you for confirming the dichotomy you presented above is a false one.
Of course, building pyramids, while 99.99 percent (at least) of your population lives at subsistence isn’t much of an accomplishment is it? So-called “great” monuments to “great” men that do nothing for the common man aren’t great as you assert. They are, however, a testament to the type of system you crave: on that diverts enormous resources for the benefit of an elite that leaves the common person worse off. And yes that goes for the highway system as well.
Americans got around just fine, creating enormous wealth, without the direction of some government bureaucrat. That American bureaucrats then confiscated that wealth to create the graft ridden system that is now known as the highway system did not increase our economic growth. The rate of economic growth didn’t change with the creation of the highway system. As mentioned, though, it did give politicians covering rhetoric to divert taxpayer enormous wealth into their own, as well as their cronies’, pockets.
Z: Ken has it right. You’ve named some of the worst disasters and wastes of human effort of all time.
Columbus? You must be kidding. How many tens of millions ultimately died as a result of the commercial venture he undertook in partnership with a greedy monarch hoping for personal financial gain?
You have a warped sense of what an “achievement” is.
Which government bureau did the US Constitution come from?
Which government bureau is that?
Not Sure
That would be the ‘Bureau of Wealthy White Male Landowning Elites’ (BWWMLE) who secretly cobbled together a blueprint for a much more powerful central government that was more to their liking.
That (BWWMLE) was a government bureau?
Well, thought it was, but now I’m not sure.
Z called it a bureau, and he’s usually right about everything, isn’t he? (snicker)
Z: “And the U.S. Constitution countenanced slavery.”
Yes it did. It was a power grab by wealthy white male landowners to form a more powerful central government. It was and is a collection of compromises, necessary to it’s acceptance.
“Most historians consider” isn’t the high praise you think it is. Most historians consider our worst president in history, FDR, to be one of the best, while simultaneously thinking that our best, Coolidge, is one of our worst.
The US constitution, though, is indeed one of the greatest achievements in human history. I find it interesting that you note this, while most of your comments here are how it should be destroy, as it’s a huge barrier to the powerful central state imposed agenda you so thoroughly support that is based on the denial of unalienable rights to life and liberty, much less the pursuit of happiness.
Z: We can understand why that would seem to be true for someones who thinks ostentatious displays of absolute power over others are “great achievements of civilization”.
Does the opinion of “most historians” make something true? Perhaps “history is written by the victors” is a better characterization.
Z: “No, but it is a stronger argument than “Is not!””
Well, that’s what’s important, to have a strong argument, whether or not it’s a correct argument.
Z: “The Egyptians had one of the highest levels of general well-being of the ancient world.”
Do you have a reference for that?
“The Egyptians had one of the highest levels of general well-being of the ancient world.”
Which means the avg Egyptian still had a lower standard of living than a resident of today’s Zimbabwe.
Yeah, but think of what good shape they were in from all that exercise.
Z: That’s your idea of a reference?
What other early civilizations are you comparing to early dynasty Egypt?
If your unusual theory about population size is correct, people living in India and China must be among the most prosperous in the world.
(Note to selves: Check on individual well being of Indians and Chinese.)
Z:
Still no reference?
But you need not compare Egypt to unorganized people. A little reading would inform you that a thriving contemporary civilization existed in the Indus Valley as well as the better known Mesopotamian cultures.
Were the common people in Egypt better off than those other folks?
If you had any idea, we expect you would have presented it by now. You’re not usually this shy.
Incidentally, although less is known about the Harappan civilization of the Indus valley, which was at least as old and as long-lived as the more familiar one in Egypt, there is no evidence of temples, giant statues or monuments, kings, armies, or the familiar destruction of wars and mass murder. Is it possible these folks lived for several thousand years without an authoritative central government?
They weren’t isolated, as there’s evidence of extensive trade with Sumerians, and other cultures of that time period.
Z:
Here’s the link. Not sure why I’m having trouble creating a hyperlink.
http://www.ushistory.org/civ/8a.asp
Z: “But that’s to whom we were comparing them.” [unorganized people]
OK, apples to oranges. Nice work.
We’ve offered you some other apples against which you could compare your Egyptians, but apparently you weren’t really interested, and were just trying to bullshit us – again.
Z: “ Ancient Egypt had a population 1-2 million during the early dynastic period.”
Is that a lot? Compared to how many unorganized people? Oh, that’s right, you don’t have any idea.
Z: “In any case, the pyramids were, by any reasonable measure, a “great achievement”.
Compared to what? You are a truly silly persons.
Z: “The simplest measure of the health of an organism is population growth. ”
Z: “No, people to people.”
You have changed your narrative.
Unorganized people aren’t an “organism” by definition. You have no clue about the population growth of unorganized people, nor their standard of living, nor their overall well being, as they left you little or no physical evidence or written records. So you can’t compare them to anything.
There are contemporary “organisms” of organized people you could use to make an honest comparison, but apparently you aren’t interested in that.
We would consider a 50% reduction in infant mortality or eliminating smallpox or reducing the workday necessary for survival from 12 hours to 1 hour to be “great accomplishments” in terms of improving the health of the human “organism”.
You seem to think spending 30% of GDP (or whatever) on a grave site for one individual is a “great accomplishment”. Strange.
Z: “Compared to virtually any building projects up to that time.”
Oh, OK, building projects! In that case we agree. Those pyramids were way cool building projects. We thought you were measuring and comparing the health of an organism to a non-organism.
Z:
LOL! You make some truly silly arguments. do you really believe that if people produce more than they need to survive, the only rational use for that extra production is building pyramids?
The fact that other contemporary civilizations and unknown “unorganized people” didn’t build pyramids must prove that they weren’t as well off. Is that about right?
After all, what else would a rational person do with their savings?
It’s cute that you somehow think pharoahs forcibly taking resources from the general Egyptian populace to build massively expensive monuments to themselves comparable to building one with your own resources in your spare time.
The Egyptians had one of the highest levels of general well-being of the ancient world.
You act like this is some sort of accomplishment. The “general well-being of the ancient world” was extreme poverty, warlike condidtions, a terrible death toll due to disease and waste, etc. Still being subject to most of those things, things we give not a second thought today, with a slight reductin in a couple, like warlike conditions (though still being an incredibly violent time) isn’t the victory you pretend it is.
And yet virtually every advanced economy relies on complex transportation networks largely the result of government investment.
And yet, you pretend that valuable things require government intervention to create. In actuality roads existed all over the US well before the federal government stepped in to impose it’s politically preferred routes, rather than traveller chosen routes.
Pro-tip: if the only way to get your idea implemented is by using the coercive power of the state, almost certainly your idea is less valuable than what would come into existence leaving people to peacefully create what they want, rather than be forced to live with what politicians impose.
Also, saying it’s good because everyone else has one is such as stupid argument, children understand it’s stupidity when confronted with the question “if everyone else jumped off a bridge, would you?”
Zach: “And yet virtually every advanced economy relies on complex transportation networks largely the result of government investment.”
So what? Virtually every failed/failing centrally controlled economy relied/relies on complex transportation networks largely the result of government investment.
Your comment literally proves nothing.
Uhmmm……no. It demonstrates no such thing.
Zach: “And yet virtually every advanced economy relies on complex transportation networks largely the result of government investment.”
Me: ” Virtually every failed/failing centrally controlled economy relied/relies on complex transportation networks largely the result of government investment.”
Zach: “Which demonstrates that mixed systems are the most successful.”
If you don’t see the failed logic in your last statement then perhaps you can ask one of the many WE running around in your collective to explain it to you.
All that the above statements prove is that advance and failed/failing economies tend to “rely on complex transportation networks largely the result of government investment.” Your leap to “Which demonstrates that mixed systems are the most successful” does not follow logically.