Originally Posted by John Connor:
Let's put this into perspective, shall we?

Out of an official 60,776,238* people in the UK, there's 4,918 people (including spammers' accounts, government lackies, etc.) who gave enough of a **** about democracy to find their way to this forum.

Still, the X-Factor is back on the box so all is not lost.

Hehehe. A fair point. This forum is not the enclave of democracy, is it? How many other forums are out there like this? Enough to make a difference? How many people give a **** about democracy but don't have the means to communicate in this manner? How many care but have bought into the current system because that is just the way things work?

They (whoever they are) want us to feel alone. Like we are in a mad minority. I'm reading my first Naom Chomsky book at the moment, and indeed, there are people who want us to act like a 'bewildered herd' as if unable to think and function for ourselves without expert guidance from the political elite and certainly not to be trusted with the apparatus of democracy.

There must be a better way.
[Rep]

Originally Posted by g hall:
The free market is probably a more efficient way of creating wealth the problem is when the free market loses it's sense of morals

The term free market is rather meaningless. Aside from the fact it doesn't sepcify any idea of property rights or rules, hence it could mean anything from free market distributism to Rothbardian Capitalism, it also forgets any market is inbeded in the institutions and socail relationships of a particular society.

You of course mean the American style libertarian idea of "free" market capitalism. Its efficiency in production is a large area for debate but it most certainly creates alot of power differences so I'm not sure it is any alot more wonderful than social democracy. Not that I support either.
[Rep]

This is the wikipedia definition


Free market - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I think that's pretty accurate

I think most people here would accept that the less interference by government the better however there is no doubt that in fairness there should be some regulation after all what is there to stop speculators buying up oil supplies for example and ramping up the price (as if that could happen)

regulation should be as light as possible but should be effective (unlike the UK which appears to be the exact opposite at present)
[Rep]

Originally Posted by g hall:
This is the wikipedia definition


Free market - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I think that's pretty accurate

The term is rather meaningless. Firstly all markets are imbedded in society and its relationships and institutions and secondly a free market could have many different property right set ups.

Originally Posted by :
I think most people here would accept that the less interference by government the better however there is no doubt that in fairness there should be some regulation after all what is there to stop speculators buying up oil supplies for example and ramping up the price (as if that could happen)

regulation should be as light as possible but should be effective (unlike the UK which appears to be the exact opposite at present)

There are other ways than regulation. You can achieve better results most probably by simply adapting some of societies institutions and some of the rules of property within a society.
[Rep]