On Fri, Jul 17, 2009 at 4:25 PM, Doug Pensinger<brig...@zo.com> wrote:
> So if there was some vital benefit to society and it couldn't be provided > without a financial loss, how would the free market provide it? I think I see a communication problem here. You talk of the "free market" as if it were a thing, like a replicator on Star Trek that provides food. When I talk of a free market, I mean the state of not restricting or coercing people in their choices to freely interact with each other. Freedom to choose as one wishes without being told what to do by others. So, to explore your question, there are non-coercive institutions that provide services and do not make a profit. They are usually called, aptly enough, non-profit corporations, or charities. People freely choose to support certain institutions which, in their judgment, provide a "vital benefit to society". To get back on topic, if Americans had not been forced to pay to land people on the moon (or something else) but had instead decided where to spend their money themselves, undoubtedly some fraction of the spending would have gone to various charitable causes. If landing people on the moon were important enough to enough people, it could have been done by a non-profit (or profit) organization or organizations. But I think the fact is that landing people on the moon is not important enough to enough people. It mostly just appeals to a small number of special interests and looks good on a politicians record. _______________________________________________ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
