The hard road of free markets

[Mister D]

There were many imperialistic wars. Now whether they were for profit or power is debatable.

There were a host of wars but whether the idea that they were for profit (by which you financial profit to fill "coffers") is counterfactual. Wars are extremely expensive. They can and did ruin kings.

[Mister D]

It amazes me that someone would link the inhumanity of market economy with monarchs and aristocrats.

[Dr. Who]

There were a host of wars but whether the idea that they were for profit (by which you financial profit to fill "coffers") is counterfactual. Wars are extremely expensive. They can and did ruin kings.

Being unsuccessful doesn't change the motivation.

[Mister D]

Being unsuccessful doesn't change the motivation.

Success or failure is irrelevant. Wars are extremely expensive.

[Dr. Who]

It amazes me that someone would link the inhumanity of market economy with monarchs and aristocrats.

We have just become more sophisticated and efficient killers. Then again we used to have swords and cannons and now we have overhead bombing, daisy bombs and all manner of other efficient explosive technology. It's not really a one-to-one comparison. If there were a will now, we could kill billions in a few minutes. We could even make ourselves extinct.

[Mister D]

We have just become more sophisticated and efficient killers. Then again we used to have swords and cannons and now we have overhead bombing, daisy bombs and all manner of other efficient explosive technology. It's not really a one-to-one comparison. If there were a will now, we could kill billions in a few minutes. We could even make ourselves extinct.

We also have racism, nationalism and similar ideologies (e.g. class war) that make killing not only more acceptable but they also get a much larger portion of the population involved. In any case, I don't understand the tangent.

[Chris]

She didn't mean to take anything off topic. It's a narrative of "progress" she thinks is pertinent. It's a bizarre one but a narrative nonetheless.

Well, yes, it's a narrative toward progress. Thesis, antithesis, synthesis. No reason, no truth.

[Chris]

So we are still looking for a better system. Monarchies are not reliable. They indulged in incest, and many of them were basically nuts. They were autocrats who you couldn't get rid of without either killing them or waiting until the died of old age. Sorry, but that is just unreliable. It's actually fortunate for them that the state evolved or they would have inbred themselves into total idiocy, insanity and massive birth defects.

We? I'm not looking for a better system. We had a better system but statists, nationalist or globalist, have killed liberty with your desire for stability, certainty, reliability--a world where there are no choices, they are made for you.

But here's the problem with you logic, nay, your narrative. You think what exists today as government is good. But how did we arrive at this but from what preceded, namely monarchy? The same with anarchy. If anarchy and monarchy were not good then how from those was the modern state constructed?

You cannot answer.

[Chris]

I am by no means a fan of 'free" markets. I don't even know what that means to be honest. That said, that was one odd historical narrative about monarchies

In order to address another part of this, not knowing what the free market is is, in fact, the point of the OP: "The sad paradox of free markets is that free markets do not need people to understand them to work." The free market is not a theory, it is not a plan, not a design, it is what emerges from the interaction, bother competition and cooperation, of people trading prodcuts, services, ideas and so on. As such no one has to know how it works.

It's corrupted by government attempting to design and plan and theorize it prescriptively--which is what Who constantly engages it.

[Dr. Who]

We? I'm not looking for a better system. We had a better system but statists, nationalist or globalist, have killed liberty with your desire for stability, certainty, reliability--a world where there are no choices, they are made for you.

But here's the problem with you logic, nay, your narrative. You think what exists today as government is good. But how did we arrive at this but from what preceded, namely monarchy? The same with anarchy. If anarchy and monarchy were not good then how from those was the modern state constructed?

You cannot answer.

Of course, I can answer and that answer is that more people value a degree of reliability and certainty over anarchy and uncertainty. In fact, we statists are the majority of the people on the planet. We value some things more than we value the absolute freedom to be the predator or the prey or to die of preventable disease or to go without an education or have our houses burned down by a real estate speculator. As imperfect as it is, the state allows you to enjoy the more meaningful freedom that comes from a degree of peace of mind.

If anarchy and monarchy were not good then how from those was the modern state constructed?

Through baby steps. The trip from anarchy to monarchy was an evolution of small tribes with chiefs that expanded to include conquered tribes and more powerful chiefs who eventually became kings who ruled by blood right. Gradually even Monarchies evolved to create government departments as city-states become too complicated for an individual to handle alone. Still, the will of monarchs did not always reflect the best interests of the people and so Monarchies were either eliminated or converted to Constitutional Monarchies, where the monarch became a figurehead but not the government and elections became the rule, rather than the exception. Thus evolved the modern state. That is a very simplistic summary that doesn't include the whole school of liberal thought that promulgated the idea of democracy and equality of opportunity. However, as we know more, so our thinking evolves and will keep evolving. So the state will evolve subject to the will of the people.