so because the soviets tried and failed (with stalinism that is). We should just assume that "free markets" are the best solution despite the obvious exploitation that occur due to the 'profit motive'?
You wouldn't accept a political system that gave more votes to a select minority, so why so keen on an economic system that does that? (substitute votes, for money)
Free markets are the least bad option so far. You tried to make the same point about intrinsic value the Marx, Engels and their followers have been making for the last 150 years.
Rhetoric only gets you so far. It's easy to seize the moral high ground when you don't have to actually implement. It's like me saying "there needs to be a better search engine than Google" and getting mad if someone suggests I build one.
And as another commenter posted earlier, the US Senate prioritizes votes from low-population states.
And "money" is just a store of value. Ultimately it has to be backed by a marketplace that accepts its value.
so because the soviets tried and failed (with stalinism that is). We should just assume that "free markets" are the best solution despite the obvious exploitation that occur due to the 'profit motive'?
You wouldn't accept a political system that gave more votes to a select minority, so why so keen on an economic system that does that? (substitute votes, for money)