You constructed a bit of a strawman for yourself here.
He is in fact arguing for reducing economic opportunity of few and/or corporations explicitly to the benefit of society on a number of non-monetary axes like environment, workers wellbeing, etc.
This is intentional, not a naive attempt to have cake and eat it too but rather to assert what should be a balance between market forces and the good of society.
>You constructed a bit of a strawman for yourself here.
Not a strawman, just a qualification. Their statement was ambiguous and could be compatible with what I argued.
>He is in fact arguing for reducing economic opportunity of few
I don't disagree with that. Every law and regulation reduces economic opportunity and increases costs, but that's not an argument to not have any laws and regulations. It's an argument to be careful and measured when you do and understand that there is a cost to those policies even if they are necessary for societal well-being. That was my argument (or qualification) in response to OP, who was suggesting we should liberally apply laws and regulations. That I certainly disagreed with.
To be clear, I'm not advocating for anarcho-capitalist economy. I think a mixed economy with a free market foundation, reasonable regulations and taxation and reasonable welfare policies is the best we can expect. One of the things I'm really worried about from the modern left is that there is little to no acknowledgement of the necessity of having an market-based economy.
>This is intentional, not a naive attempt to have cake and eat it too but rather to assert what should be a balance between market forces and the good of society.
He is in fact arguing for reducing economic opportunity of few and/or corporations explicitly to the benefit of society on a number of non-monetary axes like environment, workers wellbeing, etc.
This is intentional, not a naive attempt to have cake and eat it too but rather to assert what should be a balance between market forces and the good of society.