And similarly with respect to control of commodities and other products. Which is far worse both in outcome and extend than direct democracy in that respect.
It doesn't take anything remotely like a majority for the market to control and thus regulate the use, distribution and cost of a product with impunity.
Those who claim that a free market can resolve any issues relating to the regulation of property are implying that they are happy if the market decides, you can't have anywhere to live unless you choose not to exercise your rights to liberty, free speech or any other right enshrined in the Constitution, because it is the interests of the market for you not to.
So they're happy to delegate the same powers, which they won't let a 'tyranny' of 50% of all citizens possess, to a tyranny of a much smaller fraction.
Credits & Style Info
Talk Politics. A place to discuss politics without egomaniacal mods
![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 29/5/10 10:02 (UTC)It doesn't take anything remotely like a majority for the market to control and thus regulate the use, distribution and cost of a product with impunity.
Those who claim that a free market can resolve any issues relating to the regulation of property are implying that they are happy if the market decides, you can't have anywhere to live unless you choose not to exercise your rights to liberty, free speech or any other right enshrined in the Constitution, because it is the interests of the market for you not to.
So they're happy to delegate the same powers, which they won't let a 'tyranny' of 50% of all citizens possess, to a tyranny of a much smaller fraction.