[andersonvom]

> Everything the free market does is voluntary by definition. Every "intervention" is by definition not.

In some ideal world, where both parties of an exchange hold equal bargaining power, the "free" market might be "voluntary".

This is certainly not the current state of affairs, though. Being able to "choose" between a crappy option and a horrible option is anything but voluntary: "you can choose to work for me for little to no money... or you can choose to starve to death. it's your 'free' choice."

The very premise of what would make a free market efficient in the real world simply doesn't exist, but we keep trying to convince ourselves that it does because we don't know or aren't used to anything different.

[thegrimmest]

Being able to choose between horrible options is exactly the definition of freedom. Believe it or not many people would choose free destitution over pampered slavery. It is exactly the ability to make this choice, at the most extreme level, that should be respected. To take an maximal example: you should be able to sell your kidneys to fuel your heroin habit, for no other reason than because no one can claim more ownership over them than you.

To protect people, against their will, from the consequences of their own misfortune or inadequacy is fundamentally paternalistic. The goal isn't efficiency, but the primacy of agency and consent.

[andersonvom]

If the two horrible options were free from context, sure. But that's hardly (if ever) the case. It is very convenient to start from a place where A has power over B, then say "B is free to choose whatever crappy options A offers, because... freedom".

[thegrimmest]

We have to start from some place don't we? Even if we perfectly redistributed wealth tomorrow, we'd see billionaires in a generation or two.

[andersonvom]

This only goes to show that the current system is inherently broken, but this is a completely different conversation.

[Apocryphon]

What is wrong with paternalism?

[thegrimmest]

The authoritarian and condescending nature of it.

[Apocryphon]

Why is paternalism within the family not authoritarian or condescending?

[thegrimmest]

It absolutely is! In the context of raising a child, it may be appropriate. When interacting with an equal it is not.

[Apocryphon]

What determines equality?