>>35
The problem I have with free market dogma is that the freer the market becomes, the more power and wealth gets concentrated in fewer and fewer entities. Without some sort of action by the state to level the playing field, small and medium-sized businesses simply cannot compete with the economies of scale utilized by Wal-Mart and their ilk.
Right, but like I said before, you can't legitimately argue for a free market without first talking about abolishing the Federal Reserve and completely getting rid of the corporatist machine that government and these corporatist groups hold.
Without some sort of action by the state to level the playing field, small and medium-sized businesses simply cannot compete with the economies of scale utilized by Wal-Mart and their ilk.
That's actually happening
BECAUSE of statist control of the economy and subsidizing of corporate entities like Wal-Mart.
http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Corporate_Welfare/WalMart_Welfare.html
The thing is most libertarians don't advocate abolishing the corporate welfare that's going on because to support nothing but true small businesses and people that do actual producing in this country like this gentleman for instance
http://www.owenrein.com/ is that it's not attractive. And I disagree with that, I think that they shouldn't support the idea of corporate welfare at all, because it actually goes against libertarian philosophy, at least the kind that most American libertarians advocate.
That's not to say that the government can't do absolutely nothing in terms of the economy. What should be done is to lower the taxes, and to lower, the better. I can understand your feelings about "free market dogma", but those who advocated for a free market in the past were a joke, because while they're advocating for such a market, in reality they're supporting the corporate welfare, and subsidizing harmful entities like Wal-Mart.