[Kilroy_x]

Originally Posted by Cavernio

Insidious suppression is still suppression.

"Insidious" as a word doesn't work there. Again, you're saying that conditions people are born into=oppression. Actually you're not even saying that, you're saying the fact people aren't born into relatively higher positions=oppression. To which my response is, variance is natural, when it isn't a result of involuntary impositions it's fine, and the only way to get rid of such variance is destroy everything.

Clearly I can't argue with you this point if, by definition, you think equal opportunity is independent of resources. It's ridiculous to claim that it is though.

Well then, I suppose a solid portion of economists buy into a ridiculous claim then. Having evaluated both, I'll take their ideas over yours, thanks.

Do you really mean what you're saying here, that a free market equalizes resources?

Yes. For the most part at least. Unequalization comes about, but only as a result of unequal contribution. I'm fine with that.

Then why am I not starving or seem to be at risk of it? That's pretty factual.

You are not starving or at risk of it because the economic conditions you are subjected to are not 100% command based, and because you are not submarginal beneath the cost of whatever distortions exist in your country.

You might like not being one.

I'd rather be right than popular any day.

The market no longer becomes free as soon as coersion starts though, and there's absolutely nothing to say that coersion won't happen immediately in all transactions, in a free market.

Yes there is. This is definitionally incoherent. That's why it won't happen.

The only way to get non-coersion is to, paradoxically, enforce it. This also makes it impossible to strive for.

This happens to be the central issue addressed by Rothbard in Power and Market.

The best way of doing that is to instill morals in people so that they will feel bad and not do those things, but that's hardly foolproof.

Behavioral reinforcement is actually quite inefficient, at best. I prefer Theory Y as reported by Robert Ardrey.

You say that the points I have raised are all moot, because they don't happen in a free market. My point is that free market is unattainable, therefore all your points are moot.

Perhaps it is, but for the most part the removing of individual discrete units of coercion is a move in the right direction, so I would advocate a more liberal market even if I can't get an entirely liberal market. At any rate, the model would still be correct even if it was useless.

Also, you've used the word irrelevant when, upon further reading, you really mean moot. Moot's a very good word to learn.

You misused the word insidious. Also I'm pretty sure I meant what I said.